General Assembly Adopts Resolution Demanding Russian Federation Immediately Return Full Control of Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant to Ukrainian Authorities
Decision, Related Amendment on Civil Society Participation in Upcoming Summit of Future Also Approved
The General Assembly today adopted a resolution that demands that the Russian Federation immediately return the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant to the full control of the sovereign and competent authorities of Ukraine to ensure its safety and security, also adopting a decision and a related amendment concerning civil society participation in the high-level Summit of the Future.
Adopted by a recorded vote of 99 in favour to 9 against (Belarus, Burundi, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Eritrea, Mali, Nicaragua, Russian Federation, Syria) with 60 abstentions, the draft resolution entitled “Safety and security of nuclear facilities of Ukraine, including the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant” (document A/78/L.90) also demanded that the Russian Federation withdraw its military and other unauthorized personnel from the Plant.
By further terms, it called upon the Russian Federation, until it returns the Plant, to provide the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Support and Assistance Mission to Zaporizhzhia with timely and full access to all areas at the plant that are important for nuclear safety and security, condemning Moscow’s failure to implement relevant Assembly and IAEA resolutions. It also called for immediate cessation of the attacks by the Russian Federation against critical energy infrastructure of Ukraine.
Introducing that text, the representative of Ukraine recalled the Russian Federation’s “unimaginable” armed attack on the Zaporizhzhia Plant. Radiation knows no borders, he said, adding that his country has always been responsible about nuclear safety. Noting its cooperation with IAEA, and the resolutions adopted by that Agency regarding the Zaporizhzhia Plant, he said the Russian Federation refuses to heed those calls and continues to violate key principles of technological and physical nuclear security. Stressing that the current text is fully aligned with the IAEA mandate to address security risks during an armed conflict, he said that the international community must not “stand with our arms crossed” on this matter.
However, the representative of the Russian Federation, who spoke in explanation of position, said his country regularly provides the international community with data on the actual situation around the Plant. Turning to the draft resolution, he said that its sponsors decided to resort to “non-inclusive and non-transparent methods of work”, refusing to consider any amendment proposal from numerous delegations that sought to depoliticize it. “If Kyiv was truly interested in nuclear safety and security, it would not be carrying out regular reckless attacks on the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant and related infrastructure,” he asserted, urging States to vote against this harmful initiative which is “detached from reality”.
Syria’s delegate, who voted against the draft, said it is a highly politicized text that has “many other objectives” beyond its stated goal. She also noted the haste and lack of transparency in the drafting process. Cuba’s delegate also expressed regret about the lack of an inclusive process, adding that her delegation would have proposed certain amendments while listening carefully to other positions. This draft does not facilitate cooperation, she said, adding that it waters down the key principles of nuclear safety.
The speaker for South Africa, who abstained, highlighted the IAEA’s efforts and added that the text covers technical matters more suited for its competence rather than the General Assembly. The representative of Mexico, who also abstained, called for the preservation of the integrity of nuclear facilities in Ukraine and emphasized that attacks against them are expressly prohibited by international humanitarian law. Iran’s delegate underlined the need to end the conflict in Ukraine and stressed that any attack against nuclear facilities is prohibited, while the representative of China, who abstained, as well, stressed the importance of resuming dialogue and reaching a political settlement of the Ukraine crisis. The text does not emphasize this enough, he said.
Despite the “politically inspired elements” of the text, which do not advance the cause of peace in Ukraine, Ghana’s delegate said her delegation voted in favour of in the hope that it will serve as a practical expression of the international community’s collective aspiration for peace. The representatives of Qatar and Jordan, both of whom voted in favour, also expressed support for regional and international efforts to resolve the conflict.
Also adopted today, without a vote, was a draft decision, as amended, on “Participation of non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions and the private sector in the high-level Summit of the Future” (document A/78/L.89), by which the Assembly decided to approve the participation of 44 such entities, as listed in an annex to that decision, in the high-level Summit of the Future.
Prior to that vote, the Assembly adopted, by a recorded vote of 62 in favour to 16 against, with 53 abstentions, an amendment to the decision , which added a number of organizations to the list in its annex (document A/78/L.91).
Introducing that text, the representative of the United States stressed that civil society organizations must be able to participate in the Summit of the Future to ensure that their voices are heard and their input is provided. Partnership with civil society is vital to achieve the goals discussed in the Summit, he added.
However, a number of delegates who voted against that amendment expressed a range of concerns. The representative of Viet Nam expressed regret that the proposed amendment was introduced to bring back non-governmental organizations previously objected to by Member States. Certain organizations listed in the amendment are actively engaged in hostile acts against specific Member States, he pointed out, adding that his delegation cannot endorse their participation at the Summit. Yemen’s delegate, noting that some of the listed organizations from his country may be sympathetic and supportive of the Houthi militia, expressed surprise that the annex of the proposed amendment lists such organizations.
Several delegates stressed the importance of the no-objection procedure, with the representative of the Russian Federation said that dialogue between stakeholders must take place within the framework of this norm. Likewise, the delegates for Saudi Arabia and Cuba, both of whom abstained, said that any decision on the participation of any non-governmental organization in the Summit must be based on the no-objection procedures. Iran’s delegate also expressed concern about undermining the non-objection basis, while the speaker for Türkiye voiced concern over the way some Member States interpret civil society's participation in UN conferences and summits.
Also abstaining was Togo’s delegate who pointed out that, according to the procedure for adopting the list of non-governmental organizations invited to participate in the Summit, Member States have the right to formulate reservations regarding this list. The amendment runs counter to the spirit of the procedure.
However, the representative of Mexico stressed the Summit of the Future should allow for the participation of all non-governmental organizations. Reaffirming the need for transparency, she said the list of such organizations that were objected to was not circulated, and it is necessary to reinclude them in the list. The United Kingdom’s delegate expressed regret that some Member States continue to use the no-objection procedure to block the participation of stakeholders from civil society, private sector and academia. This procedure should not be a norm and is no longer the norm, she underscored.
The representative of the Russian Federation sought a clarification regarding the validity of the vote, which the Secretariat provided.
The Assembly also concluded its debate on "The responsibility to protect and the prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity", with several delegates cautioning against the abuse of the principle. Describing it as a “theoretical framework,” the representative of Syria stressed that it cannot be used as a pretext for interference in the internal affairs of States or for imposing unilateral coercive measures. Expressing regret that the Secretary-General’s report on the topic does not discuss occupation, military intervention and other root causes of atrocity crimes, he added that it did not consider the concerns of several delegations. Future reports should be more exhaustive, he said, recalling that this concept has a precursor in the colonial notion of the “white man’s burden”. He also highlighted the hypocrisy of Western nations in supporting the Israeli occupation while it carries out atrocity crimes in his country and elsewhere.
Ukraine’s delegate pointed out that, even though the principle of the responsibility to protect rejects the use of military force by one State against another under the pretence of protecting a population from alleged threats, the Russian Federation has launched a full-scale invasion of his country using the false pretext of protecting its population from genocide. “Almost daily, Russia continues its policy of terrorizing civilians in Ukraine by targeting critical infrastructure and residential areas,” he said. Calling on the international community to work tirelessly to create a special tribunal to hold that country accountable, he said: “This is not only about saving Ukrainian lives.” It is also about preventing further genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity everywhere where the Russian Federation’s army has been abusing the responsibility to protect principle.
Sudan’s delegate noted that the responsibility to protect is a relatively new concept and States continue to debate its meaning and implementation. Stressing that States have the primary responsibility to protect their populations, he said that the concept must not run counter to the principle of State sovereignty and non-interference in States’ internal affairs. Also, countries must not adopt arbitrary interpretations that could lead to its misuse. The responsibility to protect should not turn into another version of humanitarian intervention to achieve political goals instead of protecting civilians, he said, stressing that “if politicized, this principle will erode trust among States”.
The representative of Rwanda said that the last three decades have proven that good governance is the cornerstone of the responsibility to protect populations against genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. However, the lack of international cooperation continues to hinder coordinated action in the framework of the responsibility to protect. To protect populations against the most serious crimes, it is essential to consider cultural context and historical injustices to address the root causes of conflict. As well, the concept of sovereignty is “extremely necessary”, he emphasized, adding that “the responsibility to protect serves as a powerful reminder of our shared duty towards the preservation of humanity”.