| Date | 12 December 1996 |
|---|
Instructions
Click on the Link to this button beside the speech or paragraph to expand it to a useful panel containing:
- The date of the speech
- A link to the original page of the PDF document
- A URL that can be used in most blogs
- A structured Citation template suitable for use in a Wikipedia article.
Those last two rows ("URL" and "wiki") use textboxes to hide most of the text.
To access this text, right-click in the textbox with your mouse and choose "Select All", then right-click again and choose "Copy". Now you can right-click into another window and choose "Paste" to get the text.
Agenda item 102
International drug control
Report of the Third Committee (A/51/611)
Report of the Fifth Committee (A/51/719)
The President
The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution recommended by the Third Committee in paragraph 9 of its report.
The report of the Fifth Committee on the programme budget implications of the draft resolution is contained in document A/51/719.
The Third Committee adopted the draft resolution entitled "International action to combat drug abuse and illicit production and trafficking" without a vote.
May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?
The President
I shall now call on the representative of the United States of America, who wishes to explain his position on the resolution just adopted.
May I remind delegations that explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.
Mr. Marrero (United States)
In the Third Committee, the United States dissociated itself from the consensus in favour of this resolution, even though we supported the text, because we had certain budgetary concerns. At this time we have agreed to join the consensus on the resolution, but on the understanding that, as the budget exercise moves towards conclusion, there will be additional offsets identified that will enable the preparations for the special session of the General Assembly called for in the resolution to go forward within the level of funds that has been approved for the current biennium.
We have certain reservations concerning the programme budget implications that I should like to highlight. First, we are concerned about the costs of the preparations for the 1998 special session outlined in the programme budget implications report presented to the General Assembly along with the draft of the resolution. We are also concerned that the costs of preparing the special session may restrict the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP), detracting from the important work of UNDCP to deliver counter-narcotics assistance programmes.
When the programme budget implications first became available, the United States and Mexico met with United Nations and UNDCP staff in New York to discuss its contents and express our concerns. The United States reluctantly dissociated itself from the Third Committee's consensus adoption of the draft resolution because those concerns were not met. Simply put, the United States could not accept any resolution that has the potential effect of increasing the United Nations budget above the established level for the current biennium -- irrespective of whether the issue is narcotics, which is a high priority, or any other issue.
The programme budget implications originally stated that $290,500 in additional resources would be required during the current biennium. Even if all six expert group meetings and their associated costs of approximately $454,500 are eliminated, the Secretariat informs us that the savings associated with their elimination would be realized mostly in the form of reducing the extrabudgetary resources component of the costs. The Secretariat noted that donors had earmarked most extrabudgetary resources for the expert group meetings, and it could not assume that donors would be willing to make those extrabudgetary resources available for other general preparations for the special session. Thus, the Secretariat concluded, an additional $222,100 in new resources would have to be drawn from the contingency fund during the current biennium. We question whether the programme budget implications has been prepared at minimal cost. We also do not believe that UNDCP should absorb these costs.
The General Assembly resolution invites the Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND) to take appropriate measures to prepare for the special session. We wholeheartedly support thorough preparations for the special session of the General Assembly, but we do not support new proposals hidden in a budgetary implications statement.
The programme budget implications have not been revised sufficiently even though there is room for budgetary savings to be found, such as, but not limited to, requiring most countries to pay their own way to the meetings and reducing the length of the CND in 1997 and 1998. We believe that the amount set aside by the Secretariat for consultant fees -- $88,000 -- and general temporary assistance -- $359,000 -- should have been reduced further.
We agree with the concept of the special session, but we regret that our wholehearted support cannot be given to these budgetary matters. We are disappointed that the Secretariat has thus far been unable to eliminate the programme budget implications associated with this resolution, which we solidly support.
The President
May I take it that it is the wish of the General Assembly to conclude its consideration of agenda item 102?
