*GSL Speech – Brazil (UNHRC):

Honourable Chair, distinguished delegates,

The Federative Republic of Brazil expresses deep concern over the escalation of violence
between Iran and Israel. Brazil believes that the first priority in any conflict must be
the protection of civilians. No political or military goal can justify the loss of innocent lives.

Brazil calls upon all parties to respect International Humanitarian Law. Attacks on hospitals,
schools, and civilian centres must stop. Humanitarian aid must reach those in need without
barriers.

Secondly, Brazil stresses the importance of dialogue and diplomacy. This conflict cannot be
solved through weapons. It requires negotiations, trust-building measures, and the active role
of the international community, including the UN.

Finally, Brazil reminds this council of the link between peace and human rights. Without
security and the rule of law, human rights cannot be guaranteed. Brazil is ready to support
balanced and fair measures that protect people on all sides and strengthen respect for
international law.

In conclusion, Brazil urges de-escalation, humanitarian protection, and cooperation among

nations. Only through peace and respect for law can we safeguard the dignity of all people in
the region.

Thank you!

_____________________________________________________________________________

🔹 Backup Speech 1 (30 seconds – Moderated Caucus Intervention)

“Honourable Chair, respected delegates,

Brazil would like to remind the council that in any conflict; civilians must never be targets.
Violence cannot bring peace. The only sustainable solution lies in dialogue, diplomacy, and
respect for international humanitarian law. Brazil stands ready to work with all nations to
reduce tensions and protect human rights.

Thank you.”

🔹 Backup Speech 2 (30 seconds – If challenged by another delegate)

“Distinguished delegates,

Brazil respects different perspectives, but we believe that human life is above politics. The
suffering of innocent civilians in this conflict shows us that war only creates more pain. That is
why Brazil calls for cooperation, negotiation, and humanitarian assistance as the true path to
peace.

Thank you.”

🔹 Backup Speech 3 (45 seconds – Stronger response if debate escalates)

“Honourable Chair, fellow delegates,

Brazil would like to stress once again that our council’s primary duty is to safeguard human
rights. Attacking civilians, destroying hospitals, or blocking humanitarian aid are clear violations
of international law. Rather than blaming one side or the other, Brazil urges this council to focus
on protecting people and building common solutions. That is the spirit of multilateralism and
of this Human Rights Council.

Thank you.”

Here’s a simple English description of your GSL speech (Brazil – UNHRC, Iran–Israel agenda):

 It starts respectful and formal, saying Brazil is worried about the rising fighting between
Iran and Israel.

 Main message: protect civilians first. Ordinary people should never be harmed in war.

 Point 1: Follow international humanitarian law. Do not attack civilians, hospitals, schools,
or aid workers.

 Point 2: Use dialogue and diplomacy to reduce violence. Talk to solve problems, not
fight.

 Point 3: Give fast and safe humanitarian aid to people in need—refugees, displaced
families, and children.

 Closing: Put humanity above politics. Work together with respect and solidarity to save
lives.

In short: Brazil asks for respect for the law, protection of civilians, more diplomacy, and more
humanitarian help.

______________________________________________________________________________
1. Addressing Iran’s support for armed groups
Honourable Chair, distinguished delegates,
Brazil proposes a focused discussion on reducing support to armed groups that target
civilians. Any material support that enables attacks on civilians violates international law
and must stop. We suggest concrete steps: transparent sanctions compliance, stronger
border controls to block weapons flows, and a regional dialogue to cut financing
channels while protecting humanitarian aid. The goal is civilian safety, not escalation.
Motion for a moderated caucus on reducing external support to armed groups that harm
civilians. Thank you.

ANSWER: Iran’s regional policy is rooted in deterrence and self-defence against decades of
sanctions, isolation, and external threats; its support for allied groups is a form of
asymmetric security that has helped prevent ISIS-style destabilization and deter aggression,
while also giving Tehran leverage to push for negotiated political solutions rather than full-
scale wars.

2. The threat of Iran’s nuclear program to regional stability

Honourable Chair, respected delegates,
Brazil urges calm, diplomacy, and full compliance with safeguards to reduce nuclear
risks. We support verified non-proliferation, peaceful nuclear energy under international
oversight, and a return to credible dialogue to rebuild trust. Confidence-building
measures—expanded inspections, data transparency, and sequenced incentives—can
lower tensions and prevent miscalculation. Motion for a moderated caucus on
diplomatic steps to reduce nuclear risk and strengthen safeguards. Thank you.

3. Protecting civilians in the Iran–Israel conflict and enforcing law

Honourable Chair, fellow delegates,
Brazil calls for practical measures to shield civilians now. We propose UN-coordinated
deconfliction hotlines, pre-cleared humanitarian convoys, and time-bound ceasefire
windows to enable aid. All parties must respect international humanitarian law: no
strikes on hospitals, schools, or shelters, and rapid, impartial reviews of incidents
affecting civilians. Motion for a moderated caucus on civilian protection and compliance
with international humanitarian law in this conflict. Thank you!

 South Africa (negative)

 “Is South Africa’s stance truly about protecting civilians, or

about advancing political alignments?”
 Australia (positive)

“What best practices from Australia’s peacekeeping contributions can be applied to

protect civilians in this conflict?”

 Saudi Arabia (positive + negative)

 “Is Saudi Arabia’s stance on IHL in the Iran–Israel conflict

consistent, or shaped mainly by regional rivalries?”

 UK (negative)

“How can the UK justify its strong persuade on protecting civilians, while continuing to
supply arms to conflict zones that risk IHL violations?”

 Canada (positive + negative)

 “How does Canada justify its advocacy for civilian protection

while criticized for aligning too closely with Western blocs,
potentially compromising neutrality?”

EGYPT

“How might Egypt’s border role with Gaza contribute to humanitarian relief for civilians
affected by violence?”