The General Assembly on October 9th elected 18 members to the Human Rights Council for the 2025-2027 term, adopted a resolution on matters regarding the assessment scale for distributing the costs of the United Nations’ expenses and concluded its debate on last month’s high-level meeting on antimicrobial resistance.
In the first order of business, Benin, Bolivia, Colombia, Cyprus, Czechia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Gambia, Iceland, Kenya, Marshall Islands, Mexico, North Macedonia, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Spain, Switzerland and Thailand were elected to the Council — an intergovernmental body within the UN system consisting of 47 States which is responsible for the promotion and protection of all human rights around the globe.
The incoming members were elected by a secret ballot. They will serve three-year terms beginning on 1 January 2025, replacing members whose terms of office are set to expire on 31 December 2024.
The outgoing members included Argentina, Benin, Cameroon, Eritrea, Finland, Gambia, Honduras, India, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Montenegro, Paraguay, Qatar, Somalia, United Arab Emirates and the United States. All were eligible for immediate re-election except those members who have served two consecutive terms — Argentina, Cameroon, Eritrea, India and Somalia.
The following States will continue to be members of the Council: Albania, Algeria, Bangladesh, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burundi, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Dominican Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Indonesia, Japan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Malawi, Maldives, Morocco, Netherlands, Romania, South Africa, Sudan and Viet Nam.
Scale of Assessments for Apportioning UN Expenses: Requests under Article 19 of UN Charter
After the elections, the Assembly adopted a draft resolution titled “Scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses of the United Nations: requests under Article 19 of the Charter”, contained in the report of its Fifth Committee (Administrative & Budgetary) (document A/79/390).
By its terms, the Assembly — urging all Member States requesting exemption under Article 19 of the UN Charter to submit as much information as needed in support of their requests — also agreed that the failure of Sao Tome and Principe and Somalia to pay the full minimum amount necessary to avoid the application of Article 19 was due to conditions beyond their control.
Further, it decided that Sao Tome and Principe and Somalia shall be permitted to vote in the General Assembly until the end of its seventy-ninth session.
Afghanistan’s representative, speaking afterwards, expressed “vigorous disapproval and deep disappointment” over the Assembly’s failure to reinstate his delegation’s right to vote and grant it an exemption under Article 19, which, he said, is “both deeply concerning and disheartening for my country”. “Despite the compelling justifications we have provided, grounded in the harsh realities faced by Afghanistan, our pleas have unfortunately been disregarded,” he stressed.
Afghanistan is currently enduring extraordinary political, social and economic challenges that “severely limit our capacity” to meet these obligations, he went on to say. “These challenges largely stem from the Taliban’s failure and unwillingness to address the ongoing crisis,” he added. “Our situation is not one of neglect or unwillingness; rather, it is linked to circumstances beyond our control,” he said. Noting that Article 19 of the Charter acknowledges such cases and provides for exemptions, he said: “This was the first time we requested a waiver under Article 19 with valid justifications, and it’s disappointing that it was not given proper considerations due to political biases from a few committee members.”
Political Declaration of High-Level Meeting on Antimicrobial Resistance
Concluding the debate which commenced on Monday (See Press Release GA/12642) under its agenda item on “Global health and foreign policy”, the Assembly heard explanations of votes on the resolution titled “Political declaration of the high-level meeting on antimicrobial resistance” (document A/79/L.5). Several speakers highlighted the importance of technology transfer in their collaboration towards this phenomenon, emphasizing the need for voluntary and mutually agreed action. They also called for adequate financing for developing countries and an elimination of unilateral coercive measures by certain developed countries.
The representative of Hungary, speaking for the European Union, in its capacity as observer, said the regional bloc has engaged collaboratively on this phenomenon through the ONE HEALTH Network and underscores the importance of technological transfer on voluntary and mutually agreed terms. Because the UN and its Member States do not endorse technology transfer that contravenes fundamental principles of intellectual property and contract law, “the process must be conducted in a way that respects the interest of all parties, fostering a climate of progress and creativity,” she noted.
Other speakers echoed this sentiment. Describing the Declaration as “the blueprint for our action to achieve a future in which all countries, regardless of their level of income, can protect the health of their citizens in the face of this threat”, Peru’s delegate appealed to Member States to redouble efforts in fighting “this global public health crisis”, adding that “all countries must urgently develop their own effective strategies tailored to their local realities to tackle this threat.”
Switzerland’s representative pointed out that, despite the importance of public–private partnerships in the development of new antimicrobials and access to them, the approach and procedures employed during the negotiations preceding the Declaration “were not optimal” and did not consider the perspectives of all delegations. She hoped it would be improved in the future, adding that, because “technology transfer is only possible if the owner of a technology decides to agree on such a transfer and accept the conditions attached to it”, Switzerland would have preferred to have such explicit reference in the document.
Uganda’s delegate, for her part, and speaking for the Group of 77 and China, said while capacity-building and technology transfer are “vital for enabling local production of antimicrobial medicines”, the international community must recognize the “damaging effect” of unilateral coercive measures on developing countries’ ability to combat the resistance. This weakens health systems and further compounds their already difficult situations, she noted. These measures should therefore be eliminated.
Supporting this claim was Iran’s speaker, who said that the Declaration’s text did not address the detrimental effects of these measures and that the risks associated with improper antimicrobial use is heightened when people’s access to medicines, vaccines and medical equipment is cut off. “Nothing could ever justify such horrific measures against people,” he lamented.
He also observed that the UN’s fundamental principle of respecting the views and priorities of Member States was “frequently disregarded” during the negotiations as “priorities of a few were accommodated at the expense of many developing Member States”. As such, the document is “an unbalanced text that ignores concerns and priories of a large number of countries by one-sidedness, deliberate obscurity and ignorance, which unfortunately prevailed over neutrality, transparency, and inclusiveness”. Iran is therefore not committed to parts of the document that contradict its national laws and regulations, he affirmed.
Other speakers raised other concerns about the text. For the United Kingdom’s delegation, there should have been stronger and more specific funding in paragraphs 37 and 38 for antimicrobial resistance, “which we know is critical to meeting our target to reduce AMR deaths by 10 per cent”. Its speaker also described as a “missed opportunity” the absence of a time-bound commitment for phasing out medically important antimicrobials for growth promotion in animal agriculture.
The delegate of the United States, attempting to address a foreign policy issue for his Government, called on the UN to respect independent mandates of other processes and institutions, including trade negotiations, and not comment on decisions and actions in other fora, including the World Trade Organization. “While the United Nations and the WTO share some common interests, they have different roles, rules and membership,” he said, further disassociating from the language “Acknowledging the need to remove trade barriers” in paragraph 82.
Informing Member States that the Russian Federation’s attacks against her country have inflicted “devastating damage” on its healthcare infrastructure, with over 1,800 health facilities damaged and 47 civilian healthcare workers killed, the representative of Ukraine said hospitals now face the challenge of maintaining infection prevention and control “crucial in preventing the spread of antimicrobial resistance”. Moscow’s actions have not only compromised Ukraine’s public health efforts but also disrupted access to essential medicines, creating conditions that may exacerbate the spread of such resistance within the region. She observed that “to suggest that Russia is a key contributor to global health while it continues destabilizing actions presents a false and harmful narrative”, adding that “our response to AMR must be based on facts and a shared understanding of the real challenges we face”.
The representative of the Russian Federation, exercising the right of reply, recalled how, on 26 September, the Ukrainian delegation used the high-level meeting on antimicrobial resistance “exclusively for the purpose of spreading their lies”. Ukraine’s actions today do nothing but undermine the pooling of global efforts geared towards preventing the spread of this resistance. It is at odds with the principles of strengthening and enhancing cooperation in this sphere, he said.o the prevention of mass atrocities through the protection and promotion of human rights.