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.
I remember those words as if it was yesterday. We're going to win. We have no other choice. And when we did, nine years later, Palestinian terrorists hijacked a passenger airplane headed for Israel. They took it to Entebbe, Uganda. Like the Nazis, the terrorists selected the Jewish passengers men, women, children, babies. They threatened to kill them all if Israel did not release Palestinian terrorists. And then on July 4th, 1960. Sorry. On July 4th, 1976, the bicentennial of the United States in one of the most dramatic rescue missions in modern times, Yoni led his brave soldiers to the heart of Africa. Miraculously, they rescued 103 Jewish hostages and brought them all home. Every single one of them. My brother, the commander of the storming party, was the only soldier killed in this mission. I want to thank Uganda again for recently erecting a statue of Yoni in the place where he fell. My friends, Yoni's words are as true today as they were more than half a century ago. We're going to win. We have no other choice. At no time was this demonstrated more clearly than on October 7th, 2023, the darkest day in Israel's history. On that horrific day, thousands of Palestinians terrorists stormed into Israel from Gaza. Now, I want you to know there wasn't a single Israeli then in Gaza. Not a civilian, not a soldier, not one. But it didn't matter one bit. The Hamas terrorists committed the worst slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust. They went house to house, shooting Israeli civilians point blank. They did so with fiendish glee, with sadistic joy. They live streamed as they murdered. And who did they murder? The very Israelis, their neighbors. Who gave them jobs, who picked up Palestinian children at the Gaza border and drove them to Israeli hospitals for cancer treatment and then brought them back. Can you imagine such monstrosity? This these Hamas monsters, they slaughtered Holocaust survivors. They burned babies alive in front of their parents. They beheaded our men. They brutally raped our women, and then they murdered them. Altogether. They slaughtered 1200 Israelis that day. I want to give you an idea of what this means for a country of 10 million. Proportionately, this is equal to 40,000 innocent Americans slaughtered in less than 24 hours. That's 16 times nine, 11 16, nine, 11. That occurred not very far from here. On that darkest of days.
Croatia will continue to support merit based EU enlargement. EU membership can turn borders of division into lines of cooperation and reforms on paper, into stronger institutions and better living standards. But European transformation requires honesty about the past. Reconciliation becomes possible when responsibility for the crimes of the past is acknowledged and their glorification rejected. That standard allows no national exceptions. That means respect for victims and clear rejection of historical revisionism, not the glorification of war criminals. Ratko Mladić was a convicted war criminal responsible for the Srebrenica genocide, the first genocide in Europe since the Holocaust. While his criminal record reached its nefarious culmination in Srebrenica, his trail of war crimes stretches further back to the shelling of Croatian cities, the murder of civilians the mining of dams and the destruction of cultural heritage and industrial facilities. The military and official honours accorded to Mladić in Serbia were an affront to his victims and to the judgments of international courts. The participation of state representatives and the public acclaim that accompanied the ceremony is totally incompatible with the values of a Union Serbia seeks to join. The same commitment to equality and reform should guide Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a signatory to the Dayton Peace Accords, and a neighbour and a friend of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia is one of the strongest advocates of its European future. The Dayton Peace Accords ended the war and established the constitutional framework for Bosnia and Herzegovina. One state, two entities and three constituent peoples Croats, Bosniaks and Serbs. That balance is the foundation on which peace was built. Yet the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina are still being denied legitimate representation, including in the presidency of the country. That is unjust, destabilizing and contrary to the spirit of Dayton. The solution is neither division nor domination.
Ladies and gentlemen, today we are witnessing to the direct involvement of certain permanent members of the United Nations Security Council in the bloodiest and most destructive conflicts in our time in Europe and in the Persian Gulf, which constitutes a cause for concern and a bad example for the rest of the world. Those countries rendered a great service when they freed humanity from the horrors of Nazism, fascism, and the Holocaust, and should therefore preserve that capital and legacy as liberators. At a time when good governance of countries is widely advocated, the governance of the world likewise calls for a new, more democratic and just world order one that is not only based on the power of the restricted club of victors, of a war that took place eight decades ago. Since then, the world has come to know different reality. New countries have emerged, which at that time were colonies and which today are strong economies with significant advances in science and technology. It is therefore becoming increasingly pressing and urgent to undertake a profound reform of the Security Council, in which Africa, Latin America and Asia should adequately be represented as permanent members with all the powers inherent therein. In this context, the Republic of Angola reaffirms its full support to the common African position enshrined in the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. The voice of Africans must be heard in all circumstances, at all times, in strategic decision making processes on issues of peace, global security, financing for development as well as climate issues and global governance of artificial intelligence.
My dear colleagues, this evening I want to talk about the need for nations to work together on the new challenges that we face climate change, emerging technology and the breakdown of international rules. Eight decades ago, the citizens and leaders of our nations made a solemn promise to future generations. Having known the untold sorrow of two devastating global conflicts in their lifetimes, they vowed to work together to prevent another. The pioneers who built this institution from the ruins of war, proud Australians among them, were also coming to terms with two terrible truths. The horrors of the Holocaust and the unprecedented horror of nuclear weapons. A depth of evil and a scale of destruction beyond imagining even a decade earlier. Yet rather than recoil from that reality, our leaders stood together to face it, learn from it, and most importantly, guard against its return. And instead of surrendering to fear or dealing in retribution, or abandoning their fate to a world governed by force alone, they came together to renew and affirm their faith in humanity, in the essential and equal dignity and worth of every individual, in the sovereignty of every nation and in the capacity and indeed the responsibility of all of us to give the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, life and weight and real meaning by engaging in the dialogue that builds trust and deepens understanding and backing those words with actions. In this moment, we need to lean in and strengthen and modernise the fundamental parts of the UN system that help to build peace and promote economic development and sustainability. Sovereignty, prosperity and peace are never guaranteed. They must be created, nurtured and protected by each generation, supporting the jobs, homes, schools and healthcare that represent the fullest expression of the UN's commitment to the economic and social advancement of all peoples. We know that the surest way to minimise the potential for conflict is to create the prosperity, opportunity and economic justice on which lasting peace depends. That means cooperating on the urgent challenges that confront each of our sovereign nations, and creating solutions that work for our citizens. This was the founding purpose of the United Nations. And for the leaders who have gathered here this week, this remains the test of our time. A test we can and we must pass. Whether it is climate change or artificial intelligence, there is always the temptation to say that our generation is being confronted by issues that our predecessors could not possibly have imagined while dealing with the world they would not recognise. But for all the transformation the past eight decades have brought, the fundamental stakes haven't changed. And just as its values, our values, our ideals, our commitment to dialogue and cooperation proved equal to that task then, we can rise to meet these new challenges now. We can reaffirm our national sovereignty and our shared humanity. We can seize and share and shape the opportunities this moment holds in the interests of our citizens. But we can only do it together. From the very first days of this forum, Australia has always known that. We understand that the UN mission cannot be entrusted solely to the great powers or the biggest countries, or even the loudest voices alone, nor can it be subcontracted to the world's richest companies, or dictated by the pace of technology. Then now and always, shaping a secure, peaceful and prosperous world is a task for all of us. And that world must be driven by the values and aspirations of all of us. We all have a part to play. And that is why Australia is seeking a non-permanent seat on the UN Security Council for 2029-2030. The world faces tough times and Australia wants to respond to partner and to make a difference. Should our Security Council bid prove successful, our purpose and approach will be consistent with how we have always conducted ourselves at the UN. We will listen with respect. We will partner as equals. And we will protect what matters most. Mr. President, a safer world is one governed by rules, not by power and force alone. It is a world in which all countries have the freedom to decide their own future. And all countries have their decisions listened to. As a member of the UN Security Council, Australia will safeguard the rules that protect us all by upholding international law, including the UN Charter and the sovereignty of all states. We will amplify the voices of small states and middle powers to ensure a wider range of perspectives shape the Council's decisions. We will work to prevent crises, resolve conflicts and protect civilians through diplomacy, peace building and practical action. Our objective will be to support a more effective, representative and responsive UN that is equipped to address the fast growing challenges of today. Listening, partnering, protecting. Colleagues. The world is changing rapidly. New issues are becoming international issues demanding our full attention. Climate change, where the science foretold of the increase in frequency and intensity of extreme weather events that we are now experiencing. Emerging technology, including artificial intelligence, which is evolving at a furious pace, and the breakdown of trust, civility and social cohesion, which is promoting conflict within and between countries. Clearly, the multilateral system we have all known and benefited from is under immense strain. To promote the peace, to create a world of human dignity, to do justice to the UN's mission, we must embrace change and we must embrace reform. Australia supports the rules and institutions that underpin open trade and connectivity. That order, based on agreed rules and institutions, faces massive disruption. This doesn't mean abandoning multilateralism, it means working to reform it, so it's up to the challenges ahead and building beyond multilateralism, with new coalitions and partnerships to address and solve complex problems.
This aggression is being accompanied by a brutal media and cognitive warfare aimed not just against the Cuban people, but also against the citizens of the United States and the internal and international public opinion. It is characterized by its gross and brazen attempts to interfere in the internal affairs of Cuba, which is also another international crime. We are often asked, well, what is the U.S. pursuing with such aggressive behavior? And the question usually surprises us, because the representatives of this government have outrightly declared their purpose to take Cuba to control the country and to dominate its economy. In other words, to nullify through aggression or economic suffocation, the national sovereignty which several generations of Cubans have struggled for since the 19th century, first to achieve it and later on, after conquering full freedom in 1959 to tenaciously defend it against the biggest risks, including that of a Holocaust. The U.S. behavior relies on the fallacy proclaimed early on this year that Cuba is an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and the foreign policy of the United States. A nonsense shamelessly repeated by that government. In a futile attempt to substantiate such an assertion, the U.S. government then inundates its huge communication platforms with false claims, using the spokespersons and publications it hires, taking advantage of the increasing control exercised by its government over them. The U.S. president himself repeated this lie a few days ago in this chamber. Any minimally informed observer would understand the unrealistic and barbarous intention to portray a relatively small and developing nation such as Cuba, with a modest economic performance as a threat to the biggest nuclear military, technological and economic power on the planet. This organization and its member states have abundant evidence of the fact that we are a peace loving country of the efforts of Cuba in favor of international cooperation, understanding and the peaceful settlement of disputes, as well as the active role that we have always played in support of the United Nations. Cuba is not a threat. What is is the blockade. Cuba is not a threat. The blockade, yes, is a threat.
Mr. Secretary-General, Former Presidents of the General Assembly, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen, Forty years ago, I stood in this very Hall as a newly minted member of the Cabinet of the 41st President of the General Assembly, Mr. Humayun Rasheed Choudhury. At the time, President Choudhury said, and I quote: “In recent years there appears to have been a crisis of confidence in the United Nations itself... there is a general feeling that the United Nations today needs revitalizing in a number of aspects in order to bring it into line with the priorities of a changing world.” This shows that questions about multilateralism and the effectiveness of the United Nations are not new. They have been part of this place since the first stone was laid. Yet, through it all, the United Nations has persevered. Not because it is perfect, but because it is irreplaceable, and because the alternative is simply unfathomable. The world of 1945 was in peril. The Second World War, the colossal devastation wrought by it, and the Holocaust, left humanity bankrupt, morally and fiscally. Something had to change. And this place was that change. It ushered in a long era of diplomacy, which continues: Member States coming together to work through their problems because they knew that the alternative, guns blazing and bombs dropping, simply was not an option. Perhaps the clearest evidence of its achievement is here in this very Hall. In 1945, 50 nations participated in the San Francisco Conference. Today, eight decades later, the Organization has 193 Member States. The UN has brought together humanity under one roof; this is unprecedented in human history. The core promise of this institution, its raison d’être, was and remains to prevent the unimaginable: a third world war. The fact that we have avoided such calamity is among the greatest achievements this institution could ever deliver. (BRIEF PAUSE) But survival alone cannot be our sole measure of success. Outside these walls, people are not asking whether the United Nations still exists.
After the unimaginable World War II, started by Christian civilized Europe, we could not have hoped for anything less. But it seems that human beings can never really have enough wars, and never really learn lessons of history, never really care. After the Holocaust came the glorious birth of the State of Israel, but then came the Palestinian Nakba, 1948. Over the following years, we read about the wars of partition, famines in South Asia, the Korean War, the onslaught in Cambodia, Laos-Vietnam, the infamous Khmer Rouge genocide, later the Bosnian genocide, Rwanda genocide, and so many other wars. Then came the end of Cold War, bringing us euphoria, celebration, new promises of peace. The Berlin Wall collapsed, apartheid ended, but the seeds of future wars were sown, just as NATO and Gorbachev inked the post-Cold War arrangements. The ink had not even dried, and NATO began its fast eastbound expansion. As expected, for more than 4 years we have had this devastating war in Ukraine, a war that now has backfired into Russia.
