Consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives - Item 82 (A/81/209) Expulsion of aliens - Item 80
🇺🇸 United States, 🇪🇨 Ecuador, 🇲🇽 Mexico, European Union, 🇧🇭 Bahrain, 🇮🇷 Islamic Republic of Iran, 🇷🇺 Russian Federation
sir. Thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me the floor. The United States does not intend to engage in back and forth with regard to politicized accusations, but we do feel that it is necessary to address certain comments, namely the baseless criticism that we heard from the delegation from Iran. Iran's conduct has been abhorrent when it comes to the safety and protection of diplomats. In the past two years, Iran has plotted and conducted indiscriminate attacks against civilians and diplomatic personnel. Including using its own diplomatic facilities to engage in terror operations, has sought to assassinate former U.S. diplomatic personnel, and plotted terrorist attacks against Israeli embassies. In the context of armed conflict, Iran has launched multiple attacks on Middle East based U.S. diplomatic facilities. In contrast, U.S. military operations during Operation Epic Fury were narrowly directed against specific Iranian regime capabilities to defend U.S. personnel. and basis in the region against ongoing threats to US personnel, our allies, and international stability. I thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Madam Chair. The Delegation of Ecuador is exercising its right of reply following the comments made by the Delegation of Mexico. On the occurrences in Quito in April 2024. The government of Ecuador rejects the unilateral characterization of this incident that cannot be presented in an isolated way or discopled from the exceptional circumstances that preceded what happened. The government of Mexico sought to provide diplomatic asylum to an Ecuadorian citizen, condemned, sentenced to corruption. They did this despite the diplomatic efforts undertaken by Ecuador and the official information provided to them in a timely manner on his legal situation. This dispute is being submitted to the ICJ. Ecuador appeared before this high level tribunal, and its practice our position in good faith and transparency will continue to defend it through the mechanisms provided for under international law. Madam Chair, Ecuador, recognising the historic importance of its relations with Mexico. Stands ready to find a realistic uh solution to this dispute by way of serious and constructive dialogue based on mutual respect and recognizing the legitimate concerns of both parties. This availability does not involve renouncing on our principles, the defence of the rule of law or the imperative of combating corruption and impunity. On the contrary, expressing the political willingness of the Ecuadorian government to re establish causes of understanding and to rebuild a bilateral relationship that responds to the ongoing interests of both of our peoples. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chair. On the illegal incursion of Ecuadorian authorities into the Mexican embassy in Ecuador on the fifth of April twenty twenty four, Mexico reiterates that there was no authorization whatsoever for entering our diplomatic premises. Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is clear. And I quote premises of location are inviolable. State agents of the receiving state cannot enter them without the consent of the head of mission. Videos of this incursion are very clear. The head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs expressly denied this entry into the embassy. Mexico opted for the um legal route, taking the case to the International Court of Justice. And it's important to clarify that Ecuador. Committed before the court unilaterally to complying with the request for provisional measures, the ones requested by Mexico. The court recognized this unilateral commitment as legally binding, and that's why Mexico hopes that Ecuador will adhere to this obligation. Madam Chair, as we have mentioned, and the delegation of Bangladesh just mentioned this also. And like the ICJ has also said, these are currently pending before the International Court of Justice. Subdue D say Mexico expressed um its bodies to the um this uh high level UN legal authority, including the region, reasons why my country did not comply with um obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations as well as other international obligations in terms of asylum, international cooperation and non interference. Thank you very much.
sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm on behalf of the European Union and its member states, I'm taking the floor to respond to some off-topic and unfounded allegations from the Russian fligation concerning some restrictive measures adopted by the EU in response to Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine, which constitutes a manifest violation of the UN Charter and must be stopped. The measures referred to were adopted by the Council of European Union on 23 October 2025, and they were adopted to defend the security interest of the EU and its member states. They seek to prevent members of the staff of the Russian diplomatic admissions and consular posts to possibly exploit the freedom of movement within the European Union and its member states, and to try really freely, travel freely to EU Member States where they are not accredited to carry out hostile intelligence activities. The existence of such activities that supports Russia's aggression against Ukraine, including espionage and the spreading of disinformation, is clearly established. In order to curb such practices, the persons concerned must notify the new member states concerned at least 24 hours before entering its territory, and a new member state may impose an authorization requirement on travel to or transit through its territory. I'd like to stress that these measures are consistent with the rights and obligation of member states under the two Vienna Conventions. They do not limit or restrict the rights enjoyed by members of the staff of the Russian diplomatic missions or consular posts under those two conventions in the EU member state of accreditation. In particular, they are without prejudice to the right to free movement and travel within the territory of the EU Member State of accreditation. They are also without prejudice to the right to unhindered passage through the territories of EU member states for members of the staff. Proceeding to take up or to return to their post or when returning to their own country. Moreover, every national authorization requirement is without prejudice to the obligation of member states under international law, has host countries to international and governmental organizations, and to conferences convened by or under the auspices of the United Nations. It does not apply to travel for participation in conferences and specialized agencies. It also does not apply to travel staff proceeding to take up or to return to their post or when returning to their own country. Marancheras, we have read in the report and we have heard in the room several episodes of attacks against diplomatic missions and representatives. We fail to see the relevance of the allegation of the Russian Federation, which seems to complain about the fact that members of its diplomatic corps cannot benefit from the freedom of movement within EU member states, a prerogative that the EU and EU member states give to their own citizens. If we stay on the topic of today's discussion, I would like to close by recalling that European Union leaders have strongly condemned Russia's increasingly aggressive, reckless and irresponsible behavior toward EU Member States, including threats against European diplomatic presence in Ukraine. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of the GCC member states, that's Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, as well as my own country, Bahrain, we would like to respond to what we heard from one state. Resolution 2817, a Security Council resolution. Of 2026 was co-sponsored by 136 member states. This resolution condemned the attacks which states in the region were subjected to. The resolution also called for an immediate end to these attacks, which constitute a violation of international law and a serious threat to international peace and security. Furthermore, there was a reference made to To uh Human Rights Council resolution 61 stroke one of March 2026. What we said today is also rooted in various UN resolutions. There is no need to try to manipulate reality. I thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In response to the unfounded statement of the United States delegation, I have to mention that while we categorically reject their baseless statement, we also have no interest in exchanging reply with uh a delegation who is representing uh a country that has killed thousands of our people just in a couple of months. And including one hundred and sixty-eight uh school children and teachers, including Makon Nasiri, whose whose remains were never found because of the United States devastating attack on elementary school. But uh while rejecting their statement, I have to mention that uh the delegation of US uh characterized our statement as uh criticism of US. It was not a criticism of US, it was a condemnation of the heinous attacks of the United States against my country, not just a criticism. And he referred to the so-called epic fury. I have to correct that this is this was an actually an epic failure uh at display uh as the world see saw that um my country was subjected to an aggression called Epic Failure, which resulted, unfortunately, in killing of our children children and women and our civilians. But at the end of the day, the world saw that we stood strong and defended our country against the aggressor. the United States uh has time and again Confessed that they armed terrorist groups so as to pursue the so-called regime change policy in my country. These are evidenced by the words that their officials have uttered and also in fact. And the United States is actively aiding and assisting the Israeli regime in committing genocide in Palestine. They should be responsible for this. And since 1946, there is no year in which the United States was not engaged in aggression against countries and regions in different parts of the world. So we believe the United States is the last one that uh that uh could allow itself to preach international law. In relation to another statement by a delegation, I have to mention that international law cannot be read from the middle. The events are clear. Iran was subjected to aggression. Certain countries facilitated that aggression, unfortunately. And Iran exercised its inherent right to self defense in response. And these responses these responses were conducted in full accordance with international law, including international humanitarian law. Therefore, we reject any allegation 11 against my country, including those mentioned today. And any narrative that disregards the two facts while condemning the third is fundamentally flawed. The involvement of certain states in the region in the aggression against my country is not just a fact that we are uh touching upon, but it this has been acknowledged time and again by the United States officials. And if needed, I can uh provide a comprehensive list of quotations from the US officials that thanked those states for assisting the aggressor in killing our children and women. As for the um resolution twenty eight seventeen, I have to uh mention that we have consistently maintained, including in the sixth committee. That the Security Council is neither above law nor vested with unlimited authority. Under Article 24, subparagraph two of the United Nations Charter, the Council is expressly required to act in accordance with the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Foremost among these principles is the prohibition of the threat or use of force and prohibition of aggression. Accordingly, a Security Council acting in accordance with its charter responsibility must uphold this fundamental prohibition. Unequivocally reject acts of aggression against Iran and refrain from normalizing or disregarding violations, these peremptory violations of this peremptory norm of international law. Where the Council instead provides an output that overlooks acts of aggression against my country, obscure the responsibility of aggressors, and attempt to shift blame to the estate subjected to the unlawful force, its credibility is tarnished, while any such output effectively runs counter to the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. Indeed, Article 3, subparagraph F of General Assembly Resolution 3314, expressly identified as an act of aggression the action of a state in allowing its territory to be at the disposal of another state for perpetration of aggression against a third state. Such conduct engages international responsibility under law of state responsibility. The principle of ex inuria just non erritur, that no legal right can arise from wrong, applies both to those who perpetrate aggression and those who facilitate it. Those who facilitate aggression cannot subsequently invoke a fundamentally flawed Security Council output as a shield against the consequences of their own wrongful act, nor can they transform their participation in the aggression into a lawful entitlement from protecting trying to protect themselves from self defenses of the victim. Therefore, the Islamic Republic of Iran categorically rejects Security Council Resolution 2817 as a fundamentally flawed, legally indefensible, and reconcilable with the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. By disregarding the underlying act of aggression, obscuring the responsibility of those who facilitated this aggression, the said so called resolution turns the fundamental logic of the charter on its head. This double standard ultra virus act should be rejected. I thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, to be perfectly frank, I don't want to comment the words uttered by my respected colleague from the EU. I think they don't deserve our attention. Nonetheless, I would like to draw your attention to the following. First, the EU representative, aside from Empty and absolutely pat pro forma political accusations. He has nothing to say aside from that. But that's not what I actually wanted to draw your attention to. Since we've started talking about the EU's sanctions, if my mem memory serves me well, very recently, the representative of the EU, who is also in charge of sanctions, he admitted, in fact, that there are some difficulties they've encountered. on the implementation of these sanctions because they are illegal of sorts, that's the first thing. And second, because they are a violation of international law. And here I'd like to put a full stop. I thank you.
Gracias, señora Presidenta. Thank you, Madam Chair. My delegation is exercising its right to reply for the second time following the insistence of the delegation of Mexico to present this dispute from an exclusively unilateral perspective. No state can give themselves the faculty to determine on their own what norms international law must must be observed and which can be discarded. The principles of sovereign equality, non interference, and good faith. Compel all states on an equal footing and must be comprehensively implemented, not selectively. Mexico is only pointing to Ecuador while omitting any reference to their own conduct of the decisions that led to this dispute. It's not possible to invoke diplomatic prerogatives and at the same time to disregard the limits and responsibilities that are coupled with these, nor is it the role of a foreign country to delegitimise the firm decisions adopted by competent legal bodies of another state. Madam Chair. It is necessary to clarify that the International Court of Justice rejected unanimously the provisional measures requested by Mexico against Ecuador on the 23rd of May 2024. The court supported the Ecuadorian position determining that there was no risk or urgence. Validating the commitments and um formal um offers made by the Ecuadorian states to safeguard diplomatic spaces and archives in Quito, confirming that security was fully guaranteed. Ecuador will continue to defend its rights through the corresponding institutional means and will keep the door open to dialogue that enables us to overcome this dispute and to rebuild on firm foundations the relationship between our two countries. Thank you very much.
sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to add, in response to the statement made by Ecuador and the good faith of relations between both countries, as the ICJ has already stated, there is no more fundamental prerequisite to rebuild relationships between countries than in viability of embassies. Mexico agrees that inviolity is a cornerstone of diplomatic relations, and that's why we believe that there is no justification whatsoever for not complying with this obligation. Mexico will continue to ensure compliance with international law. Thank you very much.
madam. Sorry, Madam Chair, for uh uh requesting to take the floor for a second time in order to respond to the statement by one of the countries. We just recalled that the realities are clear. The international uh position and the international community's position is clear. Security Council Resolution 2817 clearly condemned that was co-sponsored by 136 states. It condemned the attacks against our the countries in our region and called for its immediate cessation. Any attempts to manipulate these realities would not change what was clearly stated by the Security Council. Thank you, Madam Chair.
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.