United Nations General Debate Assembly
The general debate of the sixty-fifth session of the United Nations General Assembly was the first debate of the 65th session of the General Assembly that ran from 23 – 29 September 2010. Leaders from member states addressed the General Assembly.
Organization.
The speaking order of the general debate is different from the speaking order of other General Assembly debates. For the general debate, Secretary-General speaks first delivering their "Report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization, " they are then followed by: the President of the General Assembly who opens the general debate, the delegate from Brazil and the Delegate from the United States of America. After this, the order is first given to Member States, then Observer States and supranational bodies. 
For all other Member States, the speaking order is based on their level of representation at the general debate, order preference and other criteria such as geographic balance.
According to the rules in place for the general debate, statements should be made in one of the United Nations' official languages of Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian or Spanish, and are translated by United Nations translators. Additionally, speakers are usually limited to a 15-minute time limit in order to comply with the schedule set up by the General Committee. Member States are also advised to provide 350 paper copies of their statements in order for them to be distributed to other Member States, as well as to translation services.
The theme for the 64th session was chosen by President Joseph Deiss as: "Reaffirming the central role of the United Nations in global governance." After their election, the newly elected President of the General Assembly advises all Member States of the debate of the upcoming Session, and invites them to focus their speeches on the proposed theme.
Speaking schedule.
23 September 2010.
Morning Session
Afternoon Session ;ref name="A/65/PV.12" ;United Nations General Assembly Session 65 "PV.12". "General Assembly Sixty-fifth session – 12th plenary meeting, Thursday, 23 September 2010, 3 p.m. New York" 23 September 2010. Retrieved 19 September 2019. ;/ref ;
Right of Reply ;br ;
Islamic Republic of Iran ;br ;
The Islamic Republic of Iran used its Right of Reply to respond to statements made by Belgium in its general debate speech before the Assembly. Belgium, in its speech, stated that non-acceptance for the provisions of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) by countries like North Korea and Iran threatened the international nonproliferation regime.
Iran responded by stating that Iran's had always been for peaceful purposes, which had been confirmed numerous times by the International Atomic Energy Agency. It continued by stating it was the right of every sovereign nation to develop peaceful nuclear energy under the NPT, and that Iran was not an exception in this regard. Finally, it stated that the international community should focus more on the secret, non-safeguarded nuclear-weapon installations of the Zionist regime, and not those of the peaceful, safeguarded nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Belgium ;br ;
Belgium used its Right of Reply to respond to the Right of Reply of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Belgium stated that, as a member of the European Union, it fully adhered to the position repeatedly expressed by the European Union with regard to the Iranian nuclear issue.
24 September 2010.
Morning Session
Afternoon Session ;ref name="A/65/PV.15" ;United Nations General Assembly Session 65 "PV.15". "General Assembly Sixty-fifth session – 15th plenary meeting, Friday, 24 September 2010, 3 p.m. New York" 24 September 2010. Retrieved 20 September 2019. ;/ref ;
Right of Reply ;br ;
Islamic Republic of Iran ;br ;
The delegation of Islamic Republic of Iran used its Right of Reply to respond to statements made by both Kuwait and the United Kingdom in their general debate speeches before the Assembly. Kuwait, in its speech, stated that the disputed islands of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs were illegally occupied Emarati Islands, and called for a resolution according to the principles and bases of international law. Iran responded by stating that there was no conflict whatsoever over the islands, as they were an eternal part of the Iranian territory and were under the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Iran also responded to statements made by the United Kingdom made in its speech before the Assembly. The United Kingdom, in its speech, raised its concern over the Iranian nuclear program, and denounced comments made by Iranian President Ahmedinejad in his general debate address as an attempt to distract attention from Iran’s nuclear obligations and to generate media headlines. In his speech, Ahmedinejad had implied that a majority of Americans, as well as people from around the world, agreed that the United States Government orchestrated the [ September 11th ] attacks to reverse the declining American economy and its grip on the Middle East.
Iran responded to the United Kingdom by defending Ahmedinejad, stating that he simply raised a number of questions concerning one of the main events of the past decade. Additionally, it reminded the body that Iran was among the first nations to denounce the terrorist attacks as cowardly and atrocious.
25 September 2010.
Morning Session
Afternoon Session ;ref name="A/65/PV.17" ;United Nations General Assembly Session 65 "PV.17". "General Assembly Sixty-fifth session – 17th plenary meeting, Saturday, 25 September 2010, 3 p.m. New York" 25 September 2010. Retrieved 20 September 2019. ;/ref ;
Right of Reply ;br ;
Sudan ;br ;
Sudan used its Right of Reply to respond to statements made by the Netherlands in its general debate speech before the Assembly. The Netherlands, in its speech, praised advances in international criminal law, while also denouncing the fact that individuals with International Criminal Court (ICC) warrants, such as President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, were allowed to move freely in ICC partner states.
Sudan responded by stating that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties stipulates that a State that is not a party to a treaty is not bound by that treaty’s provisions. In this case, Sudan was not a signatory of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and, as such, was not bound by its provisions. It also praised Resolution "Assembly/AU/13(XIII)" of the African Union (AU) which gave AU Member States the legal grounds to not cooperate with the ICC in regards to the arrest and surrender of individuals, and further reserved the right of the AU to make any decisions that may be deemed necessary in order to preserve and safeguard the dignity, sovereignty and integrity of the continent. Finally, it called the statements by the Netherlands unacceptable and accused it of interfering in the internal affairs of Sudan.
27 September 2010.
Morning Session
Afternoon Session
28 September 2010.
Morning Session
Afternoon Session ;ref name="A/65/PV.22" ;United Nations General Assembly Session 65 "PV.22". "General Assembly Sixty-fifth session – 22nd plenary meeting Tuesday, 28 September 2010, 3 p.m. New York" 28 September 2010. Retrieved 3 October 2019. ;/ref ;
Right of Reply ;br ;
Ethiopia ;br ;
Ethiopia used its Right of Reply to respond to statements made by Eritrea in its general debate speech before the Assembly. Eritrea, in its speech, touched upon the Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict. It called Ethiopia's occupation of Eritrean lands illegal, and denounced the United Nation's silence on the issue.
Ethiopia responded by stating that Eritrea itself was guilty of occupying the sovereign lands of other states, including occupations in Sudan, Yemen, Djibouti and Ethiopia. The delegation further stated that Ethiopia had been ready to initiate demarcation talks with Eritrea, but that Eritrea had continued to refuse based on their claims that Ethiopia was occupying their land. Finally, it stated that the Ethiopian-Eritrean Boundary Commission had no mandate to transfer territory between the two parties, and that it was up to the parties to reach a final agreement. It claimed that Eritrea was refusing on the pretext that Ethiopia was occupying Eritrean land, and that this refusal allowed Eritrea to create a pretext for further aggression.
Islamic Republic of Iran ;br ;
The Islamic Republic of Iran used its Right of Reply to respond to statements made by the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in its general debate speech before the Assembly. The UAE, in its speech, demanded the return of the occupied islands of the Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu Musa, which were disputed between Iran and the United Arab Emirates. It also asked Member States to urge Iran to engage in the peaceful initiatives of the United Arab Emirates in order to resolve the issue, either by bi-lateral negotiations or by referral to the International Court of Justice.
Iran responded by rejecting the UAE's remarks calling them unacceptable claims against Iranian territorial integrity. It further stated that the Islands were eternal parts of Iranian territory, and consequently fell under its sovereignty.
Eritrea ;br ;
Eritrea used its Right of Reply to respond to Ethiopia's Right of Reply. It accused that Ethiopia of making several unfounded accusations that contributed nothing to the peace and security of the region. It continued by stating that the Boundary Commission had already demarcated the border and that Ethiopia was in defiance of the Commission's ruling by continuing to occupy Eritrean territory. Finally, it stated that Ethiopia's disdain for international law was the reason that the conflict could not end, and that Ethiopia had to face up to its obligations if it was at all interested in the peace and stability of the region.
United Arab Emirates ;br ;
The United Arab Emirates used its Right of Reply to respond to the Islamic Republic of Iran's Right of Reply. It expressed its regret that Iran had rejected numerous peace initiatives that had attempted to resolve the issue peacefully, while further rejecting Iran's occupation of the islands. Finally, it once again called upon the international community to support the Emirati position to attempt to bring about a comprehensive and just settlement.
Cuba ;br ;
Cuba used its Right of Reply to respond to statements made by Sweden in its general debate speech before the Assembly. Sweden, in its speech, called upon the international community to uphold human rights as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. One of the rights specifically mentioned was the freedom of expression, and how it must be protected even in the era of information technology. It further touched upon the situation in various countries, including Cuba, and stated that the harassment and jailing of journalists and bloggers had to be stopped. Finally, it called on the international community to addresses the issue of the violation of freedom of expression.
Cuba responded by criticizing Sweden by bringing up its own human rights violations. From allowing the Central Intelligence Agency to spy on its own citizens, to the situation of prostitution in Sweden and of the assaults, including sexual abuse, against women and girls. It finished by accusing Sweden of trying to mislead the General Assembly by pointing fingers.
Egypt ;br ;
Egypt also used its Right of Reply to respond to the statements made by Sweden. It called the claims surrounding the situation of the freedom of expression Egypt as baseless. It brought up the fact that there are over 300 newspapers and journals published daily in Egypt, representing views from every corner of Egyptian society and political life. Additionally, it reminded Sweden that freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Egyptian constitution, and that Egypt has been in the lead of political reform in the Middle East. Finally, it asked that Sweden learn the difference between freedom of expression and insulting prophets and defaming religions.
China ;br ;
China also used its Right of Reply to respond to the statements made by Sweden. It rejected the unfounded accusations made by the Sweden, further stating that the Chinese Government had always protected the economic, social and cultural rights of its all of its citizens. It also mentioned some of Sweden's own incidents of human rights violations, calling the situation sombre. Finally, it mentioned Sweden's double standard of accusing other states of human rights violations, when it has not mentioning the human rights situation in its own country.
Islamic Republic of Iran ;br ;
The Islamic Republic of Iran used its Right of Reply to the statements made by both Sweden and Ireland in their general debate speeches before the Assembly. It stated that Sweden and Ireland were upholding double standards, as they were attacking Iran for its supposed human rights violations, while ignoring their