[1][2] The theme for the 64th session was chosen by President Joseph Deiss as: "Reaffirming the central role of the United Nations in global governance."

Belgium, in its speech, stated that non-acceptance for the provisions of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT) by countries like North Korea and Iran threatened the international nonproliferation regime.

It continued by stating it was the right of every sovereign nation to develop peaceful nuclear energy under the NPT, and that Iran was not an exception in this regard.

Finally, it stated that the international community should focus more on the secret, non-safeguarded nuclear-weapon installations of the Zionist regime, and not those of the peaceful, safeguarded nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

[11] Iran responded to the United Kingdom by defending Ahmedinejad, stating that he simply raised a number of questions concerning one of the main events of the past decade.

The UAE, in its speech, demanded the return of the occupied islands of the Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu Musa, which were disputed between Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

It also asked Member States to urge Iran to engage in the peaceful initiatives of the United Arab Emirates in order to resolve the issue, either by bi-lateral negotiations or by referral to the International Court of Justice.

From allowing the Central Intelligence Agency to spy on its own citizens, to the situation of prostitution in Sweden and of the assaults, including sexual abuse, against women and girls.

It brought up the fact that there are over 300 newspapers and journals published daily in Egypt, representing views from every corner of Egyptian society and political life.

Additionally, it reminded Sweden that freedom of expression is guaranteed in the Egyptian constitution, and that Egypt has been in the lead of political reform in the Middle East.

It rejected the unfounded accusations made by the Sweden, further stating that the Chinese Government had always protected the economic, social and cultural rights of its all of its citizens.

It also stated the two countries should stop abusing the rostrum of United Nations to level politically motivated, distorted and false accusations against others.

Ethiopia, in its speech, stated that, in regards to security in the Horn of Africa region, that Eritrea had played a destructive role since its independence.

[27] Eritrea responded by accusing Ethiopia of using its speech to divert attention from its refusal to withdraw its troops from southern Eritrean territories, and of its failed attempt to support the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia.

Ethiopia then accused the Eritrean regime of waging a campaign to deflect attention from itself by bringing up the border dispute between the two states, and making Eritrea out to be an "underdog."

[28] Pakistan responded by stating that Jammu and Kashmir is not an integral part of India, but rather, an internationally recognized disputed territory that is still being considered by the United Nations.

It also mentioned that the United Nations had adopted more than a dozen resolutions calling for the settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute through a free and fair plebiscite.

Pakistan stated that India had continued to violate several United Nations resolutions, and failed to fulfill the commitments made by its leaders.

Armenia, in its speech, stated that Azerbaijan was a threat to regional peace and security through its continued denial of the right to self-determination by the people of Nagorno-Karabakh by rejecting the 1991 independence referendum.

[29] Azerbaijan responded by accusing Armenia of outrageous racist ideology, as well as by pointing out its annexationist intentions and unwillingness to settle the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict in accordance with international law.

Finally, it called on Armenia to realize that in order for peace to be achieved, there was no alternative but to put a prompt end to its illegal occupation of Azerbaijani territory.

It then commented on the situation regarding the Cheonan incident, and how sabre-rattling and arms build-ups by the United States and the ROK were leading the Korean peninsula to brink of war.

[30][31] The ROK responded by stating the findings of the joint investigation group on the sinking of the Cheonanwere the result of a thorough, objective and scientific investigation, and that its findings were endorsed by the international community in a presidential statement adopted by the Security Council on 9 July 2010 which stated that the "Security Council underscores the importance of preventing further such attacks or hostilities against the Republic of Korea or in the region."

It continued by stating the DPRK's attack constituted a grave violation of the Armistice Agreement and the principles of the United Nations Charter.

It continued by reminding Pakistan that it should concentrate on addressing the enormous challenges confronting it, such as terrorism, extremism and sectarianism, rather than making unsolicited remarks about the internal affairs of other states in an attempt to divert attention.

Finally, it finished by stating that the Indian Constitution guaranteed the fundamental rights of all Indians, including those in Jammu and Kashmir, and that, contrary to claims made by Pakistan, free and fair elections in Jammu and Kashmir had been regularly held allowing people in the region to exercised their right to franchise in order to elect their representatives.

It then accused Armenia of using the Organization to advocate for a culture of impunity and promote dangerous ideas of racial, ethnic and religious superiority.

It further asserted that it considered Armenia's behavior an open challenge to the conflict settlement process and a threat to international and regional peace and security.

It stated the ROK, in regards to the sinking of the Cheonan incident, was attempting to bring to the attention of the General Assembly an issue which not even the Security Council had prepared an appropriate judgement.

[26] It continued by reiterating that the DPRK had nothing to do with the sinking, and that the evidence presented by the ROK in the Joint Civilian-Military Investigation Group was not scientifically based or objective, and that it did nothing more but to raise conclusive doubts.