General Assembly Adopts Text to Convene High-Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS in June amid Dissent over Language Referencing Civil Society, Key Populations
A draft resolution concerning a high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS took a recorded vote today in the General Assembly, as delegates disagreed on its organizational arrangements, including the participation of key populations affected by this issue and non-governmental organizations.
By a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 3 against (Belarus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and Russian Federation), with 11 abstentions, the Assembly adopted a resolution on “Organization of the 2026 high-level meeting on HIV/AIDS” (document A/80/L.57).
By its terms, the 193-member organ decided to convene a high-level meeting on 22 and 23 June, which will review progress on the 2025 targets and other commitments made in the 2021 Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS.
The text requested the President of the Assembly to organize and preside over an interactive multi-stakeholder hearing with the active participation of people living with, at risk of and affected by HIV, including key populations and other stakeholders. It also requested the President to draw up a list of representatives of relevant non-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, academic institutions and the private sector who may participate in the high-level meeting.
Assembly Rejects Two Draft Amendments, Delegates Welcome Retention of ‘Gold-Standard’ Language
Prior to its adoption, the representative of the Russian Federation, introducing two amendments (documents A/80/L.58 and A/80/L.59), said the resolution contains wording formulations “which are unacceptable to us”.
Therefore, his first amendment sought to remedy provisions concerning population groups that “should not be in the text, since it is a technical resolution” about the organizational aspects. His second amendment would delete the latter part of operative paragraph 13, concerning the participation of non-governmental organizations. It is “unacceptable” to exert pressure and impose an approach that runs counter to domestic policies, he said.
Draft amendment L.58 was rejected by a recorded vote of 77 against to 33 in favour, with 29 abstentions.
Draft amendment L.59 was also rejected by a recorded vote of 77 against to 28 in favour, with 32 abstentions.
After the adoption, several delegates welcomed the text. The representative of the United Kingdom — who requested the vote on the first amendment — called the resolution “a balanced text” and expressed appreciation for “language on civil society” which will allow for inclusive participation by key populations and broader communities. He opposed all attempts to limit involvement by people most affected by or at risk of HIV, adding that it is critical to “maintain gold-standard language” when referring to who will engage in the high-level meeting.
The United States’ representative expressed support for the 2030 target of ending AIDS as a public health threat and “the transition from donor-driven interventions to sustainable country-led programmes”. However, she said, the timeline proposed in the resolution is flawed and “additional time to plan would yield a higher-quality event”. She dissociated from the resolution’s references to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, gender ideology and “DEI terminology”. Argentina’s delegate dissociated from all references to sustainable development, while Senegal’s delegate dissociated from references to gender that do not align with the country’s policy.
Türkiye’s delegate, dissociating from operative paragraph 13, expressed concern that some non-governmental organizations may seek to abuse their participation in high-level meetings, leading to unnecessary politicization of discussions. The delegates of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Libya also expressed reservations about the term “key population groups” in operative paragraph 9, adding that it does not enjoy consensus.
Several speakers who voted in favour of the text, and voiced support for both those operative paragraphs, expressed reservations about operative paragraph 6, which reaffirmed that all participation of non-governmental stakeholders shall be conducted in accordance with the rules and procedures of the Assembly. “This language is without precedent, and its impact is unclear,” said Cyprus’s delegate, who spoke on behalf of the European Union. Canada, Australia and Norway also disassociated from that language.
Fortieth Anniversary of Chernobyl Disaster, Competing Narratives
Prior to that adoption, the Assembly held a special commemorative meeting in observance of the fortieth anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster. On 26 April 1986, an explosion in a reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant — located in what was then Soviet Union and today in Ukraine — demolished the reactor building and released immense amounts of radiation into the atmosphere.
Nearly 8.4 million people in what is now Belarus, Ukraine and the Russian Federation were exposed to the radiation. Delegates recalled that tragic event’s immediate and long-term impact — even as some of the affected countries put forward competing narratives about the disaster.
“Ukrainians have paid an enormous human, economic and environmental price” for the largest human-made disaster in human history, that country’s delegate said. “It was not an accident,” he said. The explosion was the result of a “reckless criminal experiment carried out on direct instruction from Moscow” in violation of safety protocols. Thousands of Ukrainians died as a result of radiation exposure in the immediate aftermath, millions were severely contaminated, and the city of Pripyat remains a ghost town.
Days after explosion, he said, Moscow forced people in Kyiv and other cities to hold massive May Day parades — his wife was one of the schoolchildren forced to march under invisible radioactive contamination, and she continues to live with its health consequences. In 2022, the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and its exclusion zone were among the first sites seized by Russian Federation troops, and the Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant — the largest in Europe — remains under occupation. “This nuclear nightmare must end,” he said, calling on the Russian Federation to return the plant immediately.
The representative of the Russian Federation, however, offered a different version of the incident, saying that routine tests on that spring day turned into a tragedy that demonstrated that “human beings are not all powerful; that they're capable of mistakes”. He paid tribute to the firefighters and rescue workers — “among them were Ukrainians, Belarusians and Russians” — who worked on eliminating the consequences of the catastrophe. “Today there are madmen who use it for settling political scores”, he said, adding: “Our country does not strike at nuclear infrastructure facilities or related protective facilities.”
The representative of Belarus noted that, while his country was the smallest among the three most affected, it suffered the greatest radiation impact. Almost 500 towns and villages ceased to exist, and to this day, part of Belarus’ territory is completely closed to residents. “But, we didn’t simply survive,” he stressed. Agrarians, ecologists and environmentalists worked to recover territories lost, while State programmes improved health, restored nature, built houses and conducted research.
Chernobyl Legacy Must Yield Recommitment to Openness, Accountability
The children of Chernobyl who were cared for in Cuba will always be in the hearts of the Cuban people, that country’s delegate said, as he regretted the politicization of this important topic. Cuba was one of the first to respond to the request for international assistance, he said, adding that it organized a free health programme for the children affected by this accident.
Annalena Baerbock (Germany), President of the General Assembly recalled hearing about the disaster as a five-year-old child. “Stay inside; do not touch the sand at the playground; do not drink milk,” she was warned, even though she was more than a thousand kilometres away. Over 8 million people were exposed to radiation and thousands died — “it is precisely because of this scale and reach that the international community agreed that when we develop technologies of such power, safety must always come first”, she said. She pointed out that many in the immediate vicinity did not receive appropriate health guidance. The first instinct of the then-authorities was to conceal information and delay protective measures. Remembering the disaster should serve as a recommitment to “openness and accountability”, she said.
Several speakers expressed concern about nuclear safety in the current geopolitical moment and underscored the role of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Guy Ryder, Under-Secretary-General for Policy, speaking on behalf of UN Secretary-General António Guterres, said: “Inconceivably, we have seen military activity directly impacting Chernobyl itself.” An IAEA team has continuously been supporting nuclear safety at the site since 2023, he said, adding: “There is too much at stake to risk another disaster.”
The representative of the European Union, speaking in his capacity as observer, said: “Mark this irony — Russia occupied the site of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in 2022 and recklessly struck the New Safe Confinement with a drone last year.” The Confinement is a protective arch enclosing the reactor where the explosion took place. The representative of Sweden, speaking for the Group of Western European and Other States and Japan, said the Arch must be “rehabilitated at the earliest”. She also pointed out that without the Agency, “cooperation would fragment, standards would weaken and risks would increase”.
The representative of Lithuania, also speaking for Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Norway and Sweden, said the world must also face “the sad reality that the Chernobyl tragedy was not fully acknowledged by Russia”. “As we approach a period of new reactors, new technologies and new risks, forgetting Chernobyl would be a strategic failure,” he warned, urging that “memory must lead to responsibility — and nuclear responsibility is shared”.