Why Brazil Opens the UN General Assembly Before Other Countries

Every year, world leaders and government representatives gather in New York for the United Nations General Assembly to discuss major international issues.

The high-level General Debate for the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly began on Tuesday, September 22, 2026.

One of the longstanding features of the event is Brazil’s position as the first country to address the General Debate.

Here are five things to know about the tradition.

1. Why does Brazil speak first?

Brazil has delivered the opening speech at the UN General Debate since 1947, making it a longstanding diplomatic tradition.

According to the United Nations, during the early years of the organisation, countries were reluctant to be the first to address the General Assembly. Brazil repeatedly volunteered to take the opening position, and the practice eventually became an established tradition.

The United States, as the host country of the United Nations headquarters in New York, traditionally speaks immediately after Brazil.

2. Is Brazil required to speak first?

No.

There is no formal United Nations rule requiring Brazil to open the General Debate.

Instead, the position developed through diplomatic practice and has continued over the decades. What began as Brazil volunteering to speak first eventually became an established feature of the annual UN General Assembly proceedings.

3. How is the speaking order determined for other countries?

After Brazil and the United States deliver their addresses, the speaking order is determined through a combination of factors.

Heads of state generally take precedence, followed by heads of government and other government representatives, including foreign ministers.

The United Nations also considers geographical balance, the order in which requests to speak were submitted and other relevant factors when determining the sequence of speakers.

4. How long can leaders speak?

Speakers are requested to limit their General Debate statements to 15 minutes.

However, in practice, government officials can speak for longer than the recommended time.

The General Debate provides countries with an opportunity to present their positions on international matters and highlight issues considered important to their governments.

5. Why does Brazil’s opening speech attract attention?

Brazil’s position at the beginning of the General Debate means its address comes before those of the other countries participating in the main high-level discussions.

With representatives from all 193 UN member states taking part, the General Debate is one of the world’s largest annual diplomatic gatherings.

The opening position therefore gives Brazil an early opportunity to present its priorities and address the international community at the start of the debate.

The post UN General Assembly: 5 Facts Behind Brazil’s Opening Address appeared first on Housing TV Africa.

The United States has begun a sweeping withdrawal from dozens of international organisations following a directive issued by President Donald Trump, marking one of the most significant shifts in U.S. multilateral engagement in recent years.

In a presidential memorandum signed on Wednesday, Trump ordered all federal departments and agencies to immediately cease participation in, and funding for, 66 international organisations, including several United Nations agencies and non-UN bodies. The White House said the decision followed an extensive review of U.S. involvement in global institutions.

According to an official fact sheet released by the administration, the affected organisations were identified as entities that no longer align with American national interests, security priorities or economic objectives. The pullout affects 31 UN-linked bodies and 35 other international organisations.

Administration Cites Sovereignty and Cost Concerns

The White House said the decision is aimed at protecting U.S. sovereignty and ensuring that taxpayer funds are not channelled into institutions deemed ineffective or hostile to American policy positions.

Officials argued that many of the organisations promote agendas that conflict with U.S. economic strength, security interests or domestic priorities, while offering limited tangible benefits despite years of financial support.

The administration also accused some of the bodies of advancing global policy frameworks that, in its view, undermine national independence and impose regulatory or ideological standards on member states.

Climate, Human Rights, Health Agencies Affected

Among the organisations impacted are several involved in climate policy, environmental governance and international development. These include bodies linked to global climate coordination, public health initiatives, peacebuilding efforts and human rights advocacy.

The White House said U.S. participation in such institutions has often resulted in policy disagreements, criticism of American domestic decisions and limited accountability for how funds are utilised.

While specific funding figures were not disclosed, officials said billions of dollars have been committed over time with minimal measurable returns, prompting a reassessment of U.S. involvement.

Continuation of Trump’s ‘America First’ Agenda

The latest withdrawals build on earlier decisions taken since Trump’s return to office. Within days of resuming the presidency, he initiated the U.S. exit from the World Health Organization and reaffirmed the country’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement.

The administration has also challenged international tax coordination efforts, notifying global economic bodies that multilateral tax arrangements would not be enforced within the United States. Reviews were further ordered to assess whether foreign tax policies unfairly disadvantage American companies.

In addition, Trump has previously approved the U.S. withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council and ended future funding for the UN agency supporting Palestinian refugees.

Global Reaction and Policy Implications

The decision is expected to generate strong reactions from international partners, particularly as many of the affected organisations play key roles in global coordination on health, climate change, humanitarian assistance and conflict prevention.

Supporters of the move argue that it reinforces national autonomy and allows the U.S. to redirect resources toward domestic priorities such as infrastructure development, border security and military readiness.

Critics, however, warn that reduced engagement could weaken global cooperation, diminish U.S. influence on international norms and create leadership gaps in multilateral institutions.

As the withdrawals take effect, analysts say the move signals a deeper recalibration of U.S. foreign policy, with Washington increasingly favouring bilateral arrangements and domestic-focused strategies over multilateral frameworks.

The post Trump Orders U.S. Exit From 66 Global Bodies, Signals Shift in Foreign Policy appeared first on Housing TV Africa.