United Nations General assembly debate
The general debate of the sixty-third session of the United Nations General Assembly was the first debate of the 63rd session of the United Nations General Assembly that ran from 23 – 29 September 2008. Leaders from a number of member states addressed the General Assembly.
Organisation.
The speaking order of the general debate is different from the speaking order of other General Assembly debates. For the general debate, the 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, 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 Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann as: "The impact of the global food crisis on poverty and hunger in the world as well as the need to democratize the United Nations."
Speaking schedule.
23 September 2008.
Morning Session
Afternoon Session
24 September 2008.
Morning Session
Afternoon Session
25 September 2008.
Morning Session
Afternoon Session
26 September 2008.
Morning Session
Afternoon Session
27 September 2008.
Morning Session ;ref name="A/63/PV.13" ;United Nations General Assembly Session 63 "PV.13". "General Assembly Sixty-third session – 13th plenary meeting, Saturday, 27 September 2008, 9 a.m., New York" 27 September 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2020. ;/ref ;
Afternoon Session ;ref name="A/63/PV.14" ;United Nations General Assembly Session 63 "PV.14". "General Assembly Sixty-third session – 14th plenary meeting, Saturday, 27 September 2008, 3 p.m., New York" 27 September 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2020. ;/ref ;
Rights of Reply.
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 in their general debate speech before the Assembly. The United Arab Emirates, in its speech, stated that Iran's occupation of Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs was a central concern of the Emirates. It continued by stating that the Emirates consider all actions taken on the islands by Iran as null and void, while also calling for their full restoration to the Emirates, including their territorial waters, airspace, continental shelf and exclusive economic zones. Finally, the Emirates called on the international community to pressure Iran to respond to appeals by itself, the Gulf Cooperation Council and the League of Arab States to agree to solve the issue through serious negotiation, or by referral to the International Court of Justice.
Iran responded by rejecting the United Arab Emirate's claims as unacceptable, futile and unfounded. It continued by stating that the three islands were, and will always be, eternal parts of Iran, and consequently fell under Iranian sovereignty. It further stated that all actions on the islands had been taken in exercise of the sovereign rights of Iran, and were in accordance with arrangements emanating from the Memorandum of Understanding agreed to in 1971 between the Emirate of Sharjah and Iran.
Japan ;br ;
Japan used its Right of Reply to respond to statements made by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) in their general debate speech before the Assembly. The DPRK, in its speech, brought up its relationship with Japan and stated that one of the reasons that these relations were unresolved lie in Japan's failure to acknowledge its past, which is stained, according to the DPRK, with large-scale crimes. It continued by claiming that Japan was whitewashing its history of aggression and massacre of millions of Koreans, while also attempting to steal the Tok Islet from its rightful owner. It finished by stating that Japan should never be allowed to become a permanent member of the Security Council.
Japan responded to these allegations by claiming that it had been attempting to face up to its past sincerely, while officially expressing remorse and apologizing for its actions in the Second World War. It continued by stating that since the end of the War, Japan had consistently dedicated itself to promoting international peace and respect for democracy and human rights. In regards to the Security Council, it stated that Japan had already served as a non-permanent member nine times and had made positive contributions to international stability by discharging their role as a member of the council. Finally, in regards to normalizing relations, it stated that under the Pyongyang Declaration, Japan would work to normalize its relations with the DPRK through settlement of its past, as well as by comprehensive resolution of outstanding conflicts.
United Arab Emirates ;br ;
The United Arab Emirates used its Right of Reply to respond to the Right of Reply of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Specifically, it claimed that Iran's sovereignty over Abu Musa and the greater and lesser Tunbs is unjust and illegal. Furthermore, it stated that the Emirates would never, and will never, relinquish its legal, historical and political rights to the islands, which it claims as an integral part of its sovereign territory and exclusive economic zone. Finally, it appealed to the international community to urge Iran to agree to enter into unconditional bilateral negotiations, or to take the matter to the International Court of Justice.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea ;br ;
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea used its Right of Reply to respond to the Right of Reply of Japan. It claimed that Japan's remarks were divorced from reality, and that Japan was not doing enough to redress its past crimes. In regards to the Pyongyang Declaration, the DPRK claimed that it had lived up to its obligations sincerely by opening investigations into the issue of 13 missing Japanese nationals, and by returning five of these surviving nationals, and all their children, to Japan.
The DPRK then claimed that Japan had not shown any tangible evidence that it intended to comply with the Declaration or properly redress its past crimes. It claimed that Japan had refused to admit to its crimes against humanity committed during the illegal military occupation of Korea, such as the massacre of 1 million Korean people, the forced labour of 8.4 million Koreans and the sexual slavery of 200,000 Korean women. Finally, it stated that if Japan were to settle its criminal past, it would be to win the trust of the international community.
Japan ;br ;
Japan used its Right of Reply to respond to the Right of Reply of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. It responded by reminding the DPRK of working level consultations held in June and August 2008 in which both sides agreed to the approach that a comprehensive investigation into the issue of the missing Japanese nationals by the DPRK nationals would follow. Japan then claimed that the DPRK later rescinded its responsibilities under the consultations due to a government change in Japan.
Regarding comments made about the topic of Japan's past, it restated that it had been facing up to its past with sincerity and consistency, but that the numbers the DPRK cited were totally groundless. Finally, in regards to comfort women, the delegation stated that the Government of Japan continued to adhere to the position expressed by Chief Cabinet Secretary Yohei Kono in his 4 August 1993 statement, in which the Government of Japan extended its "Sincere apologies and remorse."
Democratic People's Republic of Korea ;br ;
The Democratic People's Republic of Korea used its Right of Reply to respond to the Right of Reply of Japan. It stated that, as Japan had refused to reveal the figures it held in its archives, the numbers it mentioned in its Right of Reply were what the DPRK had received at that point. These numbers were: 7,784,839 Koreans that were drafted for forced labor and 200,000 Korean teenagers, girls and women that were forced to serve the Japanese as comfort women. Finally, the DPRK claimed that as it took half a century for Japan to even admit its crimes in Korea, it did not know how long it would take for it to liquidate these crimes.
29 September 2008.
Morning Session
Afternoon Session ;ref name="A/63/PV.16" ;United Nations General Assembly Session 63 "PV.16". "General Assembly Sixty-third session – 16th plenary meeting, Monday, 29 September 2008, 3 a.m., New York" 29 September 2008. Retrieved 6 April 2020. ;/ref ;
Rights of Reply.
Ethiopia ;br ;
Ethiopia used its Right of Reply to respond to statements made by Eritrea in their general debate speech before the Assembly. Eritrea, in its speech, mentioned that, in regards to the Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict, both parties had agreed to resolve the dispute through binding arbitration according to the principles of international law as enshrined in the United Nations Charter, the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Algiers Peace Agreement. It further mentioned that the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, as set up by the Algiers Agreement, had announced its unanimous final decision on 13 April 2002. However, it claimed that, since November 2007 Ethiopia was in violation of this decision by continuing its military presence in sovereign Eritrean territories.
Eritrea also raised the topic of Ethiopia's involvement in the Somali Civil War. It claimed that Ethiopia, with aid from the United States of America, had destabilized Somalia with its aggression, ultimately leading to the deaths of thousands of Somalis, as well as the displacement of close to half a million. Finally, Eritrea claimed that the Somalis could have been given the chance to sort out their internal problems through the reconciliation processes that they had already begun, but were stopped through a pre-emptive invasion by Ethiopia, which created the largest humanitarian crisis that Africa had ever seen.
Ethiopia responded by completely rejecting Eritrea's claim that it was occupying Eritrean sovereign territory, calling Eritrea a country ruled by an absolute dictatorship, devoid of any semblance of political institutions. It continued by stating that it was Eritrea, and not Ethiopia, that was guilty of aggression against Yemen, Sudan and Djibouti. In regards to Somalia, Ethiopia stated that it was not an invading force, but was involved at the invitation of the Transitional Federal Government.
It further claimed that Eritrea was hosting regional and international terrorists and was directly supporting and collaborating with terrorists in Somalia. Finally, it claimed that Eritrea's troubles with its neighbors lay not in any legitimate disagreement over boundary, but rather from the troublesome character of its own Government. It finished by urging the international community to note that the conduct of the regime in Eritrea was unacceptable to the civilized world.
Eritrea ;br ;
Eritrea used its Right of Reply to respond the Right of Reply of Ethiopia. Eritrea accused Ethiopia of making false and
unsubstantiated allegations against it, as well as attempting to escape its obligations under the Algiers Agreement. It also stated that had Ethiopia not reneged on its acceptance of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission's award when it was announced in 2002, and had it cooperated fully with the Commission in its implementation, the issues between Eritrea and Ethiopia could have already been resolved. Finally, Eritrea accused Ethiopia and its allies of attempting to frustrate and undermine the authority and the decisions of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission.
In regards to Somalia, Eritrea accused Ethiopia of invading Somalia in contravention of various Security Council resolutions. Further stating that any attempts to portray as legitimate the illegal occupation of Somalia by Ethiopia, as well as the interferences in its affairs, was a mockery to international law. Finally, Eritrea asserted that, if left to their own devices, the Somali people and government would have a solution to the problems they were facing.
References.
 ;templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" / ;