Informal meeting of the General Committee - General Assembly, 80th session

Good morning. I call to order the informal meeting of the General Committee. We are living in extraordinary time, so we are also having an extra meeting and I would like to take this opportunity to warmly thank you and welcome you for this meeting. As you know, the General Committee has a bit of different setups here, so welcome to everybody. Also, for those joining not being officially member of the General Committee, this meeting takes up Member States suggestions.

So your suggestions to use the General Committee or more as a platform to discuss organizational matters of the General assembly. And today's meeting is intended to do precisely that, to offer an opportunity for Member States to discuss important organizational aspects of the work ahead in the General assembly in an informal and interactive way. Delegation have received the agenda I proposed for today's meetings under point 4. You're invited also to put out other agenda points and I will proceed to start with the first item on the agenda. The time management and the speaking limits.

As you might remember, in January 2026, in response to the calls from many Member States to improve the working methods, with a view to improving efficiency and time management, as well as to align our practices across various meetings for greater consistency, I proposed the consistent application of speaking time limits for proceedings in the General assembly on trial basis. And I'm very thankful for the positive response. In practice, almost everyone was keeping their interventions in the proposed time limit limits. The idea of the time limits I would like to remember is not new at all. The assembly has been implementing time limits for high level meetings, both formal and informal meetings already for a couple of years.

It is the only way to allow all Member States to speak in a one day meeting. Given that we are 193 member states and every Member State does not only have a right to a seat at the table, but also to ensure that they have a voice at the table. Time limits for statements are also the norm in the main committees. So the proposal is also in line with the common practice for the last years and in the Committees. And I would like to ask to put it also on screen again.

I have received a lot of positive feedback from Member States and as this measures has allowed more delegations to have their voices heard at each meeting before lunch break and not coming back after lunch break. And then only half of the Member States are in the room. And we were also able to save money as every meeting incurs cost for interpretation and conference services. I have also heard some concerns being raised in this regard, and I have received a letter from a group of Member States expressing their concerns about implementing now these proposals in every meeting. So this is why I would like to give room today for an open discussion framed and guided by the General assembly rules of procedure.

And there is no intention, I would like to underline this, to circumvent them. The whole purpose of this proposal is in fact to ensure that all voices are are being heard. And by that I now give the floor for comments or question. As for the past practices of the Committee, first to the members of the General Committee, after which all other designations are invited to take the floor to share their views as well. There's no pre established list of speakers.

Delegations wishing to take the floor are invited to press a microphone button. It wouldn't be a discussion on time limits or without asking you to keep your intervention brief so everybody can be heard and we are having a real discussion. And I would also urge that in your remarks you reflect on the proposal and the comments from other delegations. I would like to keep this informal meeting as interactive as possible. By this, I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Fed Federation, followed by Senegal, and invite others to press the microphone button, please.

Russian Federation has the floor.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for convening this General Committee. Indeed, we agree that we need to consult within our General Committee on such organizational matters, such as speaking limits in the General Assembly.

That is a very important issue indeed, because this is the right of a Member States to express its position, to share it with other Member States in a way that can be understood and would contribute to the discussion. So we believe that this is a very important issue and we are among those delegations that objected to the approach laid out in your letter of January 6, 2026, which provides for the introduction and strict compliance with the time limits for statements. I would like to draw attention to what you said about Member States overall complying with the proposed time limits for statements. But Member States actually had no other choice because the microphone would be cut off.

And I'd like to refer to my own experience at one of the meetings.

I objected in my statement against the time limit and I asked for additional time to be granted to me. I was granted that time in the end, but it wasn't easy to do this. The Chair kept insisting that I limit myself to the time limit for the meeting and no final decision was made. So I'm not sure that we can talk about any sort of general agreement when it comes to putting a limit on statements. And what's important in our view, is that this matter is comprehensively handled in the Rules of Procedure, which in Rule 35 provides that the President may suggest that the GA introduce restrictions, but the decision itself, in accordance with Rule 72, remains the exclusive prerogative of the Assembly.

In other words, the President cannot unilaterally introduce any sort of restrictions on statement length. And therefore, in the lack of a General assembly decision, the length of statements that is proposed by the President can only be a recommendation. There can be no enforcement or cutting off of microphones in such a situation, if there hasn't been a decision to that end taken by the General Assembly. We would also like to draw attention to the fact that the approach enshrined in the Rules of Procedure means that the General assembly must decide whether or not it is advisable to reduce time limits in every case individually, depending on the circumstances, depending on the topic of the meeting.

Of course, some matters of a formal or technical nature could benefit from the introduction of time limits. However, in other cases, when, for example, Member States need to be as accurate as possible and convey every nuance when it comes to sharing their position, that approach would be counterproductive.

We're convinced that the General assembly

will continue abiding by the Rules of procedure strictly and will take relevant decisions as needed in light of the topic of each specific meeting and other circumstances. So what we propose is that if a proposal comes up to down on statement lengths, a discussion can be held with members of the General Committee in any case, and the details could be discussed of that case, how much time is available, how many resources have been allocated for a specific meeting, and after that a decision could be taken in light of the circumstances, whatever the case may be, in our view, this common time limit of three minutes does not allow for any sort of serious approach to an issue.

This is my personal comment. When I see Member States speaking and trying to limit themselves to three minutes, I just see them rushing to deliver their statement as quickly as possible. And this is something that makes life more difficult for the interpreters, and it also makes it more difficult to understand the statement, to translate the statement.

That is why we are proposing that this should be discussed case by case in each specific situation. Perhaps some meetings, some issues might just require additional time, some might require less time, and so then we can take a decision taking all circumstances into account. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Just to be clear, so the proposal is exactly this.

For formal meetings where the rules of procedure apply, it has to be a decision by the General assembly. And this is why we are discussing it for informal meetings, the rules of procedures are not applying. So the meeting you related to was an informal meeting and therefore the rules of the procedures are not applying. With regard to the speaking list, I have Senegal, Venezuela, the US and then others. Just to remind you, those who are members of the General Committee go on nine with the realtor procedure first and the others will follow later.

Senegal, please. You have the floor,

Madame Ladam. Thank you very much, Madam President, for convening this informal meeting of the General Committee to discuss important matters such as the efficiency of the work of the General Assembly. Regarding the first question on time management, Senegal remains committed to efforts to improve the efficiency and proper organization of the General Assembly's work. This includes its subsidiary bodies and commissions and committees. In this spirit, we are ready to discuss all proposals relating to working methods, including speaking time limits for statements.

However, we believe that measures that could impact the conduct of intergovernmental meetings must continue to be subject to transparent and inclusive consultations with Member States. In this regard, the Working Group on the Revitalization of the General assembly remains the appropriate framework for the consideration of such matters and the search for consensus based solutions. We also recall that the issue of time limits is not yet something that enjoys clear consensus among Member States. Even if the most recent resolution on the revitalization of the General assembly strongly urges delegations to limit their explanations of vote to 5 minutes. Senegal remains ready to contribute constructively to this discussion in a spirit of cooperation and respect for the intergovernmental nature of our work on Member States to demonstrate flexibility in light of the financial difficulties that the organization faces.

Thank you.

Thank the distinguished representative of Senegal. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Venezuela, followed by the United States.

Muchas gracias, Senora Presidenta Agradecemo. Thank you very much. Madam President, we thank you for convening today's meeting to discuss issues that are important to all Member States, especially given that this has a direct impact on the full exercise of their right and the protection of their sovereign prerogatives. Madam President, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela supports all efforts that seek to improve the efficiency of the work of the General assembly. This includes the UN 80 initiative.

However, efficiency cannot come at the cost of legitimacy and plurality in the organization. We are concerned by the introduction of rigid time limits for delegation statements. The Presidency plays a facilitating role and Article 72 states that only the General assembly can take a decision to limit the time allowed to different speakers. This has a direct impact on the ability of delegations to participate and this should be done through transparent consultations open to all and with the participation of the General Committee. In line with resolution 6932 7,

the automatic implementation of time limits, including cutting off the microphone, affects the smallest delegations in particular and makes discussions more complex. Reduction of time for intervention by groups of States that make collective statements and broader coordination processes is also a source of concern for us. We note that unilateral practices, even when they are presented as experimental or mock sessions, could establish dangerous precedents and alter the balance between the Presidency and Member States based on the principle of sovereign equality that underpins the organization. Therefore, we make an appeal to reconsider these practices and to leave in the hands of Member States decisions that fall to under their remit. According to the rules of this organization, it should be up to the General assembly as past practice to formulate suggestions and facilitate work without exceeding the mandate established by the rules, leaving up to Member States the possibility of adopting the final decision.

Any k thank you Anyways, thank you very much for the clarification. I thank the distinguished representative of Venezuela. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States, followed by France and the United Kingdom.

Thank you, Madam President, for convening this meeting. I will begin with a few brief introductory points relevant to today's agenda.

The United States believes that the occasion of the 80th anniversary of the Charter represents an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring the UN is proud both effective and efficient in delivering on its core mandates. The United States strongly supports measures aimed at streamlining the General Assembly's work and reducing overlaps and redundancies. In that spirit, we think it is important for the assembly to hold itself to the measures and commitments related to working methods that were negotiated in General assembly resolution 7932 7. These measures include responding to the General Assembly's request for the General Committee to support efforts within the Committee to take timely and responsive actions aimed at facilitating the Assembly's decisions to reduce the number of meetings, streamline agenda items and leverage technology for efficiency. We're aware that Committees have been actively working on this tasking and that the subject of working methods and revitalization can generate significant debate.

That said, we want to underscore that this request is a time bound exercise mandated by the assembly to take place in the 80th session and time is of the essence. We would therefore urge leadership of all the Committees to ensure sufficient engagement to formulate these plans over the coming months. We look forward to hearing from the Committees about how these responsive actions are being implemented. We would further highlight the importance of delegations prioritizing the efficiency and effectiveness dimensions of working methods in such discussions given time constraints with respect specifically to time management and speaking limits, the United States welcomes the President's initiatives outlined in her Jan. 6 letter aimed at applying speaking time limits in the General Assembly. We support rigorous implementation and adherence to these limits across the Assembly's work work, including in debates, group statements, informal and commemorative meetings, and in relation to rights of reply and explanations of vote.

We also support the proposal that these limits apply within the main committees and subsidiary organs. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of France.

Mercy, Madame.

Thank you, Madam President. I would like to make four comments while stressing that I align myself in advance with the statement to be delivered by the EU and its Member States. The first point is to thank you, Madam President, for convening this meeting and thank you for your efforts to revitalize not only the work of the General assembly, but that of the General Committee as well. My second point is to say that on the issue of time speaking, time limits from France is in line with the general goal of speaker discipline in our national capacity. We can support the measures that you propose in order to achieve that goal.

But having said that, I also wish to state that we are open to take on board any concerns that are expressed and as the Ambassador of Senegal said, we would like to achieve consensus on this issue. That is the reason that we can support your proposal as is, but we are also open to discussing with those that have certain concerns to see how those concerns could be resolved. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of France. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom, followed by the Maledives and China.

Thank you President and thank you for convening us to discuss these organizational issues. The UK agrees that Member States should be able to set out their views in the work that we do, but also that we need to have a practical and efficient way to achieve this. The UK therefore supports the proposals that were outlined in your January letter to ensure that our work remains efficient. We do know that this is being done on a trial basis and we're happy to come back and have further discussions in due course. Thank you.

Thank you. Short and sharp. I give the floor now to the distinguished representative of the Maldives from followed by China and Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Madam President. For small island developing States, the credibility of high level engagements on sea level rise depends solely on the Meeting remaining within High Level Week the Maldives supports practical steps to strengthen the efficiency and discipline of the General Assembly's work.

We are guided by the principle that reform must enhance effective effectiveness without disadvantage in smaller delegations or narrowing equitable participation. More disciplined time management in the Assembly's work, both necessary and welcome. Greater predictability in speaking limits can sharpen deliberations and widen participation. At the same time.

Efficiency cannot come at the expense of inclusivity. The assembly functions best when every delegation, regardless of size, retains meaningful space to engage. We also note. We also note that the growing mismatch between the agreed ceiling of three mandated High level meetings and the five currently forcing for High Level Week.

This trajectory is not sustainable. The High Level Week is already operating at the outer limits of institutional and delegations capacity. The mandate discipline must therefore be applied consistently if the assembly assembly is to manage its work with credibility.

At the same time, liquidity related adjustments must be carefully deliberated to avoid unintended consequences of the General assembly work.

The way forward lies in pairing efficiency efforts within the more realistic planning and formal workload disciplines. We offer these observations in constructive spirit and look forward to continued engagements. I thank you

I thank the distinguished representative of the Maldives. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.

Madam President, thank you for convening this meeting. China always supports the work of the General Committee and it welcomes constructive participation of all parties in discussions. We look forward to fostering consensus at the end meeting regarding the first issue, the regulation of speaking time for proceedings in the General Assembly. Member States, while adhering to GA rules of procedure, have inherent right to speak at length and without constraint and this right must be safeguarded. China is also of the view that applying necessary and reasonable time limits on statements at certain J meetings can help enhance GA's efficiency.

This aligns with the UN80 initiative and overall trend towards greater efficiency, effectiveness and quality of UN's work. Given the different views among Member States on this issue and taking into full account matters of principle and efficiency, we suggest piloting a case by case approach. For instance, before each meeting, the PGA or Co Chairs of Intergovernmental mechanisms could propose to specific time limits for consideration and decision by Member States. Thank you President.

Thank the distinguished representative of China.

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia, followed by Argentina.

Thank you Madam President for convening this meeting of the General Committee. We welcome all the participants of the meeting and thank you thank you for addressing the question of speaking time limits in General assembly meetings. This has a direct impact on the organization of the work of the General Assembly. My delegation reiterates its support for the reasonable use of time. And we also emphasize that any final measure must be in line with the will and must be based on the consensus of Member States.

We are ready to participate constructively with all Member States in order to find a balanced solution that considers the work of the General assembly while preserving the rights of all Member States. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Argentina. And so far we have no Member state of the General Committee being a member anymore.

Then we would go to the other member states. So Argentina, please. Followed by now we have another one. So Argentina first and then I will announce the other ones.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam. Argentina reaffirms its commitment to a UN system that is more efficient, dynamic and action oriented. Based on that, we support initiatives aimed at limiting speaking time in the deliberations of the General Assembly. We consider that excessively long statements tend to affect the dynamic of discussions, reduce the opportunity for discussions and equitable participation of the entire membership, and sometimes are a disincentive to active participation in dialogue.

A more effective management of time and the use of the floor would make debates that are more focused and deliberative, aligned with the need to enhance the effectiveness and the relevance of the General Assembly. However, we also believe that it's necessary for this topic to continue to be discussed until we reach a consensus with which all Member States feel comfortable. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative representative of Bangladesh, followed by Andorra and again the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Madam President. At the outset, let me thank you for organizing this meeting in compliance with Resolution 79327 of the General Assembly. I would like to highlight some points. First, the UN Charter recognizes the distinctive role of General assembly as the most representative, principle, deliberative and policy making body of the un. Improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the General assembly is critical first step towards making the UN more democratic and inclusive.

This will enable the UN to better fulfill the international functions and obligations. Second, Bangladesh attaches high importance to the integrity and inclusivity of the generally dangerous debate and all high level segments. However, we need to address two issues of concern, that is the management of time speaking and the scheduling of the meetings. We underscore the need for consistent adherence to the speaking time limits approved by this Committee, as well as the importance of predictable and uniform timekeeping applied equally to all speakers. We welcome Your proposal of designated time for debates on agenda items.

But any decision must be taken with consensus among states. I thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Bangladesh. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Andorra.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for convening this meeting. I will talk on practice because I happen to chair many meetings and I realize sometimes when people is abusing the time limits, that's not allowed. Like my colleague from Argentina said, interactive dialogue with other delegations and actually, if we all know in advance the time limit, I think it's not respectful, not respected. Actually it's a lack of respect for the other speakers to go beyond the time limit. I think everything can be said in three or four or five minutes.

But I understand sometimes the nature of the meeting, it's much more complicated than positions of countries are always not the same. And I understand that probably we should approach this issue, as China has said, probably in a case by case, in each case, to try to find. But I also think that we need to be very disciplined and I also think that this is probably a resolution or decision that we need to take with consensus, if possible. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Andorra.

I now give the floor as a permanent member of the General Committee, Russian Federation again then I have so far already six member states on the list, so maybe we go to them, but as we are interactive dialogue Russian Federation, please. The distinguished representative has the fluor.

Thank you, Madam President, I want to take advantage of your invitation to engage in an interactive dialogue. And just to mention two points. First of all, has to do unofficial meetings.

There's no doubt that the rules of procedure do not have a direct impact on these. However, as we see it there, jus mutatis mutandis. They're applied to these meetings with more flexibility. And we believe that with regard to these kinds of informal meetings, it would be useful also to decide them, to discuss the modalities of how they're to be held with member states, so that. So that everyone is aware, is informed and provides feedback on how to best organize them.

The second point is I would agree with the representative Ondora that if there is a decision that there should be a time limit, then it would probably not be appropriate to exceed that. But there should be a decision either of the General Committee or of the General assembly. And I absolutely agree that such a decision must be made in each specific case, depending on the circumstances, and such decisions should be adopted by consensus so that we don't leave any states dissatisfied with the Outcome. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

I now go to Cuba, followed by Paraguay, Colombia, Ecuador, Nicaragua. So. And I others are invited to press the button. Please. The distinguished representative of Cuba.

Thank you, Madam President. Cuba welcomes the adoption of Resolution 79 327, which lays the groundwork for a General assembly that is more focused and effective. However, we'd like to underscore that the resolutions on revitalization do not provide any margin to for standardizing time limits for interventions in all meetings without the request and the approval of Member States. The measures of efficiency that involve intergovernmental processes and meetings must be decided by Member States and not introduced as fait accompli that are procedural or administrative. We would request that any proposal with regard to the modalities of intervention should be debated as part of the process of revitalization with the participation of all Member States.

We recall that the automatic cutting off of a microphone is not based on the rules of the General assembly and is in fact a distortion of the established practice which is based on respect for Member States. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Paraguay.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you for convening this informal meeting. Thank you for its interactive nature. President. The General assembly is the main and for many States, the only forum where we have a broad participation.

Therefore, we believe that preserving the space forum for dialogue it must be preserved. It is the forum where Member States can express in depth our opinions. Having said that, we think that the resolution that the colleague From Cuba mentioned, 79 327, because it establishes limits for the work of the General assembly, it states, we think that time limits are necessary. They should be applied strictly. We There are other forms in the United nations where the time limits are different from the ones we use here.

And we should make an effort to better use the limited time we have. And as I said, that limit should be applied strictly. If it's not applied strictly, then we'd run into trouble. I also believe that the form is important and cutting a microphone without any warning is a problem and we should be able to resolve it in an appropriate way. Because if the States reach an agreement with then our right to express ourselves will not be affected.

But I think we need to work on other aspects so that everything takes place in a balanced way and satisfactory for every Member States. I do have a comment on the high level meetings.

On the high level meetings I call the agenda point. And then we can all discuss high level Meetings So we really can.

I'm not talking to the meetings of High Level Week. I'm talking about high level meetings at the General Assembly. Often our authorities from the capital attend. Ministers, deputy ministers, sometimes vice presidents, the presidents of the country. And these senior authorities are affected by.

By a microphone being cut after three minutes. And thus there's a real imbalance compared to the regional groups. Regional groups often have five minutes of speaking time. And high level delegates, presidents, vice ministers, they often have three minutes. And we believe that this should be corrected because otherwise our authorities will no longer come to New York and these meetings will simply become routine meetings and not high level meetings.

Thank you. Thank you. And I'm sorry, just to check.

So, coming back to the members of the General Committee. So thank you. First of all, thank you for the distinguished representative of Paraguay. It's not Colombia now, but the members of the General Committee. So, St. Kitts, please, you have the floor.

And afterwards, St. Kitts and Nefets.

Thank you, Madam President. St. Kitts and Nevis supports reasonable time limits as they ensure fairness by giving every member state an equal opportunity to speak and prevent any one delegation from dominating the floor.

Floor Clear time limits also promote focused, efficient debates and strengthen the credibility of our work by respecting them. We respect one another and the institution that we serve. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you very much to the distinguished representative of St. Kitts and Nevis. Now I give the floor to Colombia, followed by Ecuador.

Thank you.

We are grateful that this committee is examining the time limits which is an essential point for to ensure inclusive debates. However, we would like to underscore that many delegations from the Global south are making a significant effort to attend in person in New York and are confronted with budgetary limit, logistical limitations and time limits. And in this context, to reduce the speaking times is an additional obstacle for the effective participation of countries from the Global south in deliberative forms of the General Assembly. We acknowledge the need for an efficient management. However, it's important to take into account the significant effort that these delegations are making to fully participate in the work of the Assembly.

And so, with this in mind, we believe that it might be useful to look at this on a case by case basis. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Colombia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ecuador, followed by Nicaragua and the European Union. Afterwards, Canada and Romania.

Madam President, I'm going to read a text of three points that have been drafted for this session. And I hope microphone will not be cut. First of all, I would like to Repeat with great conviction what I've stated in various opportunities. In a broad sense, the General assembly is an open global parliament, open to the participation of 193 states. The assembly has the grave collective responsibility of achieving concrete results, which is enshrined in the UN Charter.

This is unique and incommensurable in value. Second, the individual responsibility of delegations is to contribute to collegial decisions and deliberations. We are currently deliberating on how to strengthen the efficiency and the credibility of the General assembly.

And therefore, this is an important question that goes beyond procedural matters. This is why the debate on time limits. As we debate this, it's important to acknowledge that one of the most generalized criticisms, whether it's real or perceived, is that the statements that we pronounce do not reflect the needs and reality of the international community. Thirdly, the presidency has and always has had the authority to manage the debates, ensure order, and ensure that sufficient conduct of the sessions, which is not a ceremonial function, but rather an essential for my delegation. Now, time management includes two fundamental rights.

First of all, the right to use the floor, and second, to be heard in equal conditions, using the floor and to be heard in equal conditions. The experience in other bodies demonstrates that time limits, when they're reasonable and implemented with common sense, do not impoverished debate. They make it more focused, substantive and accessible. They contribute to a more robust and inclusive deliberation. Distinguished colleagues, in the view of my delegation, it is clear in this exercise of shared responsibility that the President fulfills her role by urging us to deliberate in the Committee whose role is to advise the organization on the work of the Assembly.

It also is submitting to our analysis and decision an issue that probably is quite a thorny one and has been relegated to now. Furthermore, the attempts to implement the idea of the President of the General assembly demonstrates institutional caution rather than an intention to consolidate rigid, irreversible practices. Madam President, I would like to just state that my delegation welcomes your proposal as yet another proposal that seeks to have an assembly that can fulfill its political mandate in a more efficient way. Three minutes. Thank you very much, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Ecuador. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nicaragua.

Madam President, Nicaragua is grateful for convening this meeting and reaffirms its commitment to a General assembly that is strong, inclusive and truly deliberative, where all member states can participate on an equal footing on all the topics of the agenda, in order not to limit time that are not on issues that do not seem convenient for Western countries. There is a legitimate concern about the organization of work, the predictability of the timetable and the efficient use of time. We value the efforts underway to improve the regular conduct of debates. By considering to implement time limits, we'd like to highlight an essential principle. The General assembly is the main political and deliberative forum of the United Nations.

Its authority and legitimacy is based on the capacity of listening, deliberating and building common understandings. This is why we must ensure that efficiency does not become mechanism that limits substantive debate.

Nicaragua would like to express its concern when the topic of time limits is presented as an issue, merely an administrative measure, or the result of administrative measures without a clear basis on a prior and specific decision by Member States. The definition of limits of an intervention, its scope is flexibility. These fall under the agreement of Member States. Any adjustments in this area must reflect intergovernmental agreements that are transparent rather than faire complete.

In complex discussions, as the implementation of unilateral coercive measures, development, decolonization or the rights of peoples, excessive rigidity could lead to incomplete statements and fewer possibilities for a real dialogue. We must take into account the practical realities of many delegations. Often states make significant efforts, both economic and logistical efforts, so that their authorities and delegations travel from their capital to participate in person in our debates, precisely due to the political importance that is attached to these debates. In this context, to implement rigid time limits of three or five minutes without any flexibility and without taking into consideration the nature of the debate is disproportionate and unjust. It reduces the ability for substantive discussions.

Madam President, Nicaragua is working constructively to improve the organization and the functioning of the General Assembly. We reiterate that any measures to limit speaking time must emanate from the will of Member States and must be guided towards strengthening the participation of the membership in the most representative form of the United Nations. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Nicaragua. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the European Union, followed by Timor Leste and then Canada and Romania.

Madam President, Excellencies, colleagues. I have the honor to speak on behalf of the European Union and its 27 member states. the outset, allow me to thank you for convening this informal meeting and for your leadership in advancing the efficiency, effectiveness and transparency of the work of the United Nations General Assembly. The European Union remains strongly committed to the revitalization of the General assembly and to strengthening its role regarding speaking time limits. The European Union welcomes efforts, including by you, Madam President, to ensure consistent and fair time management and supports initiatives in this regard, Resolution 79327 urging delegations to limit their explanations of vote provides a useful precedent for other aspects of of our work.

Time discipline strengthens the sovereign equality of Member States by ensuring that all delegations, including smaller ones, can attend meetings in their entirety, take the floor when they wish and receive the attention each statement deserves. Predictability in meeting duration contributes to orderly, inclusive and transparent proceedings. As an example, this was the practical outcome during the Secretary General's briefing on his priorities earlier this year. As raised by the delegate of Paraguay. There are practical ways to help delegations be part of responsible time management, for instance, by introducing a countdown clock or flashing microphone for the benefit of speakers.

In the broader context of ongoing UN reform discussions, including the UN 80 initiative financial sustainability, Effective time management increases efficiency. It reduces the burden on conference services and interpretation, ensures meetings can be completed on schedule and free space for interactive formats, which often enhance the quality and impact of our exchanges. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Tima Lester.

Thank you. Madam President. We welcome the convening of this meeting as an important moment in our 80th session to look at the issues of our organization. In this regard, my delegation supports the establishment of clear and predictable time limits for interventions. Such limits are important to ensure fairness, discipline and balanced participation among Member States.

Madam President, at the same time, we must recognize a different nature of meetings held in the General Assembly. High level events, particularly those in which ministers and senior officials travel from capital, often command significant political visibility and therefore require an appropriate degree of flexibility. However, during our regular plenary meetings and routine agenda items, stricter and more consistent speaking limits would greatly enhance the efficiency of our work. For this reason, we support your efforts in considering a differentiated yet balanced approach. High level segments may allow slightly greater flexibility, while standard pending meetings should operate under clearer, firmly applied limits, including a five minute cap on explanation of vote and the use of visible countdown systems and microphone cut offs where necessary.

In addition, pre registering speakers and better planning of speaker lists would help ensure balanced participation and more predictable scheduling for delegations. Madam President, clear management is not intended to restrict debate. Rather, it is meant to ensure balance, fairness and equal opportunity for all Member States candidates to take the floor while enabling the assembly to complete its work promptly. We therefore support continued consultations on practical measures that will strengthen the discipline and effectiveness of our plenary meetings throughout this session. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Timor Leste. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Canada, followed by Romania and Peru.

Thank you, Madam President. I will be very brief. I thank you for having convened this informal meeting of the General Committee which provides Member States with an opportunity to debate these important questions and allows me to share with you and with other members our thoughts on the matter. In line with the spirit of this meeting, I will get straight to the point. When it comes to time management and time time limits for statements, Canada supports the limits you propose without hesitation.

The introduction of such limits is an important aspect of the broader process of revitalizing the General Assembly. A process that is currently underway and in which you have demonstrated exceptional leadership. I believe that we can all agree that there can be much to gain by making our meetings more efficient. And I am convinced that we can say what we need to say within the proposed time limits. And for delegations who find this too difficult, they always have the right to submit their full statements to the Secretariat.

I thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Canada. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Romania.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Thank you for convening the General Committee and opening this meeting to all Member States.

There have been a number of references to the work that we've been doing in the Revitalization Working Group and of course we've been looking at time limitations but for the explanations of votes before and after the vote. And I have to say that even on this particular issue the conversations were quite, quite intense. And we ended up of course with a strong recommendation for Member States to limit the explanations of vote to five minutes, which I think it's a good step ahead. The measure that you have developed and implemented as well as other co chairs and co facilitators in meetings of the General assembly and informed informal sessions. I think it's a very much welcome step and it's worth being supported.

I think should not create divisions is not confrontational. It I think satisfies the most important principle that we have to respect as Member States is the sovereign right of Member States to intervene in sessions of the United nations. And I myself have been faced with that just recently in the Revitalization Working Group a couple of weeks ago with my co Chair. You have to choose between allowing Member States that have requested to speak to

speak exactly within the time limitations that we have and we operate with, or not allowing them to speak. And of course we have to choose equal rights for Member States. Now I have made a calculation based on on the estimates that a UN session costs. So every minute of a UN session costs about $277. A three minute statement would cost about $833 with all the services included.

And I have to say that while we don't observe as Member States, when we're on this side of the podium as co chairs and Presidents, we do observe the important work that our interpreters for example are doing. We had to go through beyond the time limitations for particular session just to allow Member States to speak. And I do have a number of examples in the past year when a number of Member States exercised intentionally time restraints from for their statements to allow a larger number of Member States to speak. So in other words, I think we do it out of necessity. It's not something that is imposed artificially.

Limiting our statements is very much important and will serve. It's a matter of respect for all of the other Member States that need to speak in different sessions. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Romania. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Peru.

So far the last speaker on this agenda point.

I see us again. If others would like to take the floor again, please press now the bottom. Otherwise we would move to the second agenda point. Peru, please. You have gracias.

Thank you Madam for convening this meeting and for the invitation of Member States. Peru welcome your initiative with regard to time limits and recognize the constructive spirit in which it's made. We consider that effectiveness and efficiency must remain the main criteria for our work, especially in the process of revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. Peru has participated actively in the negotiations that led to the adoption of Resolution 79327 and fully understands the importance of moving towards a specific implementation. With this in mind, we value the efforts geared towards improving time management and to give more coherence and predictability to our working methods.

At the same time, as was mentioned by other states present in this room, we believe that it is essential to maintain a balance between efficiency and the sovereign equality of Member States. For many developing countries, participation in high level meetings implies significant logistical and financial efforts, especially when we're talking about travel of authorities from the capital. It is therefore important to take into account this reality when time limits are established that could significantly reduce the opportunities for intervention in these types of meetings. We understand that in the case of informal meetings characterized by more dynamic and interactive exchanges, the reduction of speaking time could contribute effectively to the debates so that all states are heard. And lastly, we believe that any adjustment in speaking time must be the result of a consensus among all Member States so that the measures adopted reflect our shared priorities and strengthen the inclusive and representative character of the General Assembly.

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Peru. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States.

Thank you, Madam President. I would just briefly return to the point that in the spirit of UN80, we think it is really critical that we address this issue with rigor.

While we recognize that there may be certain meetings, high level meetings, that there may be a need for flexibility with respect to to most meetings, we believe that the proposal that you put forward is a constructive and reasonable baseline and so would encourage delegations to continue to consider that very seriously. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate the very open and clear debate. We have heard broad support for having time limits in general. We have also heard that we should continue to discuss and try to reach consensus on this matter. The rules of procedure are clear.

This is a decision for Member States. We have also heard and again very thanks for this different proposals, how to give some flexibility and on the other hand, predictability at the same time. So having discussions at the start of each formal meeting meeting deciding case by case. And we have also heard to bring this discussion forward among others in the working group on the revitalization. If you allow, I would like to give a few observations from the practical point as also others who are chairing meeting have done so.

So if you're interested also in fact in figures, because as this is a trial basis, we also followed up who is taking the floor, who stayed in the time limits and especially with regard to smaller member states, because this has been one of the main purposes also within unad, the co chairs are here as well that obviously for smaller delegations, any reform steps also has to be checked if it's possible and feasible to implemented. And the call for predictability is especially for smaller delegations important because if we schedule meetings three hours in the morning, lunch breaks three hours in the afternoon, and we don't know if this runs five hours or three hours for smaller delegations, they would have to decide if they come back in the afternoon or if they are not coming back in the afternoon, sharing these sessions as well. From this side of the room you can see who is there and who is listening to other delegations. So the point of respect, I'm very thankful that this is being raised as well. Because if half of the room is empty, this will also give an impression for other member states as if their statements are not important enough.

Thank you very much. Also for the proposals on the technical regard. You have seen that also over the Last month that we tried different things. Speaking myself on microphone, it's very difficult to see the red light flashing here. So this is why we tried also to have the countdown on the biggest stream because microphone cuts off again I totally see the point are really harsh.

On the other hand, I have heard loud and clear the call for neutrality. And as we are in contested controversial times, the time clock is very neutral. So if the timer says three minutes or five minutes are over, you can all see it there. The point of saying we need more flexibility and if it's a President or the Vice President deciding whether this time we allow 10 seconds more or next time not, I would say this contradicts the call for neutrality. So in the further debates I would really like to invite you to recall all the different aspects in this proposal and I will continue to discuss this matter with you as the strong call was here here But I will also continue to implement all the steps we aim to bring forward in the 80th session.

Meaning also I recommend time limits for formal meetings as the majority of States have shown in the meetings so far this year, that five minutes is usually efficient and we will take decisions together in the upcoming stages steps and in this regard continue the consultation with Member States on this issue. And so far I would say also this room and space gives a great opportunity so we might come back also on this matter in the General Committee. By this I move forward to Agenda Item 2 mandated meetings during our High Level Week in Resolution 79th Rogue 327 adopted last September, the Assembly so all the Member States so all of you decided that from the 81st session on, the number of mandated meetings convened during High Level Week in the margins of the General Debate should be limited to a maximum of three, with a view to allowing adequate space and time for delegation to focus on the General Debate. However, the General assembly has already mandated five meetings to be held during High Level Week next September. So it's in contradiction to what all Member States have decided in consensus.

You will see the different topics on stream on sea level rise, pandemic preparedness, the right of to development, Durban plus 25 and the elimination of nuclear weapons. And there are also already five meetings mandated for the High Level Week both in the 82nd and 83rd session as well. So if the General assembly is to fulfill its own commitment, if we want to practice what we preach, we will need to decide which of the five meetings should be held in High Level Week and which could be held at another time or we have different topics in different sessions as we do already have for some of these topics. There are currently different options on the way forward and frankly speaking, none of them are easy. This is why I bring it here to the General Committee to discuss it with you.

All the topics for the mandated meetings are important and as such make the decision before us even more challenging. There are different approaches that we can take, whether it be straw polls, for example, if we have to pick three out of five, drawing of lots or proposals for alternate meeting dates. Yet having in mind that Also for session 82nd and 83rd, we have already more proposals than three. I therefore would like to ask you again, in an open debate for your guidance how to proceed. And I would like to on that matter and possibly have another meeting to further concrete these options available to us.

As I presided for all the high level meetings for the 80th session. Again, I would like to share my observation which was quite clear. The audience did not always match the intended level of participation. So if we call them high level meetings in a high level week, and this room where the meeting took place is not only half empty, but even less, one should really reconsider also if this is the intent of the high level meetings. Many high level meetings were attended by experts, for example.

This could be attributed to the various concurrent meetings that took place as well. So we have also other options. Any change to the mandates would of course require again a General assembly decision. So a decision by you in this regard. I open the floor to hear your ideas and proposals on how this could be done.

And as before, the members of the General Committee. First I see Argentina and the United States so far. From the members of the General Committee, a couple of non members so far. We begin with Argentina. Please, you have the floor.

Thank you, Madam President. My delegation supports the initiative aimed at limiting the proliferation of meetings. We understand that the progressive accumulation of high level events generates a structural overload that leads to eroding the quality of the debates, diluting priorities and is an obstacle to strategic focus and worsens the discussion the debates in the General Assembly. Bearing this in mind, we support what is in Article 24, which states that starting from the 81st session, there should be three high level meetings during the High Level week.

Given that during the elaboration and the adoption of resolutions that mandated these meetings, it was not mentioned that there was a potential incompatibility with Resolution 79, 327. We are now in a complex situation where it is necessary to determine which events should be held during the High level week. And bearing that in Mind, pursuant to the decisions, we think that it's up to the President of the General assembly to propose a course of action with regard to this situation for subsequent consideration by Member States. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Argentina.

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States, followed by Senegal and Saudi Arabia.

Thank you, Madam President. Colleagues, we also believe the General assembly should be disciplined in holding itself to the clear decision it took in resolutions to limit the number of high level meetings during High Level week to three meetings. In spite of that, as the President's letter has identified, there are mandates for five high level meetings for the 81st session. We appreciate the President's request for concrete proposals on how best to address this issue.

And in our view, the best approach would be for the assembly to take a decision to eliminate 22 of the meetings. This course of action would be the most efficient resolution of the issue, consistent with resolutions 79, 327 and in the spirit of UN 80 and in line with overall efforts to prioritize and streamline the Assembly's work going forward. Before the General assembly decides to organize a high level event, we would request that the President or Secretariat should ascertain whether other events on the same matter have already been mandated or if there are already over three or three events that have been scheduled. And this would allow the General assembly to consider these issues in advance, as well as the potential inherent inefficiency of hosting multiple meetings on the same issue year after year. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United States. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Senegal.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President. The limit on high level meetings on the margins of the session is a notable step forward. A decision made by Member States on having three meetings maximum, because we wanted to leave time for Member States to focus on the general debates. But now we face an extraordinary situation.

We have five meetings on the table and this situation is a result of lack of coordination between the main committees and the General Committee. So we need to ensure better coordination going forward. We cannot prioritize these meetings. They're all important.

One of those meetings was the meeting on the sea level rise. The decision to hold that meeting was made before the resolution was adopted. So that one should not be touched, so we cannot prioritize them. These are all very important meetings. The 25th anniversary is a very important one.

As well as the 40th anniversary on the right to development. Those are two very important. And the other two on pandemics and nuclear weapons. These come back Fairly frequently on the pandemic issue. We've worked on that in Geneva and here in New York.

So perhaps States could show some flexibility to keep the meeting on Sea Level rise, which was decided before the resolution was adopted, and to keep those two important meeting on Durban and the right to development, given that the other two are recurring meetings and could be held at a different date. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Senegal. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia, followed by Cabo Verde and Bangladesh.

Thank you. Madam President. We meet today to discuss this issue of importance about the High Level the general Debate and particularly the meetings during the upcoming session of the General Assembly. Paragraph 24 of Resolution 79327 clearly stipulates that starting the 81st session there must be three high level meetings maximum during the High Level Week. But the General assembly is now mandated to convene five High Level meetings during this week.

This is contradictory with the resolution and may affect the resolution. The High Level Week is a very busy week for all delegations. Delegations senior levels are engaged in delivering national statements and hold intensive meetings likely to reduce and limit effective participation and representation in High Level meetings. Therefore, to ensure compliance with resolution 79327, we may postpone the following two meetings to a date that precedes or is held after the High Level Week. The first meeting at the High Level Meeting to address the existential threats posed by the sea level rise and the second meeting, the High Level meeting to commemorate and promote the International Day for the total elimination of Nuclear Weapons.

We can hold these two meetings either before or shortly after the High Level Week. This proposal does not mean that these two meetings are not important. On the contrary, these two topics are of paramount importance and they deserve more focused discussions and High Level participation. This is why these two meetings can be held on another date other than the High Level Week. As mentioned, these meetings are recurrent or are held at least once in the past three years.

We have noticed also that level of participation and representation was short of expectation during the High Level Week due to the reasons we have mentioned, including the busy schedule during the High Level Week, we stand ready to work constructively with the office of the General President of the General assembly and all Member States in order to reach a balanced and practical solution to this problem. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Saudi Arabia and I'll give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cabo Verde.

Thank you, Madam President. I speak on behalf of EOCIS, the 37 member states that are among those most severely affected by sea level rise. We are here because we care deeply about this issue and we want to be direct. The High Level meeting on Sea Level rise must take place during High Level Week in September. For our member States, Sea level rise poses severe and irreversible threats to our coasts, our people, our livelihoods and our cultures.

The 2026 high level meeting is the culmination of a mandate from this General assembly and the critical opportunity to adopt an agreed political declaration on sea level rise. It matters enormously to us. It also matters when it happens. Our heads of state and government generally can only come to New York once a year for the general debate. That is the only time they are here.

They have committed to attend this meeting. Moving it outside of High Level Week would mean they simply could not participate. And that is not an outcome any of us should want. We would also recall that this was the first High Level meeting to be put on the agenda for High Level Week way back in 2024. We think that reflects its importance and we would also ask that this be respected.

We are confident we can work together constructively on the organization of High Level wic. But we did want to make clear how much this matters to us members of EOCs. Madam President, allow me to add the following in national capacity. Cabo Verte welcomes the convening of this informal General Committee meeting. We totally support efficient time management and discipline in speaking.

Limit times, limits on the issue of the mandated High level meetings, Cabo Vert would like to underline how important it is for the High Level meeting on Sea Level rise to happen at the very beginning of the High Level UNGA Week. Because this is when our heads of state and government speak at the general debate. If the High level meeting on sea level rise happens at the final days of the High Level UNGA Week, the high level representatives of countries like my own Cabo Vertical and others who regard sea level rise as a top priority will not be in New York anymore. And the meeting will end up downgraded to a lower level, which is not the outcome we would wish. Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cabo Verde. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Bangladesh, followed by the Lesato and the Russian Federation. Thank you, Madam President, for giving the floor Once again. We are also concerned about the proliferation of mandated meetings clustered in the High Level Week. These meetings, although they address global issues of global priority, their concentration during a single week creates overlap and limits the ability of smaller delegations to participate properly.

For ensuring high level segments to remain focused, manageable and respectful to the time allocated to the member states. These platforms must remain accessible to all members on equal footing. Equating with the.

With my Paraguayan colleagues, let me also emphasize that the ministers come from the capitals during the High Level Week and they need some flexibility in their time. And limiting the number of meetings would help us to accommodate that flexibility. So we emphasize the need for inclusive consultations with member states in mandating high level events, taking into account the already saturated calendar and exploring the alternative schedules, playing options, including holding certain meetings outside the High Level Week. Thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Bangladesh.

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Lesotho, followed by the Russian Federation, Kenya, France, Andorra, Venezuela.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. My delegation welcomes the initiative to make sure that the efficiency of this organization is achieved. Precisely for small delegations like ours, the ability to service the High Level Week is a matter that should be considered very seriously. We do welcome the proposal to review the number of meetings as proposed, but encourage inclusive consensus in order to arrive at which ones should be put where. The truth of the matter, Madam Chair, is that as you have rightly noted, though the meetings are qualified as high level, practically in the room, you would find the level contrary to what we are envisaging.

That is reason enough to review the number Again. Our proposal is that adherence to the decisions taken regarding the site events, the number of site events along the margins of the High Level Week should be adhered to because that too imposes additional stress on the small delegations to be able to participate meaningfully. For those delegations that happen to speak towards the last days of the session, the room is always empty and it's always difficult to find a reason to find people in the room. And that does not reflect well on the leaders who are speaking on those days.

Therefore, all these decisions as they are taken, these factors must be considered. While we are not compromising the importance of the topics at hand. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Lesotho. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

Thank you, Madam President.

I apologize, but I'll begin by going back to the question of speaking time limits for delegations. When you are considering options for this matter, please also take into account the length of statements made by briefers in the General assembly at both formal and informal meetings. Sometimes those statements, those briefings are quite long and then member states don't have sufficient time to speak. Now, moving on to the Question of high level meetings during the High level week. We fully supported the provisions of paragraph 24 of resolution 79.327 on limiting the number of high level meetings during the high level week.

Moreover, we believe that perhaps there should be a focus on the high level week itself and no additional events should be held during that week. Indeed, people should be able to to focus on what leaders are saying they need to be able to be in the room. That's very important. But nonetheless, we have the situation that we do. We have five General assembly decisions that already provide for holding these high level events.

And we have Resolution 79, 327. And as we all know, there's no hierarchy amongst General assembly resolutions. We're also considering paragraph 24 of resolutions 79 3, 2 7. And that's probably more of a self limitation for the General Assembly. And we regret that the Secretariat, when discussing that number of three high level meetings, failed to mention that a greater number of meetings had already been planned that would have helped us perhaps to take a decision, although perhaps some decisions were taken after.

And if those decisions were taken after the resolution was adopted, then as they were being discussed, there should have been a mention made of that limit on the number of high level events.

I will not talk about the priorities of the Russian Federation when it comes to specific meetings, specific events. I am sure that different delegations have different priorities and I doubt that we will be able to decide that some of those are more important than others. So perhaps we need to decide that. We already have mandates to hold these events. Then we must hold them this year despite the decision in the revitalization resolution.

And next year we will have to keep in mind that we have this limitation. So going forward we'll ask the Secretariat perhaps

to keep that provision of that paragraph 24 in mind and to mention during negotiations that we have this limitation.

I noticed that for next year we already have a greater number of meetings, high level meetings planned in three.

But our proposal is that perhaps whatever has been decided, whatever mandates already in place, that needs to be made a reality. Because I doubt that we'll be able to decide which of these meetings are more or less important. Although again, I repeat that we fully support the idea itself of putting a limit on these meetings. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation.

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Kenya.

Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for convening this important meeting. At the outset, let me say that Kenya supports and is committed to the revitalization of the work of the General assembly. And although we didn't take the floor during the earlier segment of the meeting, we give you our commitment to work with you to getting a good formula of ensuring that members exercise their right to deliberate on the floor of the General assembly because that's what the General assembly is supposed to do. Now on this matter of the high level meetings, we support the decision to limit the number of high level meetings in principle, although like others have noted and also as you have, Madam President, we already have more than the three that we decided to have under Resolution 79, 327.

So the dilemma therefore is which of those to have and whether to have three or five. Kenya takes the view that the General Committee might not go into the merits or the substance of the meetings because this is essentially a procedural committee. And for that reason, although all the five meetings or the agenda of the five meetings are important to us as a delegation, we find it hard to be able to determine which three out of the five should be put on the agenda in an attempt to be helpful. I hope you'll find it. So we would like to make some proposals.

The first is that we try to schedule three of the five during the High Level week itself and then perhaps push the other two earlier on in the following week so that we will not have violated the mandates which the General assembly has given. But at the same time we'll have made an attempt to uphold resolutions 279, 237. And the Saudi Arabia delegation has already made some suggestion in that regard. So that would be our first suggestion for your consideration. Then the second, in order not to appear to be subjective, would be to look at them in the order of priority when they were mandated by the General Assembly.

That is to say, those that are mandated ahead of the others then take precedence and then those that were subsequently mandated can spill over to the following week.

On that note, I would like to make an observation that the high level meeting to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development was actually mandated by resolution 79170 of 17th of December 2024. A note resolution I think it was 2078207 as was indicated in the brief from the Office of the President, what the latter resolution did was only to reiterate the decision to convene that meeting. So if the General assembly or this Committee was to adopt the decision, for instance, to organize them in order of priority, then that point should be taken into consideration. And then finally for those meetings which are mandated to be convened on an annual basis.

Our suggestion is perhaps we should make them biennial or even triennial, because as you can see, already the 81st, 82nd and 83rd sessions, we can see there is a meeting which appears, I think, on all three, and we can make judgment to just postpone that. I know the importance of the issue that one of those meetings seeks to address, especially at the moment, but I think it's useful that we take courage and just push them to happen once every two or three years. I thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Kenya. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of France, followed by Andorra, Venezuela, China.

Merci, Madame la President. Thank you, Madam. I'll try to be brief and make a statement for less than $277 based on the calculation of Romania. Madam President, it's a positive impression that there seems to be a general agreement on the limit of three events during High Level. Unfortunately, there's a regrettable aspect that is the assembly has disregarded its own decisions by having adopted, after that initial resolution, other resolutions.

We're ready to explore all possible solutions to see if we can come back to this ceiling or cap of three events. However, having said that, we understand the difficulty of this exercise and we remember the efforts of your predecessor at the 77th session who confronted a similar situation, who tried to resolve it with very limited success. Unfortunately, this is why I also believe that we need to find a lasting solution to avoid having these kinds of situations repeat themselves. This is why I fully subscribe to what the United States and Russia proposed. I think it would be an excellent idea for the Secretariat and the Chair of the Session tells the assembly when the examiner texts that they risk disregarding the limit of three events, as we did Mutatis mutandis, when we examined a text that could have had budgetary implications, we warned of this in advance.

This makes it possible, at least for the assembly to decide in full knowledge and well informed of what it's doing. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of France. Now, as we have heard it three times, and we have the Secretariat and also the President here, I would just like to clarify that the Secretariat and the President and many Chairs of the Committee have repeatedly remembered delegations that we had already three. We saw that also on international days where we decided to not have any further Member States even related in their statements to this, knowing that they are not complying with the decision being taken before.

So this is why I'm also bringing it here, because unfortunately, it didn't really help in the past, but we can continue to repeat it if other meetings are coming up. I now give the floor to Andorra, followed by Venezuela and China. Thank you, Madam Chair. When I was here many, many years ago, this house was run a little bit and I had the feeling by common sense. But when I came back, the common sense is a long time away from this house.

So I think. But also that a lot of things of common sense have been said here and it looked logical. We cannot go against our own reason. That's clear now. Some my friend Ekitela said, okay, I know that we try to use the presence of our authorities, but I believe personally that we are abusing, which is a different tone.

One thing is using and the other thing is abusing. Because it's not only the high levels, it's the bilaterals. A thousand site events, that's another madness. Impossible to go. I see my colleagues sending texts.

Please come to my site event. Come to my site eventually. We are 160 countries only and ambassador is only one. So it's very difficult to go on, especially for small delegations. And I agree that even I'm lucky that I have not so many ministers.

But I hear some colleagues bringing 10 ministers that week for a small delegation, it's madness. So it's much more intelligent to postpone for the next week other two high levels and that minister in charge of whatever the subject is can come, which makes life of civil delegations much easier because nobody's saying about suspending, but it's clear to me the coordination should be great. I think it has been said already and in the end, I think. I believe there's an agreement. France has said it and I heard to many that we all agree that more than three.

It's almost. If you ask me, I put even less. But I think we can manage to as the proposal to just do it, extend it for the next week, allowing some breath for the delegations to breathe a little bit to welcome again the other week. Whoever the dignity is are coming. But there are a lot of proposals of common sense and I think we might get the consensus, because I haven't heard anybody saying that we want to have five.

The thing is to decide which ones have one week and the other week. But if it's in the period of two weeks, I think we will find a consensus. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Andorra. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative for Venezuela.

Thank you, Madam President. We would like to simply endorse what has been said by various delegations who preceded us regarding the importance of holding a commemorative High Level meetings of the 50th anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development that should be convened and held in accordance with the mandate of the General assembly in its resolution 79208 which was adopted before resolution 79727 on so called revitalization. That meeting is not a symbolic gesture but a political and moral obligation for the countries of the south who for decades have fought for dignity, sovereignty and development of their people. It would be unfortunate that such a highly important meeting for developing countries be not held. This is why Venezuela could not support an attempt to minimize the importance.

Quite to the contrary, we reaffirm development is an inalienable human right inseparable from self determination and international justice and that this meeting is therefore of extremely high importance for us and we hope that you consider this point. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Venezuela. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of China.

The GA Resolution 79327 which was adopted by by consensus, limits the number of High level meetings during the High Level Week to a maximum of three. Chuan understands that certain reasons have led to the current contradiction where the number of meetings mandated by Member States exceeds this limit. We also understand that for Member States high level meetings all have their unique significance, making it hard to choose. Nonetheless, GA Resolution 79327 should be effectively implemented. We wish to pose a way forward for your consideration.

Could we select three hallevo meetings each year for the Hallevo Week through annual rotation or by the PGA drawing lots whilst scheduling the remaining meetings either right before or right after the High Level Week or on other dates agreed upon by Member States. China set ready to further discuss this matter with all parties to jointly enhance the quality, efficiency, effectiveness of Jay's work. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of China. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom followed by Uganda, New Zealand, Cuba, Romania and others.

Thank you President. I'll keep it brief for the reasons that have been given by others. The UK agrees that we should only be holding three high level meetings during high level week at the 81st session and beyond and we're open to ideas about how best to achieve that and we thank you and other delegations for the ideas that have been brought forward today which we will take away to consider and we look forward to your proposal as to how we might proceed. We also agree with the suggestion made by others about ensuring that the fact that three meetings have already been scheduled has brought to the attention of negotiators and resolutions. If this is already done, then perhaps we could consider how to strengthen that practice.

But certainly that we would be in favour of that. Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Uganda.

Madam President.

I have the honor to take the floor on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement. The Movement thanks you for convening this informal meeting and reiterates its full support for ongoing efforts aimed at strengthening multilateralism and enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the work of the General Assembly. The Non Aligned Movement wishes to underscore the importance it attaches to the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to development. During the 19th summit of the Non Aligned Movement which was held in January 2024 in Kampala, the heads of State and government reaffirmed their support for the convening of a high level meeting of the United Nations General assembly in 2026 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development. They further welcomed the decision to convene a one day high level segment of the General assembly at its 81st session and invited Member States to attend at the highest level of representation to ensure a meaningful and impactful celebration.

Madam President, The Non Aligned Movement reiterates that the right to development is a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of the universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Movement remains committed to promoting and protecting this right and to advancing efforts towards its full realization. In this regard, we call upon Member States to make it clear and boldly known the need to reinvigorate the implementation of the right to development as an inalienable human right. We also call upon the United nations system and the international financial institutions to mainstream the right to development into their policies and operational activities and multilateral trading frameworks. Madam President.

The Non Aligned Movement records that the convening of the commemorative meeting was mandated by the General assembly in its resolution 79120 adopted during its 79th session prior to the adoption of resolution 79327 on the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly. It is in this respect that the Movement emphasizes the importance of the full, effective and timely implementation of the mandates adopted by the General assembly in accordance with the decisions of Member States. The Movements remain, Madam Chair, fully committed to the objectives of the revitalization and improved working methods of the assembly and stands ready to engage constructively with you and with all delegations to ensure the efficient organization of work while fully respecting existing mandates. Thank you Madam Chair. I thank the distinguished representative of Uganda.

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of New Zealand.

Thank you. Since it's my first time to take the floor, I just wanted to thank you President for bringing us together. This is a really good example of pragmatic problem solving. But I think it also shows us that this is the kind of intergovernmental coordination that we need to improve and enhance our overall strategic coordination as member states. And as I wear my hat as co chair of the mandates process, I would just remind you that this is why we have included this point into that draft resolution.

I wasn't here to speak on speaking limits, so I'll be really brief. But I just wanted to say that I agree. As I walked in I heard the last few speakers talking about the importance of the sovereign right of member states to bring issues to the UN and speak on them. Fully agree with that. But it also comes with a responsibility and I agree with those speakers who said that responsibility includes respecting each other's time, but also respect respecting the right of all member states to have the opportunity to speak in different debates.

So we very overall support your proposal as a probatic and actually reflection of the common practice across many parts of the UN system. If I may take the opportunity on high level meeting, I'd like to change my hat from co chair of the mandates process and speak to you wearing my co facilitator's hat of the sea level rise process. The fact that we have five high level meetings scheduled for three slots really just demonstrates to me that we don't have the right coordination mechanisms in place. Having said that, we really do need to respect resolution 79327. And in the context of that I'd just like to offer an insight on sea level rise.

Specifically that Resolution 78, 558 was the result of a really finely balanced and I have to tell you, quite difficult negotiation between member states. And part of the final compromise was an agreement to postpone the consideration of a political declaration and then the presentation of that political declaration to the high level week in Anga 81. So that was already postponed for two years and I think it would be a really injustice to the proponents to ask them to further delay the consideration of their issue. The other thing I'd like to share as a co facilitator was I learned so much in that exercise about the multifaceted nature of sea level rise These issues of international law and sovereignty and statehood, climate action, social, cultural aspects. It's one of those multifaceted issues that needs to be dealt with in a kind of cross cutting way and I think it's really important that it's put in front of our political leaders who govern our states in that cross cutting way.

And I would make an observation that some of the other High Level meetings that are proposed are more thematic and suited to different ministerial portfolios including one quite frankly which I now put my New Zealand hat on. We've supported for many years on the total elimination of nuclear weapons but that has actually already often sat outside the main part of High Level Week already and has still had really satisfactory outcomes. So I guess when it comes down to it I agree with all of those that say we have to honour 79,327we can only have three in high level Week otherwise our own credibility is further at stake. I don't support the proposal by the US that says we do not hold the other two at all. I agree and support those who have proposed that we hold two outside of High Level Week.

So then the question is how do we decide and how do we do that? And I'd like to support the proposals made by Kenya. I think they're very pragmatic suggestions that we need to some kind of criteria or some kind of lens about how we think about these five to make decisions. I do agree that when the mandate was agreed should and could be one of those important criteria and I do agree with those who have said already this morning that whether it was mandated before or after 79327 should be an important factor in that consideration as well. Another factor as I said as well could be consideration of whether the High Level meeting has a broad interest amongst political decision makers or whether it's a more thematic focused area as well.

So I just offer that up to try and be constructive. And then in my final comment because I know I'm speaking way too long, I just really want to point out that those who made the comments about it's the Secretariat's responsibility to inform Member States that we have already not honoured our own agreement. I think we really need to look in the mirror. It's our responsibility as Member States to know that. But I do understand that we have a visibility issue we don't always know and so I think to resolve this issue going forward we need to make sure that we do agree some of the tools that we're suggesting as I put my mandates co chairs hat back on I think this idea of a mandate registry, that we can see the landscape better, improving coordination mechanisms as we propose so we don't find ourselves in these situations again is really important.

So let's support those tools for better visibility, but also, you know, let's honour the agreement that we've made and find a solution. So to that end, I don't support straw poles and, and I also don't support the idea of drawing lots. We should do this in a considered and careful manner that supports the important issues that Member States have put in front of us. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of New Zealand.

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Cuba, followed by Romania and Nicaragua. Gracia. Thank you. Madam President. Madam President, we align ourselves with the statement made on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement.

Cuba acknowledges the importance for delegations to have sufficient time to participate in the general debate. However, we'd like to highlight that the five high level meetings currently mandated for the 81st session of the General assembly are not new initiatives. They are the result of decisions and prior resolutions adopted also by the General assembly that reflect long standing commitments to important global issues. Therefore, we consider these mandates, some of them established before Resolution 79,327 should not be subject to a new limit of three high level meetings during the High Level Week. It would be contradictory that having already granted clear substantive mandates, we now attempt to establish a hierarchy among them.

This also teaches us an important lesson. While we advance in the process of revitalization, we should adopt a comprehensive and integrated approach to avoid similar situations during the subsequent sessions and avoid having to have meetings like we're having today before the 82nd session. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Cuba. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Romania. Thank you very much, Madam President. I mean, this very conversation shows how important the reform process that we have started is. And we did exactly the same in the revitalization process last, last session with the resolution.

I have to say that this decision to limit to three the number of High Level events during the High Level week was fully supported by the entire membership. And I think there was a genuine commitment. But then of course, the same member states that approved at that point in time to limit to three, and there are no more than three agreed High level meetings approved two additional High Level meetings. So I think the answer to that problem that we have should be more or less not, you know, not looking necessarily at the substance, not having an arbitrary approach, but maybe we could look at the chronological approach. I think respect Decision of the Member States on this particular matter is very much linked to the credibility of the Member States of the United nations in general.

I was just thinking how we can relate back to the capitals, you know, the notion that we do create and contradict our own decisions. So the key issue that we have to do here is to restore order and confidence in the process that we have agreed. I mean, it may not be. It may be also a good lesson to learn that we are not paying enough attention to the close to 400 resolutions that we adopt every session as well. We have to look at the monitoring mechanism as well and to be always connected to all the processes that are happening around.

I want to take a short moment, Madam President, to address another issue that was also discussed and including the revitalization resolution. It's the role of the General Committee in supporting the effort to harmonize the practice and the proceedings seen in the main committees themselves. In the revitalization group, we've been engaging with the chairs of the Committees three weeks ago. We have very good inputs and the resolution itself invites the General Committee to. To help streamlining in a comprehensive manner the work of the main committees as well, which is quite unequal and sometimes varies.

Thank you very much.

I thank the distinguished representative of Romania. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Nicaragua, followed by El Salvador in Mexico.

Madam President, Nicaragua lines itself with a statement made by Uganda on behalf of the Non Aligned Movement. Nicaragua reaffirms that the right to development is universal, human right, inalienable and an essential condition for people to live in dignity. This right allows us to close historic gaps through international cooperation, fair access to financing and an international financial environment that does not impose conditions or selection fully respecting sovereignty and national priority of the countries of the global South. Therefore, Nicaragua recalls that the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Declaration on the Right to Development was mandated by the General assembly in Resolution 71,707 before Resolution 79,327 on the revitalization. With this in mind, Nicaragu expresses concern in the face of proposals that seek to reduce or eliminate mandated meetings, including through drawing or voting, as a mechanism to adjust timetables.

We believe that this could create an undue precedent and affect us proportionately topics that are a priority for developing countries and benefit for the benefit of topics important for Western countries. The commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the right to Development must be implemented based on an existing mandate. Given its importance and visibility, this mandate should be implemented by preserving its scope and objective given its central Importance for the countries of the global south who see in this process a concrete opportunity to develop equality and meaning. Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Nicaragua.

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of El Salvador.

Thank you, Madam President, for convening this meeting of the General Committee.

First of all, Madam President, it's important to put this whole conversation in its proper context. This is not the first time that the General Committee is addressing this matter.

In particular, I'd like to remind everyone that in 2023, when for the 78th session of the General assembly, the High Level week, there were eight high level meetings. Eight. And what the president of the 77th session did was to convene this committee to try to find alternative options. There were very many good ideas voiced. Maybe we could.

Some of them, some of them were considered during the High level political forum and others. And what happened? Nothing happened. So I think it's important that this forum, this meeting, which is very valuable. It's important, but it's not the first time that we're seeking alternatives to resolve something that we ourselves have created.

That's important to recall this time.

Well, rather that time was not only meetings of Member States, but of the Secretariat. There were eight meetings that came from different initiatives back then. And this was complicated, not only for Member States who have a lot of various competing obligations, but other stakeholders as well. So in this particular occasion, my delegation is not going to advocate in favor of one meeting or others. However, we are open to hearing ideas.

And Madam President, I want to just focus on two specific points. Member States already have these tools, these instruments to take the best decisions. We're not trying to reinvent the wheel here. I'm hearing here that the Secretariat would need to inform Member States before taking a decision. It's already doing that.

What's happening is that we're not listening to the Secretary. And the truth is that it's important to examine two concrete mandates that we've already seen. One is Resolution 335 79. 33 5. Look at paragraph 20.

This paragraph requests the Secretariat to inform Member States of possible schedule impact assessments. Psi Possible schedule impact assessment. That's how something similar to pbi, but with this acronym, which was supposed to alert delegations when they have a situation of various high level meetings or events were taking place. And not only that, there's also Resolution 72313 where, which already encouraged Member States to schedule high level meetings during the first half of the year, considering obviously available resources and based on previous practices. So what's taking place there.

We have these mandates. The Secretary has to fulfill these mandates, but we simply ignore them. So, Madam President, I would ask you to please take this role, play this role of building consensus involving the chairs of the different committees so that this is a recurring process, so that we all know that we have these mandates and that if we don't want in the next few years to have this conversation once again, that we need to face up to our responsibilities. So, Madam President, I want to bring to your attention these very specific matters which I thought was very important that we should start implementing the mandates that we've given ourselves in revitalization of the General Assembly. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of El Salvador. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico, followed by Germany, South Africa and the European Union.

Thank you. Madam President, Mexico is grateful for your convening this meeting and the opportunity for Member States to participate. We agree that the scheduling of five High Level events during the High Level Week is not consistent with what is stated in Resolution 79:327. However, we also believe, given the interest expressed by various Member States and the substantive relevance of the topics to deal with, it'll be very difficult to consider the canceling or changing these mandates. And so, with that in mind and in a constructive, constructive spirit to reconcile the spirit of the resolution and the need to deal appropriately with the topics of these High Level events, one possible alternative would be to reschedule two of the commemorative events until the last days of the High Level Week, in particular to the Monday 28th or Tuesday 29th of September, or if there's an appetite to reschedule them prior to the High Level Week or just right after the High Level Week.

That's a possibility. I didn't hear any objections to that. Obviously we'd be ready to explore that as well. And in particular, my country believes that perhaps we could envision rescheduling the High Level Meeting to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the approval of the Durban Program of Action Declaration and the plenary High Level Meeting to commemorate and promote the International Day for the Elimination of All Nuclear Weapons. This has already been rescheduled at previous opportunities.

This option would make it possible to considerably ease the workload during the first days of the High Level Week which coincides with the High Level Debate. At the same time, we would ensure that both these events would be held within the framework of that week. We believe that if we decide to place these two meetings outside of the High Level Week, that should not be the case on the event on the prevention, preparation, response to pandemics or the meeting addressing the existential threats represented by increase of the sea levels. Because these two meetings are not commemorative in nature and ultimately they are

new, they bring certain novelty in substantive terms. So to conclude, we believe that.

Well, it's understandable that in this session we have more major events. Given the novelty of the decisions adopted and given that 3 of the mandates are prior to the 80th session, it's important to stick to what is stated in paragraph 25 regarding future sessions. So for this purpose we. We would like to highlight the importance should be played by the constant coordination between the membership and the secretariat so that the membership is informed on existing mandates and avoids exceeding limits. Previously agreed, and here I agree with the ambassador of El Salvador, is that we member States have an important task to play in this.

With this in mind, having a comprehensive vision, an updated vision of the mandates envisioned for the High Level Week is very important to avoid inconsistencies and to ensure rational, coherent and predictable planning and programming of our work. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Mexico. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Germany.

Madam President.

Thank you very much. Very briefly, we do believe that the decision made in the revitalization resolution is very important and that we should feel bound by it and that we should implement it, because indeed it has, as others have said, it has a wider significance for our efficiency, the working of the organization and the image it portrays. I would like, as a second point, though,

I would like to change my hat, as others have done. And I feel compelled to say on behalf of those countries who are part of the coalition against Sea Level Rise. Others I know, have spoken to the topic more at length about the history, the significance. But I, on behalf of this group,

would like to underline the importance of the topic and of the decision that has been made to have the High Level meeting against Sea Level Rise. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of Germany. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Thank you. Madam President. While South Africa supports the consideration of limiting or having fewer meetings during High Level Week, we also agree with the points made by several delegations during the session on the importance of coordination when it comes to the adoption of mandates by the various committees to ensure that whatever mandates that are adopted are in line with Resolution 79327. In this regard, we also feel that there is a need to agree or come up with a mechanism to determine on how to decide on the three meetings that should take place during High Level Week. At the same time we also see merit in the proposals again that have been made by various delegations to consider rescheduling the other two meetings to either having them before or after High Level Week.

In addition, Madam President, we also think that there may be a need to consider time limitations for these particular meetings considering the issue that we will have high level representation by either ministers or heads of State. Therefore, there may be a need to exercise some flexibility when it comes to the time limits for such meetings. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of South Africa. Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative for European Union.

Thank you, Chair. On the number of High level meetings during High Level Week, we the European Union share the concern over the growing number and support a structured forward looking approach. We recall the importance of implementing existing mandates in a balanced and pragmatic manner, including the ceiling established in Resolution 79 327. A more focused and realistic scheduling of High Level meetings strengthens political impact, visibility and inclusiveness. An overcrowded High Level Week risks fragmenting attention, reducing participation and placing a disproportionate burden on smaller and resource consumption constrained delegations.

As a way forward, we should consider ways to prevent such situations from happening in the future. We have taken good note of what the PGA has just said on this and also the Ambassador from El Salvador. But we would like to raise that as is done for program budget implications. The Secretariat and presiding office officers should call the attention of the General assembly before considering a text mandating a High Level meeting more than the maximum established by Resolution 79327. And we'll be definitely looking forward to the proposal from you, Madam President.

Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of the European Union. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Micronesia for followed by Columbia.

Thank you. Thank you Madam President for convening this meeting and allowing all Member states to participate. I do support the intervention that was made by the permanent representative of Cabo Verde on behalf of the alliance of Small Island States. And I'm grateful for the points raised by New Zealand in relations to the postponement for a number of years of the declaration and there as already a number of mention that the decision to have the meeting was already made prior to this resolution. Now if the General assembly, let's say must limit High Level Week to three mandated meetings, the one or the one of them must address sea level rise.

No other issue before us so directly affects the physical integrity of Member States and the long term security of their societies. Removing this Meeting would run counter to commitments already made by the assembly and diminish the feasibility and progress required to advance the legal, financial and resilience measure that sits urgently need. Micronesia therefore strongly supports retaining the eye level event on sea level rise as one of the three eye level events for the upcoming General Assembly. This event provides a vital platform to sustain political attention, mobilizing scientific and financial cooperation and strengthen the global response to one of the most urgent and irreversible challenges of our time. Maintaining this focus at the highest level of the UN will ensure that the voices and lived realities of the most affected states and peoples remain at the center of international decision making.

I thank you, Madam President.

I thank the distinguished representative of Micronesia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Colombia, so far the last speaker on the list.

Thank you. Taking note of the concerns expressed by the Presidency regarding the number of High level meetings currently mandated for the High Level Week.

Based on the letter of 16 February, there are five mandated meetings even though resolution 79, 327 establishes a maximum limit of three. This situation means significant demands in terms of resources and time. And so Colombia supports the possibility of rationalizing number of meetings, strengthening the effectiveness and equitable participation. Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Colombia.

I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the Philippines before closing the speaking.

Thank you, Madam President. Yeah, I'm. I just want to take the floor as the last speaker. We've heard all the statements and I just wanted to make a couple of points and I'll be speaking in my national capacity, not as the Chairman of the Sixth Committee. I just want to say that given the fact that we've already agreed to have five High Level meetings during the High Level Week, I think it would be really very difficult to go against that.

Unfortunately, that was not the decision. I think it was purely a lack of coordination. So I think we're left with that perhaps. I am actually attracted to the idea of seeing whether these five meetings could be held within or around the High Level Week. For example, I just checked the calendar.

The High Level week for the 81st is from the 22nd to the 28th of September. That's from a Tuesday to the following Monday. Now, normally most delegations arrive by the weekend on Sunday. So it might be possible to have one of the High Level meetings on the Monday of the 21st because many high Level officials will already be here. And perhaps having two or three during the high level week and then maybe one more on the 29th.

Some ministers might want to stay for an extra day anyway. This is just a suggestion that we might be able to play around with these dates because we actually have seven working days for the high level week plus one day at the end at the bookend. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Philippines. Now the Russian Federation pressed again. You want to take the floor again?

Yes, thank you, Madam President. I apologize for taking the floor. Once again I think we just heard a good proposal from the representative of the Philippines. In my view, we can't choose a priority if a decision has already been made to hold these meetings. They must be held unless we take a different decision on that matter.

So I think this is a good proposal, namely that we'll try to fit all of these meetings in to that time slot. But going forward we'll try to ensure better coordination of our decisions. Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. As if our life would not be easy.

No, difficult enough. There's another resolution I just found out from the secretariat so I want to make you aware before we take this decision that there's a 10 year old resolution that Monday is the 21st. This was not the resolution. Monday is the 21st of September and it's Yom Kippur and the GIA decided at the 69th session that no meeting should be held on these high ranking public holidays. So it's not only Yom Kippur, it's also other holidays.

But I thank the Philippines and the many other member states and your Excellencies for the different concrete proposals we have heard. Because there were more proposals before, after, as you could hear, this is a very difficult situation. We have also heard, I would say strongly that we should comply with our resolutions. Again I heard consensus. I didn't see automatic consensus here in the room on what to do so also on this.

But point I would like to come back to you. We heard the point of better coordination. I would like to reiterate what the co chair of our ad hoc working group said, the PR from New Zealand on that matter because we are in the midst of trying to fix this problem about information. So maybe you can think also because this has been come up as a new idea and I think it's really worthwhile thinking about about it that it's not only within the resolution because there have been the information ongoing in the committees that this is not in line with other resolution and maybe the coordination between the missions can be increased in this regard. But we could also think of and discussing it in the revitalization and also in the ad hoc working group resolution on having specific decisions on the high level meetings.

And this could be related also to other points where we have this duplication because many of you said we should not fix it only for the 81st session, but also for the 82nd and 83rd. And as Sam mentioned already already at the 82nd and 83rd, we do have already five meetings so far scheduled. So the point also of those who are repeating themselves could be one of being heavily reconsidered. We should have moved to the third point. And I would like to make everybody aware that this meeting was scheduled until 1 I can skip my lunch break.

But just to make it aware that we have a couple of other points now. The United States, you asked for the floor again. Do you want to come back to the agenda point too?

Yeah, thank you, Madam President. I'll be very brief, but I just wanted to note it that we also would be willing to consider this potential option of holding the meetings before or after High Level week.

And along those lines, for example, in Resolution 8193 on the Durbin High level event, the mandate actually says by no later than the last day of the general debate of the assembly at its 81st session. So maybe there could be potential options in that regard. Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of the United States States. I don't see any more microphone buttons being pressed.

So we move on to item three, impact of liquidity measures on the work of the General Assembly. From my side this has been a bit more informative point. You are all aware of the liquidity crisis impacting the organization, most recently highlighted by the Secretary General in his letter of January 28th. This stems from the non payment of assessed contribution and it's exaggerated by the to quote the Secretary General letter a Kafka situation where the UN has to return money that it never collected. I'm raising this issue today because the liquidity situation is significantly impacting the work of the General Assembly.

Also, when we speak about more meetings to be held, it is becoming more difficult to schedule meetings and to ensure the availability of services, including interpretations and discussions we had in other meetings about all the official languages. Given the urgency of the situation and the risk of a financial collapse by July. I've been raising this matter in many bilateral meetings. So far only 55 member states paid their 2026 assessment in full by the due date. Thank you to those Member States and a further 2020 since then.

So we have now 75 member states. Having paid, I call on all Member States to fulfill their financial obligation to the organization on time and in full. But given the urgency of this matter, that we cannot wait and we discussed before that we should raise the alarm bell if we have something in contradiction with our working method. This is the case right now to work together and to update the situation. So if we are impossible to continue our work after July, we have to take action before end of June on this financial situation.

Currently there are briefings by the Controller in the Fifth Committee tomorrow on the liquidity crisis. There are already different proposals on the table. There have been different proposals on the table. There had been also decision on some of these proposals. However, as we are getting in this very emergency situation to avoid spiral effects of spending reduction and to return of funds, I would strongly encourage you to look again at these different proposals in the Fifth Committee, increasing your debates on these proposals.

Because given the situation and the responsibility of the SG and the President of the General assembly to keep up this organization running, I would come back to this point if there cannot be any agreement in the Fifth Committee here also in the General Committee and the General assembly to avoid a liquidity crisis in summertime, if there's no need for discussion on this point, I would move on to point number four. Any other business? But I see the Russian Federation. If anybody else would like to take the floor for agenda item three, please press the button now while the Russian Federation is speaking. Otherwise we move on to the fourth agenda point.

Any other business?

Thank you. Once again, Madam President.

We see that there are ongoing liquidity challenges and in this regard we'd like to stress that any measures to respond to this situation must be balanced and transparent and most importantly, they must be subject to prior discussion with Member States as required by Resolution 77. 263. Austerity measures should not, and this is important, impact the ability of intergovernmental bodies to fully fulfill their functions, nor should it limit their work. We once again reaffirm the importance of paying assessments in full and all time by all Member States as an essential precondition to the organization's financial stability. We would like to draw attention to the need to ensure priority resource allocation for DGACM.

In order to ensure that conference services can continue to be provided in full to avoid a negative impact on one of the main and fundamental values of the un, which is multilingualism. The importance for full uninterrupted funding for conference services is also referenced in a recent GA resolution on the regular budget for 2026, resolution 82 42, paragraph 29, as well as resolutions 82, 34 on the plan of conferences and 78,330 on multilingualism. Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Thank you. For this meeting, we would like to make two points. First, we reiterate your call to all Member States who have not done so to pay their assessed contributions. We have done so and we invite everyone to do likewise as the situation is becoming more and more serious.

Secondly, on the Fifth Committee, I just want to stress that Switzerland is ready to do what it can to contribute to resolve this issue of credit returns. This would facilitate the resolution on financial rules and regulations as of March 12th. And we invite all delegations to contribute constructively to those negotiations. This is a topic that has been debated for many years now. We have not yet been able to find a solution.

However, we are confident that with the critical situation this year, we'll be able to make a step in the right direction. Thank you. I thank the distinguished representative of Switzerland.

I don't see any other hand being raised. Now we turn to item four. Any other business? I would like to raise the issue of appointment of co faciliators and co chairs for the various intergovernmental processes this session. This 80s session includes a record number again of intergovernmental processes, 24 in total, requiring CO faciliators and CO chairs, eight of which are still to be appointed.

Given the six months remaining in the session. Time is of essence and my office has done its best to maintain gender and geographical balance as asked for by the General assembly in the appointments. However, it becomes more difficult. So I therefore would like to to call on all Member States to reconsider again volunteering to shepherd these processes forward, especially with also the geographical balance in the appointment of Member States ensuring this institution to continue its function, meaning that Member States must step up to facilitate mandated processes. In these unstable times, your political leadership is more important than ever.

So I would be happy to receive also some volunteering to shepherd this process and thank all of those who have volunteered or are in the midst of working on the very important different resolutions and processes.

Anyone taking the floor, Russian Federation. And also, if you have any other points points under the agenda item of any other business, you may raise your hand.

Thank you. Madam President, you've touched upon a very important topic, namely the appointment of co facilitators. We are seeing how you have to keep appointing the same people over and over to various processes. Perhaps that is because others are unwilling to put themselves forward forward. And from what you've said, I understand that to be the case.

However, we would prefer to have greater transparency when it comes to the appointment of co facilitators. We propose considering how that could be insured. One option would be to put together such a list and make it public so that somewhere on the website a list would be available of those permanent representatives that are ready to take on the co facilitation of a process so that we could see that list and that could perhaps incentivize other volunteers for that list. And we trust that the appointment of facilitators will have some additional diversity. Shouldn't be the same people over and over leading all of the process.

Thank you.

I thank the distinguished representative of the Russian Federation. Just making aware that some of these topics are very sensitive as many in these times. And before I publish a list of those volunteering and we all know which topics are not having code shares at the moment, I would like to hear more member states if this is really the wish of the membership. Because we have also had many, many discussions where here missions would say we could take over a process.

But then capitals obviously have to agree to these decisions. So before taking up these proposals, I think it's very important to discuss it, especially with those who are volunteering for taking over these processes. But again, yes, everybody is welcome to volunteer and you have some see my letter on the gender balance because there it was very clear if we having less than a third of PRs being women, that we need intensively women. Now also on the geographical issue, I call again on everybody who didn't take up a co faciliation right now to contact my office. Is there any other point for the agenda?

No. Then we have concluded our agenda. And again I thank all of you for not only your participation in this meeting, but especially for your personal engagement by many PRs, DPRs and experts for their very, very precise, concrete and detailed proposal. This is exactly what we need in these times to keep up the discussion, to keep up the interactive formats of this General Committee. I heard that call to come back to many of these points.

So you can expect another invitation for this kind of setting, but also for further discussions in an informal setting. But also you're more than invited to come back directly on the different points. Also to my office and the Secretariat. My door remains open to all delegations for your suggestions on the work of the General Assembly. I wish you a good afternoon.

The meeting is adjourned. Thank you.