International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals - Item 130: note by the Secretary-General (A/81/287) Debate on the item
🇮🇱 Israel, 🇧🇦 Bosnia and Herzegovina, 🇰🇼 Kuwait, 🇷🇸 Serbia, 🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran
Thank you, Mr. President. We are disappointed, but not surprised, by the blatant misuse of this important forum by the delegation of Kuwait to weaponize empty accusations against my country without any connection to the topic at hand. It is shameful how easy it is for a member state to take any topic out of its proper context, politicize this forum, turn its work into a political spectacle and contribute to the dissemination of disinformation. This is disgraceful. But since we find ourselves in these regrettable circumstances, we are compelled to respond and set the record straight. The term genocide is not a slogan. It is a legal term that entails specific legal elements, conditions, and circumstances that must be met for the crimes to be established. Needless to say, none of these conditions are met in the circumstances Kuwait referred to. No judgment has been rendered in this regard, yet Kuwait is treating this as an established legal conclusion. The irony could not be more striking. In a debate devoted to the careful transitional functions of international criminal justice, Kuwait demonstrates precisely the dangers of its politicization and misuse of both this forum and international triabonas. Such conduct does not merely undermine the credibility of this forum. It risks eroding the very legal principles, institutions, and safeguards that the international community has worked so hard to establish and protect. Mr. President, let us be clear. Israel categorically rejects these baseless accusations. Those who should be characterized as perpetrators of genocidal terrorist acts are the Hamas Nuhba combatants who committed abhorrent atrocities during the October 7th massacre with clear intent to annihilate the State of Israel. Furthermore, Hamas leadership openly, proudly, and repeatedly declares that if possible, they will repeat the October 7th massacre time and again until the complete annihilation of the State of Israel. This, colleagues, is a genocidal agenda and demonstrate clear intent to commit anthony cleansing. Destroying the Jewish state and the Jewish people is a genocidal agenda. Recycling fabricated narratives and spreading misinformation has become too easy. Repeating buzzwords like genocide or ethnic cleansing does not make them any more applicable or true of the situation in question. It only serves to undermine and erode the moral and legal weight of this incredibly important designation. The casual misuse of these terms serves as a stark reminder to all of us of the risk posed by the continuous undermining of the legitimacy of international tribunals. This is precisely the kind of politicization and abuse that the international community has repeatedly worn against. It must be recognized as such and it must not be tolerated. International justice deserves better than political manipulation, and this assembly must not allow the language of intern uh and this assembly must not allow the language of international law to be stripped of its meaning and moral force. Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, I want to say that I absolutely agree with uh colleague who is representing Serbia and here that things related to war crimes, genocide, and other war crimes. In Bosnia and Herzegovina are a very sensitive issue, and there are no doubts about it. But today we are talking about international law, about respect of international law, about supporting of institutions that are basic pillars of international law established by this very United Nations. Today I heard in this reply a few things that I just want to point out. First thing is uh the genocide in Srebrenica is not a question of opinion. Or question of political debates. It's legally established fact. And denial of such a legally established fact is called denial of genocide and denial of the truth. Today we heard again that genocide in Srebrenica was not called that way, but as a question of opinion or political position, it is called differently. So I just want to reiterate and we again we heard that. Uh Serbia has nothing to do with it. I'm just quoting again one legal fact, which is not opinion, but legal fact, and I reiterate that the International Court of Justice found Srebrenica Serbia guilty of breaching of genocide convention by falling to prevent the Srebrenza genocide and failing to punish or transfer perpetrators such as Rat Komadic. And I quote, I just quote again the court decision was very clear. That Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at that time, Serbia and Montenegro, was in position of influence over Bosnian Serbs who devised and implemented the genocide in Srebrenica owing to the strength of the political, military, and financial links between Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at one hand and Republika Srbska and Vojska Republika Srbsky on the other hand. Those are not my opinions. These are not quotes from some historical books. These are quotes from relevant jud convict relevant statements and final judicial. Facts established by ICTY, by International Court of Justice and International Court for Crime uh ICTY. And last point, to be very precise, maybe it it is uh the best example about the nature of the facts that we heard in replying to me. Uh I was called as a Mr. Zoran Lagumjia. And as fact as that is the fact which is the truth. Everything else is the truth. First time ambassador, I'm not Mr. in here. I'm ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina and permanent representative to the United Nations. And point number two, which is even more simple to remember, my name is not Zoran. So everything that I heard from my colleague from Serbia is as truth as my name is Zoran. For the record, my name is Zlatko Lagumja. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. My delegation takes its right to reply, to exercise it. And to start, uh Mr. Chair, it is beyond me and my delegation to listen to the representative of the occupying power advocating for international law. This is the true irony in this hall. Let me remind the delegation of the occupying power of what the ICJ is. It is the International Court of Justice, the highest judicial body of the international community. And in July of 2024, it said its word crystal clear. It said that Israel's occupation to the Palestinian territories is illegal. That is international law, ladies and gentlemen. That is what we respect. That is what we uphold. Not proper propaganda. Fallacies and false narratives that this delegation is trying to spread in the United Nations will always be debunked. Because international law is very easy to defend. And Mr. Chair, when the delegation of the occupying power speaks about using words and narratives and Just calling things as they are. These are facts. Facts. How many ESS sessions have been held in this very own hall? Does he need a history lesson to be reminded of the numbers that were recorded? I don't believe so. The uh Palestinian uh situation, Mr. Cher is the easiest to defend because genocide is very blatant, apartheid is very clear, and double standards. Is extremely evident. So what the occupying powers trying to do in the occupied territories speaks for itself and gives us all what we need to debunk everything they have to say. And now, Mr. Chair, I'll move to what the delegation of Iran had to say about territories of neighboring countries being used against their attacks and them invoking Article 51. Three simple questions. Very simple. Is Kuwait International Airport a military installation? Is Kuwait's public institution for social security a military target? Alpha generation plants, water desalination facilities, and civilian oil refineries, military installations. These are among the civilian facilities struck against the attacks against my country, Mr. Chair. These are documented incidents. Not hypothetical examples. The Iranian delegation claimed to have evidence. If such evidence exists, let them present it. And thank you, Mr. Chair.
Uh I'll be very brief. Mr. President, uh first apology to uh his excellency's Latkolagum. Uh I misspelled his name uh in my address to this uh General Assembly, and uh uh when he has said that the International Court of Justice established the responsibility of the Republic of Serbia, I would like to see the part of the judgment where uh Serbian position toward the uh the fall of Srebrenica has been described in the judgment. What are the facts? If you read the judgment, you cannot see nothing about the events in Srebrenica, just qualifications that are taken from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. However, Serbia as a state is not responsible for those events. The facts established in the practice of in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the mechanism. might be qualified in a different manner. Many facts are not, let's say, properly established. Many crimes have not been established, particularly crimes against Serbs. And concerning the Srebrenice issue, serious crimes have been committed, but it is questionable whether it is genocide or not. Not even all the judges were of the same opinion concerning that. And I think that those issues we now need to put aside and to go for to go further with the mechanism and the rule of the mechanism, and there will be certainly time for the discussion of those very, very serious issues in other forums and on other occasions.
Thank you, uh Mr. President. I will be brief. Um I just want to um reiterate very basics of uh international law. I think maybe it's the uh first lesson on the public international law basic course in any university. The uh main uh differences between advisory opinion and contentious cases. It's not surprising that the representatives of Kuwait haven't found any judgments. Refer to the uh accusations that he uh accused uh me during his main uh intervention or statement. There is no any judgment who deals uh with so called allegations about so called genocide, so called ethnic cleansing or apartheid, and because of that he used just um another uh another document or advisory opinion by the ICJ. Which uh with all the respect is not a contention contentious cases. And again, I think that maybe it's just like a mistake that he referred for another uh another um accusations or another uh topic and not for the uh topics that he referred uh at the beginning. Um for the ver at the very least it's a mistake or and another attempt for m um spread misinformation, disinformation, and another political manipulation. This is part of the problem. And with regard to these uh the accusations about the um the number of the ESS in this room, I think this is also part of the problem of the politicization of this uh of this hole and how easy is to convene uh to convene uh ESS in uh in uh in this hole. Thank you.
Uh the facts are clear and the law that is applicable thereon could not be changed by uh false narrative. On 28 February 2026, my country was subjected to a blatant aggression conducted by the United States and its accomplice, the Israeli the Israeli genocidal regime. And as we mentioned, unfortunately, these ag this aggression has been enabled and facilitated. Including through the aerospace and territory of the state of Kuwait. The involvement of Kuwait in the aggression against my country is not an allegation, it's a fact, acknowledged time and again by senior officials of the United States. I believe we're not here to respond to questions, but we expect uh delegation of Kuwait to respond uh why their territory have has been used uh for aggression against my country, which has resulted in the killing of thousands of our people, including 168 school children and teachers. But uh I would like to draw the attention of the delegation of Kobait uh to the submissions that we have submitted before the UN Security Council, which includes the examples of the use of territory of Kuwait for aggression against my country, including in those um information we have submitted. Uh it states that the Kobait territory and aerospace were were repeatedly used by US F 22 F 35. F-15E and F-16 aircraft to conduct attacks against Iran, while US AVACs and MQ-9 aircraft provided intelligence support, and KC-135 aircraft conducted aerial refueling operations from the area of Koweit against my country. And to point to other evidences for uh the use of the territory of Kovit against my country, I wish to refer to the official states of the United States, where they have thanked, including Kove. for helping them in attacking my country. So these are facts and these facts could not be changed. We expect good neighborliness from the state of Kuwait as we have always demonstrated that that throughout our history. I thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President. Of course, I'm saying this. Because of the people who want to listen and who this what we are talking about may reach to for the sake of truth and uh legal facts. Uh to my distinguished representative of Serbia, I can say only that you can try to deny or completely revise history as you are doing again and again and again, and like some of your predecessors in this very hall and this very building, uh, to revise history, historical and judicial facts until. You are blown in the face, or whatever you have how long you want to do it. But the facts remain, are well known, and are easily accessible to all. So I refer to the distinguished colleague and everyone else who wants to listen and to want to know a little bit more about it to judge that everything I said can be found as a sense of legal facts on the website of ICTY and the ICJ. And I want to thank you, Mr. President, again. and there is gift for you from me, almost two minutes of my time that was available to reply. Thank you. Thank you. And uh now I call photo of the representative of uh Kuwait for the second intervention. Three minutes. Mr. Chair, it is very interesting to see what the occupying power is trying to do in this hall. That delegation loves uh media attention, but lately the attention they've been getting. in the realm of the international media is very eye-opening. And the level of shift in the opinion of the international community is something they find very, very uncomfortable. I'll tell you what they do not teach in universities when it comes to first lessons. They teach that permanent representatives should not stand on the podium of the United Nations and shred the charter. With that, I will end my reply to you and moving on to the delegation of Iran. I'm very glad they mentioned the Security Council. And speaking about the Security Council, it has spoken through Resolution 2817 of 2026. And let me remind the Iranian representative of one particular significant fact. A record number of 136 member states co sponsored that resolution. 70%, ladies and gentlemen, of the entire United Nations membership. That is seven out of every ten members. The resolution explicitly condemned Iran's attacks against Kuwait and other states in the region. So the narrative that the Iranian delegation is trying to spread here and across the board in all the different uh Committees of the General Assembly is merely false. It does not hold its weight beyond the ink on the paper. This is not merely Kuwait's position, nor is it a regional position. It is a position of the overwhelming majority of the international community. 136, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Chen.
Verbatim from the transcript. A reply is identified from its own words, the Chair's grant, or its place in the right-of-reply sequence; delegations and addressees follow the transcript's attribution.