The transcripts are AI-generated from the UN's English audio and can contain mistakes. We are checking them against the statements the missions publish; some errors are still expected.
Ladies and gentlemen. 14 years ago, I stood on this podium and I drew a red line. I vowed to prevent Iran's murderous dictatorship from developing atomic bombs, nuclear weapons aimed at destroying Israel, nuclear weapons that could threaten the entire world. That's exactly what we did. Now let me say something that might surprise you. Devastating Iran's nuclear facilities was hard. It was very hard to do. But for me, it was one of the easiest decisions I've ever had to make as prime minister, because if we hadn't done it, we'd all be dead. Now you want to hear the ultimate irony in defending itself? Israel is also defending many of the countries whose delegates just left this hall. In fact, I want you to know that many of their leaders even thank us privately for taking out Iran's nukes. It's hard to imagine more mind blowing hypocrisy, but that's exactly what it is. Now, this isn't the first time we are faced with a threat of annihilation. On June 5th, 1967 Israel was surrounded by enemies who openly swore to destroy us. We weren't. Then in Judea, Samaria, the heart of the historic homeland of the Jewish people. We weren't in Gaza. We weren't on the Golan Heights. Oh, and Mr. O'Hara, you should know, the Jews have been on the Golan Heights since the days of Moses. You can read it in the Bible. No. At that time, on the eve of the Six-Day war in 1967, we weren't in any of these places. We were in a tiny sliver of land. We still are. That is equal to about one third of 1% of the landmass of the entire Arab world. Yet they accuse Israel tiny Israel of colonialism, some colonialism. And who's accusing us? Well, among them are people in Britain and in France. For God's sakes, they invented the term. Their colonies embraced the entire globe. Colonialism gave us a break. Another lie. Yet at the time, on this tiny patch of earth, no West Bank, no Gaza, no Golan Heights, just the very survival of this one and only Jewish state. Because this is what this conflict is about.
Mr. president, the pursuit of restorative justice gained new momentum with the adoption of the Resolution on Slavery and Transatlantic Trafficking of Enslaved Africans in this hall in March of this year. This development is relevant for Suriname and equally important for the countries of the Caribbean region. The discussion is no longer about whether slavery and colonialism have caused lasting consequences, negative consequences. We know we are living them. We increasingly must focus on how to overcome these effects. And on the question of what form reparations should take to achieve that. How countries that have benefited from slavery and colonialism will compensate the affected. That is the important issue now.
A United Nations that delivers for all must be inclusive. I reaffirm Namibia's unwavering solidarity with the people denied their right to self-determination. This position is firmly rooted in Namibia's historical experience of the brutality and colonialism, apartheid, and occupation. This is not a position born out of antagonism, but rather one grounded in Namibia's long-standing commitment to justice, solidarity, and the rights of the peoples to determine their own destiny in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 of 1960. The United Nations has a responsibility to advance a just and lasting resolution of the question of Western Sahara, constant with the charter of the United Nations and the relevant resolution on decolonization and self-determination. We support Minerals Mandate and the holding of a UN-backed referendum in Western Sahara for the Western Sahara people to finally exercise their right to self-determination. We therefore call upon the full implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 2797 of October 2025, which reaffirms the need for a mutual, agreeable, lasting political solution between the Pretorian and the Kingdom of Morocco. Namibia calls for the Palestinian people's right to self-determination, freedom, and statehood.
But the real motivation of which lies elsewhere: in a covetousness for the significant resources that God has placed in our land. Niger's uranium, Mali and Burkina Faso's gold, lithium, gas, oil and so many other riches still make the former colonial powers salivate. They want to make us believe that we are incapable of governing, of governing ourselves, incapable of producing, of thinking, and of defending ourselves. They want to make us believe and convince us that we do not have the science, the intelligence, or the sovereignty needed to build something precious by and for ourselves, and that as a consequence, therefore, we should accept the tutelage of Emmanuel Macron's France and his allies. A France which very often acts through its local proxies, networks and complicity. For centuries they have instilled self-deprecation, fear and resignation. They continue to want to introduce permanent conflict in communities which since time immemorial, have been living in harmony in the same space and which have created peaceful mechanisms for settling disputes, such as joking kinship. For example, this perfidious attempt to destabilize the central Sahel conducted by France with the active complicity of Ukraine, is now documented, widely documented. This criminal enterprise has been dismissed, has been unmasked now that the military, political and media elites that justify it in the name of their own country's interests have themselves removed their veils and remove their masks. I say solemnly from this rostrum: the Sahel sees, the Sahel hears, the Sahel remembers, and the Sahel understands things very well. Our Sahel is determined to defend its liberty, its resources and its dignity at any cost. A people that has decided to be free cannot be recolonised through fear, through deceit, nor even through savage violence. Ladies and gentlemen, as I speak to you, on our northeastern border there are proxies led by that France, supported by Ukraine and two other countries. And you know which countries I'm alluding to. Those proxies are armed, managed and led, and they are about to attack our military positions and our oil installations. But inshallah, they will find what they deserve if they do so. The AES, the result of a long and historic struggle of our peoples against colonization and neocolonialism, is now an irreversible process towards our country's sovereignty. Make no mistake, the century that we are living in marks the end of old Hegemonies and the awakening of thus far suppressed forces. The AES is to Africa and its historic and contemporary diasporas as light is to darkness. It is for this human community that is present around the world, a source of hope and of dignity. And I say this before the world so that the world can understand: the AES is the result of a movement that dates from the dawn of time. It is a profound, lasting, irrepressible and irreversible change. Inshallah. A change which, by trimming the sharp claws of imperialism, abolishing the trade in black persons and slavery, overthrowing colonialism and neocolonialism, is bringing the peoples of Africa towards independence, sovereignty and liberty. I affirm that our Refoundation in Niger
Mr. President, digital transformation and the rise of artificial intelligence are rightly considered to be one of the great promises of our time. The Global Digital Compact must become a reality: affordable connectivity, skills transfer, data protection, and a governance of AI in which developing countries decide instead of simply being users. The transformation also requires facing history with lucidity. The wounds left behind by colonization are still being felt on our continent. Reparations are not simply reopening a feud of the past. They are a demand for justice for the future, recognition of the wrongs committed, restitution of cultural goods and archives, equitable cooperation, debt relief. There are many possible paths. The African Union has prioritized this, and the CAR fully supports these efforts.
Just an anecdote: in 1992, when I was a young man minister in our country at that time, I participated in Indonesia, in Bali, in the first post-transformation meeting of the non-aligned movement. And at that time, everything was very vague and difficult, and the world had no better organization for a group of countries like that, like ours. And we were fighting against apartheid, against colonialism, neocolonialism disputes in the Middle East. At the end of the day, we were fighting against problems across the world. And Panama was in the final stages of completing the sovereign canal of our country. And the ambassador, Dr. César Cuéllar, here at the United Nations, he was here. And then what happened? Well, there was a very frank and short response: support us in international public law.
The loss and damage fund exists. What is missing is the power shift to make them operational and real. Mr. president, the next contest for power will not only be fought over land and sea, it will be fought over data. Our citizens' data crosses the world without a visa and without a vote. It leaves our shores as raw material and returns as products we must buy. We have seen this pattern before. My islands once exported salt, sponge and sisal. Others set the price. Others kept the profit. The commodity has changed today, but the pattern has not. This is colonization by data it serves. It does not arrive with ships and flags. It arrives in a box, on a screen and a button that says I agree. I'm talking about the capacity of a people to govern their own digital lives. People whose daily lives and histories are being mined should decide where their data lives and who may use it, and on what terms. Those people should be able to share in the value which their data creates. It means building artificial intelligence that understands our languages and our lives, and not only the lives of those in the wealthy North, dominating languages and dominating cultures. And it means taking part in a digital age on our own terms, not as consumers of other people's systems, but as builders of our own. Data is the newest raw material in the global economy. My friends, the old empires took our lands, plundered them, and renamed them. The new ones seek to take our data and hand us back a picture of ourselves that we did not paint. In this modern age, are we expected to be simply the unquestioning suppliers of data, or can we not rightly expect to participate in processing our own data so as to refine it, govern it, and profit from it? We do not think it outrageous to demand that small states help the rules of this new age, not simply be shown where to sign. That is why the Bahamas ask you to support the nomination of Stephen Bereaux for deputy secretary general of the International Telecommunication Union, a person from small island developing states, who will assist us in ensuring that we have what I call data sovereignty. Mr. President. Mr. president, the Security Council was designed by the victors of a war that ended 81 years ago. The world has changed.
This is a cause that the whole world needs to embrace. Mr. president, when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Doctor Martin Luther King stated, quote, what self-centered men have torn down other centered men can build up. End of quote. The U.N. was born under the sign of hope. Over eight decades, it has contributed to the decolonization, promoted human rights, and supported sustainable, sustainable development. It has protected migrants and refugees, condemned racism, anti-Semitism and religious intolerance. These were achievements of leaders who took up to this podium, driven by indignation at the injustices of their time Men and women who refused to accept war as a destiny, colonialism as a right, apartheid as a legitimate system. It was from this ability to say no to inequalities, that some of the greatest transformations we have experienced were born. Faced with the paralysis of the United Nations, we need to rediscover the political will so that it may once again become a temple of peace. I want to conclude with a message from my country to everyone who is listening. On October the 4th, millions of Brazilians will go to the polls to define their destiny. They're not just voting for president of the Republic.
Mr. president, allow me to conclude by returning once more to the theme of this session of the General Assembly, Restoring Trust and Managing Transformation for a United Nations that delivers for all. The truth is that we cannot call on the states of the world to change their conduct, while failing to make the necessary changes within our own organization so that it delivers the results expected of it and regains the trust of the peoples of the world. The reality is that the world has changed profoundly since 1945. The membership of the United Nations has grown nearly fourfold. Colonialism has ended Africa has risen. Asia has been transformed and new powers have emerged. The balance of the global economy has shifted. Yet the basic composition of the Security Council remains captive to a historical moment dating back to the end of the Second World War. Africa and the Arab world cannot remain without permanent representation on the Council, nor can small and medium sized states remain mere spectators to decisions that concern their security and their future. We know that Security Council reform is a complex matter, but the difficulty of reform is no argument against its necessity. Indeed, reform of the United Nations must begin here with the Security Council. For it is the Security Council that bears primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. I therefore once again add Lebanon's voice to that of the majority of the members of our organisation in calling for an expansion of the Security Council that achieves more inclusive and equitable representation. Being realists, we do not call for the abolition of the veto. Rather, we call for restraint in its use in cases of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of international humanitarian law. We insist on reform of the United Nations only because we want it to be more representative, more democratic and more effective organization We want an organisation true to the purposes and principles of its charter, yet ever renewed, so that it may rise to the challenges of our rapidly changing world and meet the aspirations of our peoples and their new generations.
I repeat: the Malvinas for us are a national cause. They are also a test of the gulf that can exist between the words of international institutions and the reality upon which they purport to act. Fifty years ago, this very Assembly adopted Resolution 3149, which calls on parties to refrain from introducing unilateral modifications while the dispute remains unresolved. Fifty years on, the situation has not changed, yet unilateral modifications continue. Today, the Sea Lion Project is moving toward oil extraction on the Argentine continental shelf in the North Malvinas Basin, under British licenses that Argentina rejects as illegal and illegitimate. Any such activity not authorized by the Argentine Republic in this regard constitutes an unlawful act under both international law, including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and Argentine domestic law. That is why I wish to ask a question: what use is a resolution if, for decades, the other party can act in direct contravention of it, while that resolution remains intact in the archives but powerless in the face of reality? There's no shortage of words or resolutions. What is lacking is consequences. Because an institution that cannot ensure that its words carry weight in the real world loses the most important thing of all: its authority. In these circumstances, those who follow the rules receive no reward for doing so, while those who break them suffer no repercussions whatsoever. That's why the Malvinas are not merely an issue between Argentina and the United Kingdom. They also raise a question regarding the ability of this organization to enforce its own resolutions. Argentina has taken note of that reality, and in the face of the unauthorized exploitation of our resources in the disputed area, we've acted. We've submitted formal notes of protest. We've availed ourselves of the legal remedies at our disposal. We've imposed sanctions on the companies involved and their suppliers. And we've submitted a national sovereignty defense bill to Congress. For far too long, Argentine governments opted for a rhetorical defense. We have chosen a peaceful, practical, and effective defense. I repeat: we have chosen a peaceful, practical, and effective defense. I also wish to reiterate our position regarding the population of the islands. As this very Assembly has determined in numerous resolutions, the principle of self-determination does not apply in this case, since the population was implanted by the occupying power on a territory whose sovereignty is in dispute. That principle exists to liberate colonized people, not to legitimize situations arising from colonization. If the United Kingdom maintains a selective interpretation of the principle of self-determination with regard to the Malvinas Islands, it must also explain how it reconciles that position with the debates on self-determination taking place within its own territory. Once again, we call on the United Kingdom to resume negotiations with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the sovereignty dispute, as required by international law. We also reiterate our invitation to proceed without delay to an exchange of views with a view to resolving the issue concerning the aforementioned dispute over the exploitation of our natural resources. And I want to say something more to the global energy sector. Waka Mwertha represents a historic opportunity, with the potential to become one of the major players in the energy sector in the decades ahead. Come, invest, develop it with us. But there's a limit to this invitation. We will not remain indifferent to those who exploit resources under illegal foreign occupation.
True leadership requires both. Prudence, in this case, means not only knowing what we want; it also is about, um, pursue of goal while calling aggression by its name, and also condemning those who disrupt the world order without turning a blind eye when they violate the rules. Ladies and gentlemen, for many years, representatives of my country have been trying, in this chamber and in the Security Council, to point out that a situation in which a permanent member of the council, Russia, attempts unsuccessfully, but with ruthless persistence, to conquer a neighboring state and destabilize the entire region is a violation of the principles we all uphold as signatories to the Charter of the United Nations. Russia is destabilizing the situation in Europe through open aggression, hybrid operations, acts of subversion and sabotage, and by ignoring successive resolutions of this Assembly. It displays the same imperial arrogance that, in the past, led to unimaginable suffering and the tragedies of two world wars. Contempt for international law must not become the norm. It is not too late to restore the primacy of international law and strengthen the foundations of a system in which principles matter, and in which the international community, acting jointly and in solidarity, opposes aggression, which is prohibited by the Charter of the United Nations. Ladies and gentlemen, the Russian Federation, guided by an imperial and neo-colonial vision of the world, is attempting to impose its will on others. In doing so, it is effectively challenging the right of every nation to determine its own destiny. Neo-imperial and neo-colonial policies are, in essence, an attempt to return to a world in which the borders, security, and future of states and nations would be decided not by the states and nations themselves, but by other states that consider themselves stronger and predestined to dominate. And there might would replace law. It is an attempt to return to the concert of powers. This cannot be accepted. It is the force of law that should decide, not the law of force. Poland is particularly aware of the consequences of Russian colonialism and imperialism. History has taught us that freedom and sovereignty cannot defend themselves. That is why we are determined to counter the threats that the Kremlin's aggressive policies are posing to us, with increasing audacity. As a representative of a country neighboring Russia, I want to make it clear: we are not the ones seeking confrontation. We are strengthening our alliances, developing our military, and modernizing its equipment, not to wage war, but to prevent it. Our goal is deterrence and defense, the defense of two values that also form the foundation of the United Nations Charter: freedom and sovereignty. We continue to view the North Atlantic Alliance as the guarantor of European security. NATO remains united in the overarching goal of defending our community on both sides of the Atlantic, in Europe and America, on its eastern flank and along its northern border. We therefore welcome with satisfaction the strengthening of security in the Arctic region, which is now becoming a reality thanks to the agreement signed yesterday between our allies. Ladies and gentlemen, we must, however, make it clear: modern security threats are not limited to classical military actions. Russia is carrying out actions aimed at undermining the foundations of international stability, striking at global food security through attacks on ports and ships transporting grain, as well as by deliberately provoking crises that affect millions of people outside of Europe. At the same time, a large-scale hybrid war is being waged, involving sabotage, cyber attacks, and destabilization operations on an unprecedented scale, including an artificially induced migration crisis. These are planned, coordinated, and consistently executed actions. Their goal is to weaken states, undermine public trust, and shatter the unity of the international community. We are not dealing with isolated incidents, but with a sustained, well-thought-out strategy. And that is precisely why the response to these actions cannot be ad hoc or half-hearted. It must be firm, consistent, and it must also be united. For if aggression, whether military or hybrid in nature, is not met with an adequate response, it becomes an invitation to repeat it. Ladies and gentlemen, even if today we have reservations about the effectiveness of the Security Council, we respect the achievements of the United Nations in maintaining and building peace in many parts of the world. The role of UN peacekeeping operations in preventing the resurgence of conflicts is undeniable. Poland advocates for stable funding of peacekeeping missions and for granting them more transparent mandates that also take into account tasks related to the protection of the population and support for the reconstruction of state institutions. Poland also fulfills its commitments to global security through its participation in UN peacekeeping operations as well. Polish blue-helmet soldiers are currently serving in Lebanon, carrying out their duties with dignity despite the difficult security situation throughout the region. We will support efforts to de-escalate conflicts, protect civilians, and uphold international humanitarian law, and work toward the implementation of a two-state solution, ensuring the peaceful coexistence of Israel and Palestine. Ladies and gentlemen, this is precisely why the response to contemporary threats cannot be limited solely to reacting to crises. It must be based on clear principles and reliable partnerships.
