Your Excellency the Secretary-General, The more I have reflected on the title of this session of the General Assembly, “Restoring Trust and Managing Transformation: United Nations Delivering Results for All,” the more certain I have become of the correctness of its choice; for without mutual trust, peace and security cannot take root among States, nor can cooperation among them grow.
More than eighty years ago, the United Nations was established on the promise that law would replace the law of force. Yet we still live in a world in which wars and conflicts are increasing, and more is spent on armaments than on development, while millions face hunger, displacement and deprivation, and civilians remain the first victims.
The problem is not the absence of rules, but rather selectivity in their application, if not their non-application here and there. The sovereignty of States cannot be negotiable, nor can the rules of international law be applied to some but not to others.
Restoring trust requires respect for international law, investment in the prevention of conflicts before they erupt, and in development before poverty and deprivation turn into a source of violence, extremism and terrorism.
Development is also a matter of peace in a world where gaps are widening, where States spend more on servicing their debts than on the health of their citizens, their education and their economic well-being. Developing countries cannot be absolved of their responsibilities for reform, combating corruption and building institutions. But these efforts require a more equitable and just international economic system, one that affords them real opportunities for advancement.
Our shared responsibility is also evident in confronting the major transformations our world is witnessing. Climate change threatens the lives and livelihoods of millions, while those countries that have contributed least to its repercussions bear its harshest consequences, which requires equitable financing for adaptation and the transfer of technology.
At the same time, the revolution in artificial intelligence opens unprecedented horizons for progress in various spheres of life, but it also raises challenges related to the future of work and human rights and freedoms, in a way that calls for international governance that places the human being, his privacy and his freedom at the heart of this transformation, and ensures that we do not allow an artificial intelligence gap to emerge in addition to the existing development and wealth gaps.
Restoring trust requires that the human being feel that the law protects him, that development does not exclude him, and that progress does not bypass him.
If restoring trust is a challenge facing our world today, then for Lebanon it is not a slogan we raise, nor is managing transformation an option we discuss; rather, they are the very essence of the mission to which we committed ourselves before our people, before our Arab brethren, and before the whole world on the day I was tasked with heading the Lebanese Government.
We assumed our responsibilities while our country faces three existential challenges: to regain the trust of its people after the financial collapse and the Beirut Port explosion and the suffering and wounds they left behind; to regain its national decision so that there may be no authority above the authority of the State, no weaponry outside its armed forces, and no decision of war and peace outside its constitutional institutions; and to regain its full land from Israeli occupation and to assert its sovereignty over its entire national territory through its own capabilities, through the implementation of the Taif Agreement, and in sincere respect for the international resolutions pertaining to Lebanon, foremost among them resolution 1701, which remains to this day an essential governing reference for relations between Lebanon and Israel.
Trust is built, decision is regained, and land is liberated. That is the equation for Lebanon’s recovery. These are not three separate challenges, but three facets of one issue: restoring a State that its citizens trust, that owns its decision, and that exercises its sovereignty over all its territory.
First, the trust we seek to restore is not trust in words, but in institutions that protect rights, in a judiciary that guarantees justice, in an economy that restores prosperity to the people and to young people their opportunities for a better future.
Nor can we speak of restoring trust without recalling the Beirut Port explosion. The wound of the fourth of August remains open, and it cannot heal without truth, justice and accountability. They are inevitable.
Some may believe that our Government has not yet fulfilled everything it pledged. We do not claim that the task has been accomplished. But fairness requires that we not lose sight of the scale of the legacy we inherited: institutions stricken by paralysis, an administration whose effectiveness had receded, an economy that had lost the foundations of its growth, and a State weakened by accumulated crises and external interventions that stretched over decades.
Yet despite that, we did not make the difficulty of circumstances a pretext for retreating from our commitments.
Lebanon has embarked on a workshop of reforms on more than one front: in activating the administration, strengthening the independence of the judiciary, updating the media law, abolishing the death penalty, and completing financial reforms aimed at restoring regularity on the path towards reaching an agreement with the Fund, which would enable the recovery of deposits and constitute an indispensable lever for restoring international confidence in Lebanon and a gateway to obtaining the required financing from all regional and international partners in the tracks of economic recovery and reconstruction.
Our aim in reform is not merely to ask our people to renew their trust in the State; rather, through reform we seek to rebuild the State that deserves the trust of its people.
Second, a State does not regain the trust of its citizens through reform alone, but through regaining its national decision.
From this premise, we did not confine ourselves to affirming the exclusivity of arms in the hands of the State and confining the decision of war and peace to its constitutional institutions. Rather, we translated this commitment into decisions taken by the Council of Ministers, particularly in August and September of last year, and then in March of the current year, after Lebanon found itself in the face of a war it did not choose but that was imposed on it, despite our repeated warnings of the risks of being dragged into it.
As the war in the region widened and initiatives aimed at ending it multiplied, we held firmly to a principle that admits of no bargaining: no one speaks in the name of Lebanon, and no one negotiates on its behalf, except the Lebanese State through its constitutional institutions.
It is true that Lebanon is affected by what is taking place in its surroundings, but that does not mean that we accept being an arena for the conflicts of others, or a bargaining chip in their hands.
The future of Lebanon is not decided by proxy, and its security and stability must not be the price of settlements concluded in its absence.
Thirdly, our position on the war has been clear from the outset: we want it stopped, and we want to consolidate a ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israel from all Lebanese territory, up to our internationally recognized borders, as reaffirmed once again, in accordance with the 1949 Armistice Agreement, and we want the release of all our prisoners, and a safe and dignified return for our people to their villages and towns, and the reconstruction of what the war has destroyed.
This is what resolution 1701 stipulates.
From this standpoint, the Lebanese State entered into negotiations with Israel, under the auspices of the United States of America and its President, which are appreciated, in order to reach arrangements that guarantee an end to the war and the restoration of Lebanon’s full sovereignty.
The sovereignty to which we adhere is indivisible: it requires Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territory, and it also requires the extension of the authority of the Lebanese State, through its own forces, over its entire territory, and the restriction of arms to its hands alone.
On these two principles, and on the two rules of reciprocity and gradualism, the tripartite framework is based, which was reached in the negotiations.
But the success of any agreement is measured not by declared intentions, but by the implementation of commitments. Therefore, what is required today is to complete the translation of this framework into practical steps, within a clear timetable, and a verification mechanism that ensures the implementation of all its provisions.
In this context, I must commend the role played by the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL, and the courage of its leadership, its personnel and contingents, and their sacrifices in the cause of preserving stability and supporting the Lebanese army and implementing resolution 1701.
All thanks and appreciation from Lebanon go to every country that contributes to this force.
We have taken note of Security Council resolution 2790 for the year 2025, which provided for the end of UNIFIL operations at the end of this year, and the beginning of its gradual withdrawal, and of the Secretary-General’s request to explore the options available for continuing the implementation of resolution 1701.
What concerns us to stress, here and today, is the necessity of working to avoid the vacuum that could result from the withdrawal of UNIFIL forces if that were to take place without agreement on a new international force to assume its place, ensure the continuation of the tasks of monitoring, reporting and liaison, and complement its role with the requirements for implementing the tripartite framework.
The recovery of land does not mean only the withdrawal of occupation forces from it, but also the return of its people to it, and the return of life to their villages and towns.
The war in Lebanon has left behind a broad humanitarian crisis, and massive destruction in homes, public facilities, infrastructure and productive sectors, and has deprived large numbers of Lebanese of their homes and their sources of livelihood.
While we thank the organs of the United Nations and our international partners for their contributions to providing the funding necessary to meet humanitarian needs, we call for continued provision of the essential needs of those affected, especially the displaced, in parallel with the requirements of early recovery, reconstruction and development.
The reconstruction of the South is not merely a process of rebuilding stone; it is rebuilding people’s lives, restoring their livelihoods, and affirming their right to live in safety and dignity on their land.
Lebanon, which stands before you today, does not shirk its responsibilities, nor does it ask others to do what it is obliged to do.
We bear our responsibility in reform and in extending the authority of the State over all our lands.
But it is our right to ask that the international community assume its role in its responsibilities to ensure respect for Lebanon’s sovereignty and the implementation of the resolutions of international legitimacy.
There can be no sustainable stability in Lebanon without sustainable stability in our region, so long as this organization remains incapable of enabling the Palestinian people to exercise their inalienable right to self-determination, like all other peoples of the earth, no more and no less. This is despite the dozens of resolutions issued by this Assembly and by the Security Council, which establish clear foundations for that, not to mention the Arab Peace Initiative.
As for the tragedy of Gaza, it has laid bare before the conscience of the world and the incapacity of its institutions a stark test from which there can be no escape.
Here I must stress that drying up the funding of UNRWA or undermining it does not cancel the rights of Palestinian refugees — if this is what some seek to do — but rather threatens the opportunities for a just and lasting solution to their cause, and doubles their suffering, while also increasing the burdens on the host countries, foremost among them Lebanon.
With regard to the security situation in our region, Lebanon reiterates its solidarity with the Gulf States and Jordan in confronting the Iranian attacks that threaten the security of the region, its peace and freedom of maritime navigation. These attacks do not remain confined to the arenas of confrontation, but extend to supply chains, prices of goods, especially foodstuffs, and energy, and rates of inflation.
Allow me to conclude my statement by returning once again to the title of this session of the General Assembly: “Restoring confidence and managing transformation for all.”
The truth is that we cannot demand that States change their behavior while we do not undertake the change required in our organization so that it may achieve the hoped-for results and restore the confidence of the peoples of the world in it.
The reality is that the world has changed radically since 1945.
Colonialism has ended, Africa has risen, Asia has been transformed, new powers have emerged, the balances of the global economy have changed, and the number of Member States in the United Nations has multiplied nearly four times.
But the basic composition of the Security Council has remained captive to a historical moment dating back to the end of the Second World War.
Africa and the Arab world cannot remain outside permanent representation in the Council, nor can small and medium-sized States remain mere spectators to decisions concerning their security and future.
We know that Security Council reform is a complex issue.
But the difficulty of reform is not an argument against its necessity; rather, reform of the United Nations must begin here, with the Security Council, because it has been entrusted with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.
Therefore, Lebanon renews its joining the voice of the majority of the members of our organization in calling for the expansion of the Security Council in a manner that achieves more inclusive and just representation.
And because we are realistic, we do not call for the abolition of the veto in it, but rather for restricting its use.
when it concerns genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity and grave violations of international humanitarian law.
We want a more effective Organization because our insistence on reform in the United Nations is nothing but an Organization faithful to the objectives and principles of its Charter; more representative, more democratic, and more effective, but always renewed, so as to be equal to the challenges of our rapidly changing world, and to the aspirations of our peoples and of new generations.
Thank you.