Amid his 20-minute remarks before the United Nations General Assembly this week, Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov took time to complain about sanctions and thank U.S. President Donald Trump for ceasing support to NGOs.

“…[T]oday sanctions are, in some cases, used by individual countries as an instrument of interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states,” Japarov said. “The negative consequences of unjustified unilateral sanctions also affect small countries such as ours, which are at the stage of formation and development, and this raises concern among other small states as well.”

Japarov went on to claim that “some major states, in pursuit of their own interests, put pressure on smaller countries such as Kyrgyzstan, attempting to force them to bargain over certain matters and issuing ultimatums.”

At no point did Japarov lay out specifically what countries he believes are pressuring Kyrgyzstan, and to what end. 

Then, in the middle of his commentary about sanctions, Japarov pivoted to lauding the U.S. president – although the Trump administration has maintained the prior administration’s sanctions on various Kyrgyz entities.

“In this context, I would like to take this opportunity to note the decision made by the President of the United States His Excellency Mr. Donald Trump after taking office to halt funding of non-governmental organizations around the world,” Japarov said. “As a result, interference by NGOs in the internal affairs and policies of developing states has practically ceased.”

For Japarov, the two issues are inextricably linked. Last year at UNGA, he stated that “sanctions imposed on Kyrgyzstan are based on false information spread by certain non-governmental organizations and malicious citizens.”

Japarov has not specified which NGOs or “malicious citizens” have provided this “false information” that supposedly landed Kyrgyz business and banks on sanctions lists. 

In April, Kyrgyzstan’s Bakai Bank won a case in a Belgian commercial court against the Open Dialogue Foundation (ODF) for its publication of reports alleging that the bank was involved in the circumvention of sanctions against Russia. Note that the bank had not been sanctioned. The court classified the NGO as a “commercial enterprise,” opening it to liability as if it were a market competitor. 

As the World Liberty Congress, a global alliance of pro-democracy leaders, said in a statement: “The court required published information to meet a commercial verification standard designed for disputes between market operators, a test that is structurally impossible for any organization working in an authoritarian jurisdiction where access to primary banking records is unavailable.”

Meanwhile, also in April 2026, the EU aimed its “anti-circumvention tool” at Kyrgyzstan, the first country so targeted. In the subsequent months, Kyrgyz authorities pantomimed taking action. In June 2026, two state-owned banks claimed to have ended partnerships with more than 130 clients due to sanctions risks. In August, another round of cut connections was announced. 

However, Kyrgyz authorities have never specified which companies were affected, making it all but impossible to confirm whether companies that present actual sanctions risks have been cut loose.

According to RFE/RL’s Kyrgyz Service, Azattyk, as of June 2026, 31 companies from Kyrgyzstan were under Western sanctions, including five banks. While three Tajik banks were removed from the EU sanctions list in May, the Kyrgyz banks – such as Keremet Bank, Kapital Bank, Eurasian Savings Bank, and EcoIslamicBank – remain designated by the EU, the U.K., and/or the U.S.

After thanking Trump “for ending the funding of NGOs,” Japarov continued discussing sanctions, arguing that the decision to impose sanctions should “be taken in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and exclusively within the mandate of the Security Council.”

Kyrgyzstan this year won a non-permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council.

Japarov went on to speak of the U.N. in terms that seem divorced from the body’s current hamstrung reality. “Every decision of the United Nations should be implemented without delay. If a state fails to implement such decision and other countries cease cooperation with it, the effectiveness of sanctions will increase,” he argued.

The permanent members of the UNSC – China, Russia, France, the U.K., and the U.S. – stand on diametrically opposed ends of the global order and this has effectively neutered its possible decisiveness – whether on sanctions or anything else. For example, in September 2022, Russia vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning Moscow’s attempted annexation of parts of Ukraine. The U.S. has repeatedly blocked resolutions targeting Israel. China joined Russia earlier this month to veto an effort to extend the mandate of independent experts monitoring sanctions on Iran.

Suggesting that the UNSC become the central clearinghouse for all sanctions is effectively a call for there to be no sanctions, ever.