United Nations General Debate Assembly
The General debate of the seventy-third session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) was opened on 25 September and ran until 1 October 2018. Leaders from a number of member states addressed the UNGA.
Organisation and subjects.
The order of speakers is given first to member states, then observer states and supranational bodies. Any other observers entities will have a chance to speak at the end of the debate, if they so choose. Speakers will be put on the list in the order of their request, with special consideration for ministers and other government officials of similar or higher rank. According to the rules in place for the General Debate, the statements should be in of the United Nations official languages of Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian or Spanish, and will be translated by the United Nations translators. Each speaker is requested to provide 20 advance copies of their statements to the conference officers to facilitate translation and to be presented at the podium. The theme for this year's debate was chosen by President María Fernanda Espinosa as: "Making the United Nations relevant to all people: Global leadership and shared responsibilities for peaceful, equitable and sustainable societies."
Speaking schedule.
Since 1955, Brazil and the United States are the first and second countries to speak. For this session, however, President of the United States Donald Trump arrived late, causing President Lenín Moreno of Ecuador to speak second. Other countries follow according to a speaking schedule issued by the Secretariat.
The list of speakers is provided by both the daily UN Journal, while changes in order are also reflected by the UNGA General Debate website.
26 September.
Right of Reply.
Member states have the option to reply to comments on the day (or even to the days prior), but are limited to 10 minutes for the first response and five minutes for the second response. All speeches are made from the floor, as opposed to the podium for the General Debate.
Azerbaijan's delegate took the floor to reply to Armenia in saying that the prime minister talks of the Velvet Revolution while he is the same as his predecessors. He added words needed to be put into action to mean something. This ought to start with the start with return of Azeris to Nagorno-Karabakh (NKO), the occupied districts and some exclaves. He suggested that Armenia had ethnically expelled non-Armenians while other minorities, including Armenians, were living in Baku and elsewhere in the country.
Armenia then replied to Azerbaijan's statement.
Azerbaijan took the floor for the second time in saying that it demanded cessation of hostilities first and foremost from Armenian forces. "Armenia intentionally disregarded the Security Council to establish a stable ceasefire. Events before and after each resolution makes clear that Armenia issues baseless allegations and leave no doubt as to who continues hostilities. [There is] no doubt claims by Armenia run counter to the norms of international law and are without foundation. NKO and the seven surrounding districts of Azerbaijan are under Armenian military occupation. Armenia has established a subordinate regime that is unrecognized and under the control of Armenia. This was formed by racism[, etc]. Armenia's claims are a threat to peace and security. [Armenia's actions are a result] of deep political crisis and the economic situation in that country. [There is] no doubt the international community has not heard from the Armenian delegation and what problems the economy faces: an economic drop and high [em]migration of its citizens. Neither the prime minister nor the delegation, in the statement, mentioned any efforts the government makes [in this regard] and to implement the Development Goals. [There is] silence because there is nothing to say. As I said before and will stress again, the earlier Armenia realises the lack of any prospect for its dangerous agenda, the quicker the conflict would be solved and the two countries will benefit from peace..."
Armenia then used its second reply to say that one should recall media outlets which featured all the details and descriptions given on the "massacre of the Armenian population in Azerbaijan. Who attack who first, how it started, what was the source [of the conflict]...it is important that people read the papers from 30 years ago not today because today from Azerbaijan they are merely lying on what happened 30 years ago. Unfortunately, there is no single human rights activist, human rights defender [or anyone] who speaks freely in Azerbaijan because those who spoke correctly are behind bars these days. The Security Council's call for hostilities to stop was made by Armenia on May 1,1994 when it was willing to sign a ceasefire of the "de facto" NKO, Armenia signed on to it. The main parties are Azerbaijan and NKO authorities. It is awful to see what happens in Azerbaijan...[unlike] any visitor from any country in the world, whether for tourism or business, [would see NKO] is sincere in its values. [Meanwhile] all the blackmail is made by Azerbaijan to limit freedom to travel, freedom of movement [on NKO authorities]. NKO is fully abiding by...unilaterally abiding by rules. It has unilaterally ratified important UN convention like the civil and political rights, rights of the child, economic and social rights and other important documents. Armenia will be soon presenting...sorry NKO [will be] voluntary presenting its national review for high level review on developmental goals progress. the threat is only from Azerbaijan. This is exacerbated by a 1,000 Azerbaijani citizens fighting in the so-called Azeri Brigade of ISIS who have appeared on the border. They have declared to leave Raqqa to fight NKO...[to restart the war but have] luckily, and not surprisingly, and logically lost the war they had again started by Azerbaijan. Peace negotiations are in the format of the OSCE Minsk Group. The main principles put forth are [1.] the non use of force of threat of force, [2.] territorial integrity, and the [3.] rights of the people. Azerbaijan seemingly forgets self-determination and territorial integrity. The solution is in the negotiation format and these are the three important principles.
27 September.
Right of Reply.
Iran replied to the "Israeli regime. The Israeli regime has a long history in following opportunistic policies to mislead others. The intention of this psychological reactionary behaviour is to divert attention from its savage and inhuman actions against Palestinians and other Arab nations. This has brought so much suffering, caused so many crises and caused so much instability and brought anger to the region. The Israeli regime continues to be the top spoiler of stability and peace in the region and the Middle East. The Israeli showman has no temerity particularly to accuse Iran. His fallacies in his statements confirm his pathological tendencies...distort reality. This is to distract attention from his regimes inherent cruelty towards Palestinians. To cover up the killing of defenseless, innocent women and children. To cover the fact that millions of Palestinians have been taken hostage by Israel for decades...[it is the] last apartheid regime in the world...[It] conceal[s] reality that this is the only regime in the world that openly practices racism...[it maintains] the worlds biggest open prison, Gaza. [Netanyahu] stands here once again to make a statement filled with despicable lies. No amount of lies, no amount of application will cover up the criminal nature of Israel. This is a dreadfully regressive and undemocratic regime led by a corrupt leader who pretends to be progressive and democratic. [The] Israel[i] prime minister...[is] very close to, namely, Daesh. Israel['s] absurd claim of being democratic has [re-]called similar [to] that [of the] Nazis used to make before dragging the world into destruction. Democracy for [a] racist [government] that crushes the dreams of the true owners of Palestine for self-determination. That is a mockery of democracy. That is the tyranny of racists. In fact, Israel is the enemy of democracy in the Middle East. It hates democracy...there would be no room for Israel in the Middle East should democracy prevail. The Israel[i] regime that rejects all UN purposes and principles in its practices and policies and defies all UN resolutions only uses this august assembly to mislead others. As an example lets see how many UN resolutions [have been] violated by Israel. It is about 300 [ranging] from weapons of mass destruction, to a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East. On the Israel-Palestinian related issue alone Israel has violated 225 United Nations Security Council resolutions; at least resolution 2324 calls for an end to Israeli settlement building. on 20 September 2018, almost all members. of course except Israeli big patron [the] U.S...urged [for a] to end defying the resolution. Israel holds the record of ignoring [the most] UNSC resolutions, the symbol of international law. To do [so] relies mainly on [the] U.S. to date. [The] U.S. has used its veto power a total of 44 times to shield Israel from Security Council draft resolutions for Israel. Mister President, exhibiting some photographs...[as they did] today the Israeli showman claims [to have] discovered new nuclear facilities in Iran. This is yet another false story. It is not surprising as [he is] lying...[with] such publications. He should stop threatening Iran with nuclear annihilation, as he did recently. Such an infantile statement against a NPT party constitutes a serious violation of international law and the UN charter. Recalling [that] the Israeli regime has attacked two nuclear facilities in the region in the past, the Security Council should strongly condemn threats by this regime to use such weapons on Iran. It should also be compelled to its abandon its nuclear weapons, to accede to the NPT without pre-conditions and place all of its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. this regime should stop the de-stabilising conduct and frequent encouragement against the countries of the region. [It should stop] its regular violation of Syrian and Lebanese air space and put an end to its various airstrikes to targets in Syria. These airstrikes serve as support to terrorist groups. Let's be clear, we watch Israel's criminal behaviour wherever they do it. The time [of] Israel hitting its neighbours with impunity is passed. I thank you, Madam President.
28 September.
Right to Reply.
Qatar responded to the comments by Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom in Arabic.
Indonesia responded in regards to West Papua comments made by Vanuatu. The delegate said that "these countries have it in their heads that the group of people are different...Mayhem creates fatalities to one's own families. Indonesia categorically rejects any efforts to disturb West Papua...[to] accuse Indonesia of gross violations of human rights is serious and unacceptable. No country in the world is free from human rights [aggressions] or other challenges. One has so many problems of its own [that this] is like the pot calling the kettle black. Vanuatu is not part a party to [many human rights] instruments,; Indonesia is a party to eight out of nine. Vanuatu is not a party to the convention to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. Indonesia is diverse and hundreds of ethnic groups, thousands of tribes and hundreds of languages. [We are] not defined by racial identity but are diverse. Just to remind Vanuatu, customary international law of the convention of 1933 on the rights and duties of states clearly stipulated four elements [in regards to]: 1. population; 2. territory; 3. government; 4. capacity [for] relations with other states. [It] never [mentions matters] on race for rights to be in conflict. Let me remind Vanuatu of history. Almost 50 years on this very same forum, in this very same group, in this very same august chamber, all of us in the UN have decided the final status of West Papua as an integral and legitimate part...[the] resolution of 1969...was adopted with no country's voting against [it]. The people of Papua affirm their unity with Indonesia. In other words, what Vanuatu is propagating is an outrageous challenge to Indonesia. [The] decision [made] by the then 128 members, almost half a century ago...[is a prerequisite] Indonesia and every responsible member of the UN [is in line with the] Charter. For that reason Vanuatu['s claims]...against Indonesia violates the principle of the Charter and that should be enough. Since last year, Vanuatu incorporates [such] people into its delegation. Such hostility has no place in the UN system. No country that supports [the] dismember[ment] of any country should now sit at the UN. We could