General Assembly Session 50 meeting 49

The Acting President

I should like to draw the attention of members to document A/50/L.14, which contains the two amendments proposed orally by Australia this morning.

We shall now proceed to consider draft resolution A/50/L.6/Rev.1 and the amendments thereto contained in documents A/50/L.8, A/50/L.9 and A/50/L.14, the last.

In accordance with rule 90 of the rules of procedure, the amendments are voted on first. Rule 90 also stipulates that:

"When two or more amendments are moved to a proposal, the General Assembly shall first vote on the amendment furthest removed in substance from the original proposal and then on the amendment next furthest removed therefrom, and so on until all the amendments have been put to the vote. Where, however, the adoption of one amendment necessarily implies the rejection of another amendment, the latter amendment shall not be put to the vote. If one or more amendments are adopted, the amended proposal shall then be voted upon."

We shall proceed to take a decision first on the amendment proposed by Malaysia, contained in document A/50/L.9, which is furthest removed in substance from the original proposal. Depending on the result of the vote, we may or we may not vote on the amendment proposed by Japan, contained in document A/50/L.8, and on that proposed by Australia contained in paragraph 2 of document A/50/L.14. We shall then proceed to take a decision on the amendment proposed by Australia in paragraph 1 of document A/50/L.14.

If there is no objection to this procedure, I shall take it that the Assembly agrees to it.

The Acting President

The Assembly will now proceed to take a decision on draft resolution A/40/L.6/Rev.1 and the proposed amendments thereto.

I call on the representative of the Secretariat.

Mr. Perfiliev (Director, General Assembly Affairs Division)

I have been informed that the adoption of draft resolution A/50/L.6/Rev.1 would not give rise to programme budget implications.

The Acting President

Before calling on those representatives who wish to explain their votes before the voting, may I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Mr. Birenbaum (United States)

The United States has requested a vote on this draft resolution and will vote "no".

We fully appreciate and respect multilingualism and the importance of providing interpretation and access to United Nations documents in the official languages of the Organization.

We are concerned, however, that the provisions of the resolution before us go beyond accepted concepts of multilingualism within the United Nations system. The text as currently drafted raises a number of issues, not least of which is the fact that it would alter existing rules without following the proper procedures.

The second preambular paragraph introduces the concept of a "corollary" to universality, "multilingualism". To our knowledge, this concept has not been accepted by the General Assembly.

The fifth preambular paragraph is inconsistent with operative paragraph 3 in that it calls for all applicants for United Nations positions to have command of two of the official languages.

Concerning the sixth preambular paragraph, our delegation has noted on several occasions that budgetary constraints impact on all activities of the Organization and cannot be ignored.

Concerning the eighth preambular paragraph, we are not aware of any mandate which requires that the United Nations become in effect a language school for Member States and staff. In fact, the Fifth Committee, the competent body on these issues, awaits a request from the Secretary-General on the United Nations language teaching programme and will then consider the issue.

Concerning operative paragraph 3, we believe that, as drafted, the language would request the Secretary-General to ensure that competence in two languages would be a factor in promotions at all levels of the United Nations. The existing rules on language competence in relation to promotion do not apply to the support staff.

We have concerns regarding operative paragraph 4, which calls for "equality" of the two working languages in hiring and promotions. This represents a new criterion, and we are not clear as to its meaning. We assume that it is not the intent of this language to establish a quota system for hiring much like the geographical distribution system. However, the provision is ambiguous in that regard.

Finally, we note that there has been no estimate of expenditures, as required by rule 153 of the rules of procedure, for this draft resolution. From this we surmise that there will be no expenditure of any kind in implementing the provisions of this draft resolution and that, therefore, all the activities required by this draft resolution can and will be accomplished within existing resources. In our view, a paragraph to this effect should have been included in this draft resolution.

Mr. Yoogalingam (Malaysia)

I wish to take this opportunity to appeal to members of the General Assembly to give careful consideration before a vote is taken on the proposed amendment, in document A/50/L.9, to operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution in document A/50/L.6/Rev.1.

The draft resolution in that document embodies a concept dear to us all, and would contribute to the promotion of multilingualism in the Organization. However, we are of the view that it would place those countries whose native tongue is not one of the six United Nations languages at a serious disadvantage. It is indeed ironic that, in the quest to achieve parity between the six United Nations languages, those already disadvantaged would be further discriminated against.

We recognize that the revised operative paragraph 3 in document A/50/L.6/Rev.1 attempts to take on board some of the concerns expressed by those countries whose native tongue is not one of the six United Nations languages. However, we are of the view that it does not adequately address our concerns: it is inconsistent with multilingualism and does not safeguard the interests of those whose mother tongue is not one of the six United Nations languages. It would have been helpful if the sponsors of the draft resolution had been prepared to accept the word "encourage" instead of the word "ensure" in the current draft resolution. The word "encourage" is the term used in previous resolutions and is one that could help forge a consensus on this draft resolution.

As we have had insufficient time to consider the draft resolution in question, and we would request the sponsors to exercise patience and understanding for those of us who have serious problems with operative paragraph 3.