TYB!
2023/551
General Assembly
Security Council
Distr.: General
27 July 2023
Original: English
23-14716 (E) 310723 020823
2314716
General Assembly Security Council
Seventy-seventh session
Agenda item 99
General and complete disarmament
Seventy-eighth year
Letter dated 20 July 2023 from the Chargé d’affaires a.i. of the
Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the United Nations
addressed to the Secretary-General and the President of the
Security Council
I have the honour to convey herewith an appeal by the Federation Council of
the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation to parliaments of foreign States and
international parliamentary organizations regarding the decision of the United States
to supply Ukraine with cluster munitions (see annex).
I would be grateful if the present letter and its annex could be circulated as a
document of the General Assembly, under agenda item 99, and of the Security
Council.
(Signed) Dmitry Polyanskiy
Chargé d’affaires a.i.
2/2 23-14716
Annex to the letter dated 20 July 2023 from the Chargé d’affaires
a.i. of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General and the
President of the Security Council
[Original: Russian]
Appeal by the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the
Russian Federation to parliaments of foreign States and international
parliamentary organizations regarding the decision of the United
States of America to supply Ukraine with cluster munitions
The Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation
expresses its extreme concern and condemns the provocative decision of the
Administration of the President of the United States of America to supply Ukraine
with cluster munitions.
The hypocrisy of United States Administration is clear. Whereas a year and a
half ago the White House Press Secretary called the use of cluster munitions a war
crime, Washington has now easily abandoned its previous position, changing it to an
opposite one to suit its own opportunistic interests.
We believe it necessary to recall that cluster munitions have previously been
used by the United States of America in many of the armed conflicts that it has
unleashed, from Viet Nam and Yugoslavia to Afghanistan. At the same time, the
experience of using cluster munitions in different regions of the world shows that
their unexploded elements, many years after the end of hostilities, can detonate, kill
and maim civilians, including women, children and older persons. Most of the
casualties of cluster munitions are people injured in the course of daily activities, and
one third of all reported casualties are children.
Washington cannot fail to realize that promises by the Kiev authorities to
“carefully and responsibly” use the weapons supplied, which are indiscriminate in
nature, are worth nothing. Civilians will inevitably come under attack, as they do
every time the West hands Kiev more and more lethal weapons.
By supplying cluster munitions, Washington has become complicit in the mining
of vast territories and fully responsible for the deaths and injuries of innocent
civilians. The International Committee of the Red Cross has repeatedly stated the
grave humanitarian danger of cluster munitions, which “kill and maim
indiscriminately and cause widespread human suffering.” The United Nations and
some foreign countries have already condemned the decision of the United States of
America.
Russian Federation senators note that the transfer of cluster munitions to
Ukraine is evidence of impotence amid the failure of Ukraine’s much-publicized
“counter-offensive”. In the event that the Kiev regime uses cluster munitions, the
Russian Federation reserves the right of a tough equivalent response. The latest
“miracle weapon” that Washington and Kiev are betting on will have no impact on
the course of the special military operation being conducted by the Russian
Federation. Its goals and objectives will be fully accomplished.
The Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation
appeals to parliaments of foreign States and international parliamentary organizations
to condemn the decision of the United States of America to supply Ukraine with
cluster munitions, which is yet another step towards a dangerous escalation of the
conflict and will have serious humanitarian consequences.
United Nations A/77/982
General Assembly Distr.: General
27 July 2023
Original: English
23-14811 (E) 030823
2314811
Seventy-seventh session
Agenda item 14
Culture of peace
Letter dated 27 July 2023 from the Permanent Representative of
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the
United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General
I would be grateful if you could circulate the present letter and its annex as a
document of the General Assembly under agenda item 14, in relation to the 94th
plenary meeting of the seventy-seventh session of the General Assembly, on 25 July
2023, on the resolution on promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue and
tolerance in countering hate speech (A/77/L.89).
(Signed) Barbara Woodward
Annex to the letter dated 27 July 2023 from the Permanent
Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland to the United Nations addressed to the
Secretary-General
Explanation of position on resolution A/77/L.89, entitled
“Promoting interreligious and intercultural dialogue and tolerance
in countering hate speech”
We have been clear in our position: the United Kingdom fully rejects intolerance
and discrimination. We denounce hatred on the basis of religion or belief, and we
condemn the recent incidents of the burning of the Holy Qur’an. Defending freedom
of religion or belief for all is a priority for the United Kingdom, and we shall continue
to stand up for the rights of all individuals and promote mutual respect.
As we stated during the urgent debate at the Human Rights Council in Geneva
just weeks ago, when combating religious intolerance, there is a balance to strike, and
across different societies, this balance is struck in different ways. Determining at what
point freedom of expression becomes unacceptable, and when unacceptable speech
or action should be prohibited, is a complex issue.
However, international human rights law provides us with narrowly defined
parameters in which freedom of expression can be limited. We do not accept that, by
definition, attacks on religion, including on religious texts or symbols, constitute
advocacy for hatred. Furthermore, the framework in place already defines what kind
of speech must be prohibited and what must not be restricted.
While we completely reject acts seeking to incite discrimination, hostility or
violence, we need to recognize that the primary function of the international human
rights framework is to protect individuals from the State. There are too many
examples in the world where believers – religious or not – have been oppressed by
those who are meant to guarantee their rights.
The United Kingdom has reluctantly joined consensus on this resolution. While
we thank our Moroccan colleagues for their engagement on this resolution, we are
disappointed that our efforts to find more balanced language were not fully taken on
board. We would have preferred to redouble our collective efforts to find a mutually
more agreeable position.
We remain concerned with several elements of the text, particularly language
which could suggest limitations on freedom of expression beyond what is well
established in international human rights law. We do not think it is necessary to agree
a new definition of hate speech which may undermine the existing finely balanced
position in international human rights law, which already provides a clear framework.
We therefore oppose any future attempts to agree new definitions of hate speech at
the United Nations level, including at the proposed conference in 2025. The United
Kingdom dissociates itself from the thirteenth preambular paragraph and operative
paragraph 2 of the resolution.
Our hope is that going forward we can find a way to ensure we work together
to protect and defend both freedom of religion or belief, and freedom of expression.
As a comedian anon should know, timing is everything.
Got banned again from twatterX lol for the words "Stop Yourself". That was the post. They said I was threatening harm to myself or someone. I had to appeal it, not deleting it. See how long it takes to get thier AI straightened out.