General Assembly Session 58 meeting 46

Mr. Mekprayoonthong (Thailand)

I should like to begin by joining previous speakers in expressing my sincere appreciation to the Secretary-General for his report contained in document A/58/351, which provides details of the status of implementation of actions described in last's year report (A/57/387) entitled "Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change", as well as for his other related reports. My delegation also commends the President of the Assembly for his determination to pursue this matter further as one of his top priorities for the current session. We keenly anticipate his pragmatic approach to making this session an action-oriented one. We attach great importance to the strengthening of the United Nations system and pledge our continued support for the initiatives put forward by the Secretary-General to bring about further improvements in the United Nations. As the sole universal multilateral institution, the United Nations needs to evolve with the times and changing geopolitical landscape and demonstrate renewed vigour in order to remain effective and relevant.

The exercise of strengthening the United Nations system encompasses restructuring, reform, the revitalization of its main bodies and organs and the modernization of the Secretariat. We believe that the rationalization of the work of the General Assembly is at the heart of this exercise. It may be recalled that, at the Millennium Summit in September 2000, heads of State or Government resolved to reaffirm the central position of the General Assembly as the chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the United Nations, and to enable it to play that role effectively. During the general debate this year, we also heard an overwhelming number of delegations underlining the importance and urgency of the issue of the revitalization of the General Assembly. In this regard, my delegation wishes to associate itself with the statements made yesterday by Morocco and Algeria on behalf of the Group of 77 and China and the Non-Aligned Movement, respectively. We would also like to add a few words of our own as our initial input to the process of United Nations reform. In doing so, we wish to refer to the useful note prepared by the President of the General Assembly and the Secretariat for last week's informal consultations on this issue as the departure point for our discussion.

Thailand supports the framework of action, as proposed by the President, to consider the revitalization issue under two clusters: enhancing the authority and role of the General Assembly; and improving the working methods of the General Assembly. Under the cluster relating to the authority and role of the General Assembly, my delegation fully endorses the proposals in paragraph 11 of the President's note, especially those relating to the enhancement of the General Assembly so that it can fulfil its role as envisaged in the Charter, as well as of the role of the President and the capacity of his Office. Under the cluster dealing with the working methods of the General Assembly, Thailand can go along with all proposals listed in paragraph 12, which will help to streamline the work of the General Assembly and lighten the workload of the Secretariat and Member States.

My delegation also supports the proposal to reprogramme consideration of agenda items in plenary meeting in the General Assembly and in the Main Committees over the full year of a session rather than trying to do most of the work during the last quarter of the year. The idea of thematic discussion on issues that are a pressing priority during the general debate also merits further consideration.

Success in revitalizing the work of the General Assembly hinges on a number of factors. Of paramount importance is the political will of Member States to empower the General Assembly to play the role envisaged and mandated by the Charter. In order for proposals for change to enjoy broad support and achieve consensus, discussions should be conducted openly and with transparency in an atmosphere of trust and constructive criticism. Once decisions have been reached, it is equally important to ensure that they are fully implemented. The General Assembly must find ways to ensure that its resolutions are taken seriously and implemented in national, as well as international, contexts. The 36 actions outlined by the Secretary-General in the report (A/57/387) submitted during the previous session should continue to serve as a road map guiding our deliberations, and will be useful in setting clear benchmarks for all actions requiring implementation.

Reform is certainly not an indefinite process. We must aim to deal with this daunting challenge within a specific time frame. The reform of the United Nations must be carried out in such a way as to enable the United Nations to attain the Millennium Development Goals by 2015, as intended. While there certainly is a prevailing sense of urgency with regard to the need to revitalize the General Assembly and to reform the United Nations, the momentum needs to be sustained if we are to reach the targets that we have set. My delegation remains steadfast in its support for a more effective and relevant General Assembly and United Nations. We also support the Secretary-General's initiative to set up a panel of eminent personalities and stand ready to provide further inputs and to play our part to achieve that end.

Mr. De Santa Clara Gomes (Portugal)

I fully subscribe to the statement made by the representative of Italy on behalf of the European Union. It covers all the main points raised by the President of the Assembly in his non-paper, and by other delegations in the informal consultations. I think that our suggestions should be the object of a constructive dialogue with a view to strengthening the United Nations system.

I would like to touch on just two points. The revitalization of the General Assembly is of immense political importance and is fundamental for the development of strategies aimed at achieving the goals set by the Charter.

The Assembly is the cornerstone of the Organization. It is not always fully realized that it is the main source of the legitimacy of the United Nations. This role is more than symbolic; continued neglect of this body is damaging to the whole United Nations system. The European Union points out several priorities in this matter that we must explore.

But there is one point I would stress here: the need for our debates to be more interactive. Several things can and should be done, but let me add a simple and rather minor one: let us hold most of our debates in another room. Last year when, as Vice-President, I was called on to chair meetings, I had the sensation -- which you may feel now -- that this room looks more than half empty and is too big to encourage true dialogue. Why not meet regularly in another room, when we do not expect large audiences?

Another point mentioned in the statement of the European Union is the need to address the issue of the Economic and Social Council's interaction with the Security Council, for example on post-conflict issues. This touches on the way both bodies could work better and -- more than that -- how they could respond to a fundamental goal of the international system: conflict prevention. At present not much is done, even in the case of countries with respect to which we all feel that the complexity of the social situation, the insufficiencies of the State and the economic failure should be recognized and addressed together. It is particularly striking in the case of countries in post-conflict situations where a peacekeeping operation is phased out and the country, sometimes still very vulnerable, is left alone.

We consider that in those pre- and post-conflict situations there are three needs that the international community must address: reinforcing the internal security system; building up national institutions and making the State stronger and more capable of doing its job; and, finally, creating a viable economy.

The Security Council, hard pressed with the urgent and pressing needs of a large agenda, has not, in our view, been paying sufficient attention to all those needs. And it lacks, if I may say so, the competence or the interest in these situations to add economic assistance to State-building and security needs. The Economic and Social Council has greater sensitivity to certain aspects of such problems but is not equipped to work in conflict prevention with full effectiveness.

That is why the Portuguese Prime Minister, in his intervention in the General Assembly debate, proposed the creation of a new institutional mechanism, a new commission with a mandate to routinely monitor cases of conflict prevention and promote conditions for peace and development. In conjunction with the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, which would both preserve their respective areas of competence, and under a mandate given by them, the commission could identify and deal with the most pressing needs. It would also draw up, for countries at risk -- and that is the case in most post-conflict situations and in other clearly defined situations -- integrated strategies allying the objectives of security, reinforcement of institutions, namely in the justice and administration sectors, and economic and social development. To create conditions for development, obviously, the commission would need to be closely linked with the Bretton Woods institutions and United Nations agencies.

International and donor aid will be more forthcoming if an integrated strategy is adopted with this kind of support. In terms of the United Nations budget, we think existing resources should be sufficient to cover the functioning of such a commission.

Mr. Jenie (Indonesia)

The delegation of Indonesia would like to express its appreciation to the President for convening this timely joint debate, which provides an opportunity to discuss the subject of the revitalization of the General Assembly in the context of the larger question of the reform of the United Nations. In our view, the opportunity provided by the joint debate enables us to focus on the comprehensive nature of the issue.

In our view, reform of the United Nations is justified by the fact that it is the world's premier instrument for multilateral diplomacy. The strengthening of the United Nations would, in turn, strengthen the practice of multilateralism.

In this connection, my delegation associates itself with the statement made earlier by Algeria on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement on the subject of the revitalization of the General Assembly. My delegation supports the need to re-establish the role of the General Assembly as this Organization's chief deliberative, policy-making and representative organ and to ensure that its resolutions are fully implemented.

In the effort to strengthen the United Nations system, we are particularly pleased that revitalization of the work of the General Assembly is a primary focus of the fifty-eighth session of the Assembly. In that regard, we find great reassurance in the President's expression of his readiness to take the lead in implementing those proposals of the Assembly that can be advanced at this time and to help develop further proposals leading to further revitalization of the Assembly. We are encouraged by his efforts and the non-paper that he has circulated, for which we are very grateful.

Similarly, my delegation would also like to acknowledge the recommendations contained in the note by the former President of the General Assembly on the revitalization of the General Assembly (A/57/861). We support those recommendations, in particular, the need for the President of the General Assembly to meet more frequently with the Chairpersons of the Main Committees, as well as other relevant groups, on matters involving procedure. We further support the recommendation for the Chairpersons to bring to the attention of the President proposals for further enhancing the effectiveness of the Main Committees. Taken along with other measures contained in existing resolutions designed to rationalize the agenda of the General Assembly, the recommendations in this note will certainly help to improve the work and workload of the Assembly.

With regard to specifics relating to methods of work, we share the view that the reallocation of agenda items that span a number of Main Committees is best handled in the plenary. The Main Committees should continue to develop ways of improving their own methods of work and to share that information with other committees that might be interested.

We welcome the advances that have been made in the technical areas of reform, such as I have just outlined, which concern such issues as overlapping, enhancing coordination and strengthening efficiency. At the same time, we must urge greater commitment towards progress in the strategic areas, which affects the capability of the United Nations system to uphold the objectives and principles stipulated in the Charter.

In that connection, I would also like to reaffirm how important it is for the reform of the Security Council to be undertaken without further delay. As we have stated in the past, that critically important body, which has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, must be enlarged and restructured so that it can enjoy the support and confidence of the international community. As it is currently constituted, the Security Council merely reflects the world of 50 years ago. Despite every political advance since then, the Council lacks equitable representation, and the voices of vast populations around the world are still not being sufficiently heard. We further believe that reform in this body is also required in order to bolster the legitimacy of its decision-making process.

Permit me now to make similar comments about the Economic and Social Council, which should continue to strengthen its role as the mechanism for system-wide coordination. My delegation was pleased with the Council in its 2003 coordination segment, the topic of which was the role of the Economic and Social Council in the integrated and coordinated implementation of the outcomes of and follow-up to major United Nations conferences and summits. In this regard, the Economic and Social Council decided to establish a multi-year work programme for the coordination segment of its substantive session, based on a focused and balanced list of cross-sectoral thematic issues common to the outcomes of the major United Nations conferences and summits.

Similarly, we feel that a cross-sectoral approach should be used by the Council to review the implementation of the outcomes of major United Nations conferences and summits and their follow-up processes and to assess its impact on the achievement of their goals and targets. In dealing with cross-sectoral thematic issues, the Council should invite functional commissions and other relevant follow-up mechanisms that can contribute proposals and responses from their specific perspectives. Regional commissions would help address the regional dimension of cross-cutting goals and targets. The Council should also encourage greater coordination among relevant organizations of the United Nations system, including the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization.

At the end of the day, reform must be seen in terms of how well it is helping the cause of development in the Third World, because the exercise is not reform for the sake of reform, but to achieve the objectives of development. In that connection, we share the view of the Non-Aligned Movement that it is worrisome that the impact of the reform process in the Organization is yet to be felt in the developing world. It is essential that the success of United Nations reform be judged in terms not only of the improvements in the way that the Organization functions, but also of how much more the developing countries can participate in its work and of the development benefits that they are enjoying as a result.

Let us bear in mind that the Millennium Declaration and the outcomes of the recent global conferences provide us with a compass by which we can guide development. In his report on an agenda for further change, the Secretary-General made a case for a more focused programme of work. He also noted that the nature and pace of reform implementation will depend on progress in a number of intergovernmental forums, the most significant of which is the General Assembly. The importance of the revitalization of this Assembly in taking development forward, therefore, is very clear.

In that light, while my delegation supports the Secretary-General's proposal for improving the current planning and budgeting cycle, we would like to emphasize that this process should not compromise the ability of the Organization to carry out programmes mandated by the Member States, in particular in the area of international cooperation on development. In this regard, it is the belief of my delegation that the reform process should not be considered as a budget cut.

Permit me now to recall the statement of the Secretary-General at the opening of the fifty-eighth session, in which he indicated his intention to establish a high-level panel of eminent personalities charged with examining the current challenges to peace and security; considering the contribution which collective action can make in addressing these challenges; reviewing the functioning of the major organs of the United Nations and the relationship between them; and recommending ways of strengthening the United Nations through reform of its institutions and processes.

While we fully support this initiative, we hope that the Panel will act as a catalyst for all of the reform and revitalization efforts of the United Nations. We firmly believe that the Panel will be comprised of competent, experienced personnel with appropriate backgrounds in management and the full commitment to multilateralism that is necessary to undertake an important task of this nature. My delegation eagerly looks forward to the Panel's recommendations, which the Secretary-General expects to make available to this Assembly at the next session.

In conclusion, we must find the political will to review each and every aspect of the functioning of the main bodies of the United Nations and we must be swift in realigning and repositioning them. The United Nations of 2003 bears almost no relationship to the one that was set up over 50 years ago. Unless its growth in membership and its shifting challenges are reflected in the structures and mechanisms we put in place to address them, we cannot fully fulfil the mandates of the Charter.

Mr. Mubarez (Yemen)

I thank you, Sir, for your tireless efforts to advance practical steps towards the revitalization of the General Assembly that will allow it to recover its essential role as a deliberative and decision-making organ of the United Nations. In your leadership of the General Committee, you have contributed to anchoring our work.

However, there is growing awareness of the need to exploit this heightened activity and momentum in order to achieve the objectives of reform. The Secretary-General has called for a radical reform of the Organization and all its agencies to enhance their effectiveness and openness. We are unanimous in our endorsement of these goals and would be shirking our responsibilities if we failed to seize this opportunity. It is very encouraging to note the stated commitments of the participants in this debate to United Nations reform.

The Secretary-General's efforts demonstrate that we are on the right path. We believe that it is very important for United Nations reform to be exhaustive and integrated if it is to strengthen the collective work of the entire system. It is quite clear that revitalization of the General Assembly is an integral part of such reform, since the Assembly's membership includes all Member States on an equal footing.

Today more than ever, we need international consensus to address the various challenges confronting us. Nevertheless, in the course of recent years the General Assembly has been extremely imbalanced, as evidenced by the major gap between the importance of the issues it considers and its manifest failure to resolve them -- which, of course, damages its credibility and the effectiveness of its role. While many resolutions have been adopted on this topic, most of them -- as noted in the statement issued by the Non-Aligned Movement -- relate to the rationalization of the agenda and the improvement of its working methods rather than to the more fundamental issues.

I support the statement made on behalf of the Group of 77, and I thank the Group for its proposals of 17 November confirming its views on revitalization of the General Assembly. General Assembly resolution 55/285 provides, in paragraph 1, that

"The process of revitalizing the General Assembly and improving its efficiency focuses on the implementation of existing Assembly resolutions and decisions ... Improvement of the procedures and working methods of the Assembly is only a first step towards more substantive improvements in and revitalization of the Assembly. The goal of this ongoing process is to

enable the Assembly to play its role effectively as the chief deliberative, policy-making and representative body of the United Nations."

Reform should enable the Assembly to take decisions on the most urgent issues on its agenda and a major commitment must be made to implementing its resolutions and decisions. Decision-making in the General Assembly, which is based on unanimity in most cases, is a real example of democracy in international action, since these decisions are taken by a majority of those voting. This should encourage us to choose the democratic option, given the failure of the Security Council as a result of the irresponsible use of the veto, to comply faithfully with the resolutions of the General Assembly.

We would like to concentrate on the most significant issues relating to reform. We see that the Security Council is going well beyond its powers and has thus jeopardized the authority of the General Assembly. For this reason we believe we must be more careful to divide the responsibilities of the two bodies. The agenda of the General Assembly, as the Secretary-General has noted, is overburdened. There are many items which are of interest to only a handful of countries that are addressed at the expense of items which are, in our opinion, much more important. The matters which should be given priority should be chosen from those agenda items which appear on the agenda of the General Assembly. Thirdly, we fully agree with strengthening the General Committee of the General Assembly so it can properly follow up the implementation of resolutions on the revitalization of the General Assembly.

In conclusion, I would like to reaffirm that the reform process of the United Nations and its agencies and organs can only be successful if other reforms are made in tandem with improving the quality of management of the Organization as a whole. Despite the commendable efforts of the Secretary-General in this matter, we do not notice any major change in the situation, in particular in the use of human resources and recruitment policies. Very little has been implemented to take advantage of the skills available in developing countries for work at the Secretariat and its agencies. It would appear that transparency, geographical balance and universality is failing in the case of those managing the work of the Organization.

Ms. Bethel (Bahamas)

My delegation is particularly pleased to be participating in this important discussion, which is fundamental to our work here at the United Nations. In this regard, my delegation welcomes the ongoing efforts aimed at revitalizing the Organization and its specialized agencies, and concurs with the Secretary-General's comments on the urgent need for the United Nations to determine in which direction it is to go in order to maximize its benefit to the peoples of the world.

My delegation wishes to express its gratitude to the President of the Assembly for the proposals before us dealing with enhancing the authority and role of the General Assembly and with improving the work methods of the Assembly. The Bahamas delegation supports the need for improving the capacity of the General Assembly to fulfil its role as envisaged under the United Nations Charter and the need for enhanced cooperation and more effective relationships between the General Assembly and the principal organs of this Organization. This is critical for the overall harmonization and coherence in the implementation of decisions taken by the General Assembly.

Although we would agree that the general debate provides an opportunity for Member States to espouse their national positions on matters of mutual concern to the General Assembly, the proposal that the level of representation in the annual general debate, and special meetings of the General Assembly should be at the highest political level, may pose a difficulty to many developing countries which are already hard pressed to provide adequate representation to cover the ongoing work of the Main Committees. Developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, landlocked developing countries and small island developing States, now make the decision to follow only those items which are of the greatest importance to them, as the plethora of agenda items makes it almost impossible to be represented in all of the Main Committees.

In an effort to alleviate this situation, perhaps it is necessary to expand the time allotted for the work of the General Assembly and allow for work within the Main Committees to be distributed over a longer period rather than the current three months, from September to December, as has already been proposed by a number of delegations. Also in this regard, the Bahamas delegation would support the further clustering of related items to decrease the time allocated to individual items in the plenary and Main Committees. We wish, however, to caution that this merging of items into clusters should in no way diminish or jeopardize the importance of development issues as they pertain to the economic and social well-being of developing countries.

My delegation wishes to propose that the role of the Department of Public Information be enhanced to assist in promoting the work of the United Nations, not only within the Organization but even more importantly, in ensuring that the message of the United Nations is effectively disseminated to the peoples of the world.

In this age of information technology, every effort should be made to assist developing countries to access information and communications technology which would allow them to become active participants in relevant discussions now, as opposed to later, when the hard copy arrives. This would strengthen our efforts to have decisions made in a timely manner and could lead to further effectiveness and efficiency within the Organization.

The time has come for a review of all matters on the agenda of the General Assembly to determine their relevance within the context of the existing geopolitical global economy. This may result in biennial consideration of some items while others in their present form could be removed entirely from the agenda. This pragmatic approach demands that a serious and exhaustive evaluation be undertaken of the current situation with regard to the agenda items. This evaluation should, in turn, lead directly to a more efficient Organization with clear goals and objectives aimed at realizing the promises and ideals delineated in the Charter and in subsequent declarations, such as those issuing from the Millennium Summit. My delegation recognizes that this is a difficult process; however, it is one that, with the requisite political will, can achieve the desired goal.

The Bahamas is committed to ensuring that the integrity of the United Nations is preserved and respected. We are committed to the purposes and principles of this Organization. We therefore, want to ensure that the United Nations continues in its quest to make the Organization the place where efforts are made each day to improve the quality of life for each of the world's citizens.

Mr. Wenaweser (Liechtenstein)

We consider the reform of the United Nations system in general and the revitalization of the General Assembly in particular as an utmost priority and indeed a necessity to give this Organization its rightful place and function. It has been said many times, and never better than by the Secretary-General, who recognized the need for reform a long time ago. He declared that we have reached a fork in the road, and radical reform is therefore a must.

The Secretariat depends on our continued support, but, more importantly, we, as Member States, must claim ownership of this Organization, not merely by insisting on the rights assured us under the Charter, but by assuming responsibility for its future and showing willingness to compromise on our national interests. More and more people turn to the United Nations with high hopes and expectations, then only too often to turn away in bewildered frustration.

We thus welcome this debate and commend the President in particular for submitting a non-paper, which has enjoyed a very positive reception at the informal meetings conducted on 17 October. Time is indeed of the essence, and the early convening of informal meetings on this issue has created a very positive dynamic, which we hope will soon yield concrete results. I wish to assure him that my delegation will give its full support to his endeavours. Following his wish expressed at the end of those informal meetings, I will make concrete points regarding the issues before us.

We were pleased to see that the proposal to strengthen the Office of the President is finding strong support. A concrete measure should be the secondment of competent Secretariat personnel to the Office of the President, which can bring the value of institutional memory to the Office and also the possibility of re-election of the President. Reform is a protracted process, and two years still seem a very limited time in which to make a concrete difference.

Enhancing the role of the General Committee is in fact very closely linked to the strengthening of the Office of the General Assembly President, and it is in our view entirely up to the President to give the Committee a meaningful role. We are just happy to see that you have already initiated concrete changes in this respect. The General Committee should live up to its responsibility regarding the agenda of the General Assembly, not only regarding the question of inclusion of new items, but also in dealing with the agenda as a whole.

With regard to the agenda, the overarching goal must be to make it more relevant, more accessible and a better reflection of the challenges the United Nations is facing today. Ranking highest among these challenges are the Millennium Development Goals. Quite a number of agenda items could simply be deleted, as we all know. It would only require the political will of Member States. A case in point might even be our debate today: do we really need four agenda items on what comes together into one debate on reform?

What is even more important than the length of the agenda, however, is the frequency with which we consider the items that are on it. There are, in fact, few items that merit consideration every single year. For a lot of them, consideration should take place every two -- or sometimes even every three or five -- years. This would not only alleviate the burden that is currently placed on all of us, but would also leave more time and room for implementation and thus make consideration more meaningful. It would of course also have an immediate effect on the issue of documentation, one of the biggest practical problems today. Again, the General Committee should act as a real bureau and support the presidency in this respect.

The topic of the Main Committees is a particularly vast one, and we hope it will be discussed in quite some detail. We thus only wish to point out the main areas in which we believe consideration and action are needed. The General Assembly has in the past successfully reduced the number of Main Committees from seven to six. It might want to have another look to see if all of these are needed or whether the agendas of some could not be integrated into those of other bodies, including, of course, the plenary.

As an alternative to or in combination with a reduction in the number of Main Committees, the General Assembly could decide that they should meet throughout the year in a sequenced order. The current practice seems to be carried over from the times -- long gone -- when it was possible to do all the General Assembly work from September to December, and is thus obsolete.

Carrying out reform and monitoring its success can only be achieved if there is real interaction between the Office of the President and the Chairs of the Main Committees. I was gratified to hear that the President has changed the format of the regular meetings of the President with the Chairs, which I suggested to your predecessor when I chaired the Third Committee last year.

The best measure to reduce resolutions is the biennialization or triennialization of a particular item. But even if an item is up for consideration, it should not be automatically assumed that a resolution should be the necessary result. In particular, when the text of the resolution would be pretty much identical to that of previous years, a decision reaffirming the earlier resolution would in fact have the same effect and negotiations could then concentrate on whether or not a report was needed and when the item should be considered next.

All these comments are related to the working methods of the General Assembly. Measures taken in this area must, in our view, have one clear goal: enhancing the role of the Assembly, as called for most prominently in the Millennium Declaration and as contained in the other cluster of your non-paper.

We believe that there should be a real dialogue between the Security Council and the General Assembly. This requires changes in the working methods of the General Assembly in particular and also the possibility of meeting in a more informal way. Furthermore, there is no reason in our mind that the Security Council submit only one annual report to the General Assembly; it could be quite meaningful to have several such reports whenever a particular situation makes this necessary.

We would like to thank the Deputy Secretary-General for the presentation of the report. We welcome the ongoing reform process and wish to emphasize only two points at this juncture.

First, we welcome the recommendations to streamline the planning and budgeting process in order to make it less time-consuming. We hope that the Organization will be able to achieve a closer link between political priorities and budgetary planning. We welcome the presentation made by the Secretary-General this morning in that respect. Second, we also welcome the strong emphasis the report places on the area of human rights, a priority area of United Nations work that remains seriously underfunded. We will continue to pay special attention to the issue of treaty body reform, on which we organized, together with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, an expert meeting earlier this year.

Mr. van den Berg (Netherlands)

The message of our political leaders during the general debate was extremely clear: there is a political will to reform and strengthen the United Nations. A window of opportunity for badly needed change presents itself now more than ever before and it is now our responsibility, as our political leaders' representatives, to act.

I will focus my brief remarks on the General Assembly, first of all because the Netherlands mission was actively involved in the so-called Greentree retreat earlier this year and secondly because I believe that decisive steps to improve the Assembly's functioning stand a good chance of succeeding at this session.

In brief, we are in dire need of concrete proposals to produce a more relevant and more elegant functioning of the General Assembly. To a large extent, this boils down to rethinking our way of conducting business in New York. The high-level panel will look into that, but will probably not provide us with solutions ready for adoption with regard to the workings of the General Assembly. It rests upon us, the stewards of the General Assembly, to achieve revitalization of the General Assembly.

Italy, on behalf of the European Union, has already submitted ideas to which the Netherlands fully subscribes. Let me add a few thoughts, focusing first on the agenda of the General Assembly and secondly on the role and impact of resolutions.

We suggest that the agenda of the Assembly be regrouped around major issues of global import. We think that that would make the agenda more coherent, more accessible and more manageable for Member States. It would greatly help all delegations, small and large, to better apprehend the work of the General Assembly and would also help the general public to gain a better understanding of what is going on in the Assembly.

In our view, the eight sections of the Millennium Declaration could provide an ideal framework for such an exercise. Those sections represent, by and large, the key concerns in today's world, as recognized by our heads of State just three years ago. We shall share with all Missions, as food for thought, an informal and indicative note -- a non-paper that explores what the results of such an exercise could be. In that context, we should like to make a number of observations.

The current agenda of the General Assembly does not completely cover the Millennium Declaration and its goals. Just one telling example: no agenda item covers the first section of the Millennium Declaration, entitled "Values and principles", although that section addresses fundamental issues.

The distribution of agenda items between plenary meetings and the Main Committees seems to be to the detriment of discussion of highly relevant topics in plenary meetings. For example, in our view, items such as the fight against terrorism, the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, peacekeeping and the implementation of the outcomes of major conferences deserve to be considered at the plenary level. That would immediately give plenary meetings a more prominent role and profile.

Quite often, agenda items have a "micro" focus on a particular subject or country. That is especially the case in plenary meetings. We could consider addressing the broader issues that they address by organizing our debate around themes of broader interest, rather than on specific agenda items. In doing so, of course, we should not lose sight of specific issues of concern to some Member States.

The distribution of work among the Main Committees indicates that, in some instances, there is still too much overlapping and lack of clarity in the division of responsibilities.

My second group of comments concerns resolutions. The Assembly produces 300 resolutions per year. Indeed, very few are read by our masters at home, let alone by the wider public. Even we tend to forget about them, once they have been adopted. Their sheer number has reduced their relevance as the expression of the will of the international community. On this issue, the Netherlands is pleased to share with Member States another non-paper containing food for thought; it focuses on how to better control the number of resolutions and how to shift our debate to their follow-up and implementation. I shall highlight two of its slightly more ambitious suggestions.

Since there is a clear correlation between the number of agenda items and the number of resolutions, consideration could be given to the suggestion, contained in the Greentree report, to consider the longer-term agenda of the General Assembly as a comprehensive list of agenda items. Each session of the Assembly could draw upon that list in compiling its yearly programme of work. The General Committee could advise the Assembly in deciding on its programme of work.

Another new approach could be to agree on a review cycle as part of adopting a resolution. That would avoid bringing the resolution to the vote again the following year, since the subsequent year would focus on review. Only if new developments or fresh insights justified substantial change would the review lead to the adoption of a substantially changed or new resolution on the item under consideration. The review could also decide on the removal of the agenda item.

On the issue of resolutions, I should like to make a final remark on consensus. Consensus can be overused and even misused as a pseudo right of veto for the very few. The Greentree report points out that consensus does not require absolute unanimity and that Member States should not be too reluctant to dissent from time to time. The following are possible elements for debate on this topic: consensus should require at least that there be unanimity among the majorities within the regional groupings or that dissenting Member States justify their positions and clarify the national interests apparently at stake.

Let me conclude by taking up a challenge presented to me by various colleagues. I concluded my statement on the report of the Secretary-General on implementation of the Millennium Declaration by making a reference to the total weight -- 3,000 kilograms -- of the brains available to us here in New York. A number of colleagues wondered if I could also produce a figure indicating the quality of those brains. I shall not venture to undertake such a hazardous enterprise. But to stimulate those brains, we need political will and experience in the United Nations system. With regard to the last variable, again, simple calculus indicates that in our Missions in New York, we have accumulated more than 6,000 years of United Nations experience. In no other place in the world is the potential to produce practical and innovative ideas for revitalizing the General Assembly so high. Let us live up to that potential.

Ms. Ferrari (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines)

My delegation, while aligning itself with the statements by Ambassador Bennouna on behalf of the Group of 77 and China and by Ambassador Limon on behalf of the States of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), considers it appropriate to make some brief comments on the specific concerns of the smallest Member States of the United Nations. I speak of those Missions whose staff can be counted on the fingers of one hand.

My Government is firm in its view that it is vital to our national interests that we maintain a presence at this forum, although the cost of establishing and maintaining a Mission in New York puts a great strain on an already overburdened economy. For that reason, it is critical that the representatives here in New York serve their country well. However, I shall try to pinpoint one or two reasons why it is so very difficult for mini-States to play the kind of role to which we aspire.

Ms. Ferrari (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines)

For a start, I draw members' attention to the Journal of the United Nations for Monday, 27 October 2003, a typical day at the United Nations at this time of year. In addition to plenary meetings of the General Assembly, there were meetings of all the Main Committees except the Fifth -- all of them discussing issues that are of vital importance to small Member States. There was voting in the First Committee. Of particular relevance to my Mission, there were also three meetings of the Group of 77, a meeting of the CARICOM group, informal consultations on a variety of matters, a meeting of legal advisers, and a plethora of other events that we should have liked to attend. Add to that nightmarish scenario the vast mountain of official -- and unofficial -- documentation that must be tackled on a daily basis, and one will easily see that a dozen or more persons would be needed for a delegation to function in even a modest way. It is one thing for the Member States whose staff listings take up several pages of the Blue Book; it is quite another matter for the smallest of the small.

I make the point to reinforce what my delegation said last year when we addressed the plenary on this agenda item. The vast majority of the work of the United Nations is crammed into the three months between September and December. For the rest of the year, while we are active, the agenda is not nearly so demanding. Therefore we ask again: Can we not rearrange the schedule so that the work can be more evenly spread throughout the year? This does not seem to us to be such a revolutionary suggestion, but whenever we mention it we are met with raised eyebrows and disapproving frowns. We have inflicted this agenda on ourselves and we should now pause and consider whether we cannot do better.

It also seems to my delegation that we can and should impose self-discipline on ourselves when it comes to addressing the General Assembly. We firmly believe that a more rigorous time frame for delegations should be agreed and observed, and we suggest a limit of five minutes. Of course, we exclude from this suggestion the general debate and other high-level or ministerial meetings. We really do not see why delegations cannot in five minutes make their points on routine agenda items that come up for discussion every year. Does it assist to quote from every United Nations document on every issue?

We believe that the revitalization of the General Assembly is vital if this Organization is to stay at the forefront of serving the people of the world. At the present time, as is well known, the Security Council makes the decisions that are binding in international law on Member States. That is in line with the Charter. However, non-members of the Council have virtually no say in those decisions, which are not only binding but which very often impose financial obligations on us. Quite simply, we are seldom if ever consulted. We are presented with a fait accompli and we have to accept it whether we like it or not. Unlike in this Assembly, our voice there does not count for anything.

These suggestions are made from the perspective of a very small mission and are intended to stimulate debate on some small but significant ways in which we think that the work of the Organization can be streamlined to the benefit of all.

Mr. Leslie (Belize)

Belize welcomes, Sir, your proactive approach to and interest in the reform and revitalization of the United Nations. Such leadership is indeed exemplary and is in part fundamental if we are to achieve more than mere incremental progress in the process at hand. It would be remiss of me not to recognize the efforts and achievements of former Presidents of the General Assembly, including the current Foreign Minister and former Ambassador of Guyana, Mr. Insanally, in respect of the revitalization of the work of the General Assembly.

At the outset, Belize aligns itself with the statement delivered yesterday by the Permanent Representative of Suriname on behalf of the Caribbean Community member States to the United Nations and underscores, as he did, that we are unequivocal in our commitment to working towards meaningful advancement in this decade-long process.

For small developing countries like my own, the General Assembly represents a levelled field on which each Member State can participate on an equal footing in the decision-making process of the most universal policy-making body in the international arena. One vote per State -- that is the epitome of representative democracy, the essence of the General Assembly and the hallmark of the United Nations process of multilateralism. In that regard, the people of the world have entrusted their aspirations for universal justice and peace and the right to build better futures for their children to the United Nations, and more specifically to this Assembly. In no uncertain terms, the people of the world have given us a mandate. It behoves us to act now to ensure that the United Nations has the necessary effective mechanisms to fulfil those aspirations of our people.

This joint debate is inclusive of several agenda items, including that on the status of implementation of actions described in the report of the Secretary-General entitled "Strengthening of the United Nations: an agenda for further change". We are pleased to learn of the progress made in implementation. We note with interest the conclusions of that report, in particular with respect to the advantages to be had from the confluence of the initiatives of the Secretary-General's agenda for change and that of the General Assembly for revitalization.

For the purposes of my delegation's intervention, I would like to comment on three issues in the revitalization of the General Assembly: the role of the General Assembly; leadership, in particular the role of the President; and media interest.

With respect to the role of the General Assembly, in your remarks at the opening of the general debate, Sir, you stated that:

"The General Assembly has oversight of the United Nations system as a whole, and hence has before it the full range of international issues. As advocate, supervisor and policy-making body, it must give the direction necessary to ensure coherence in the system, so that the Organization may respond in a holistic manner to the many challenges it faces". (A/58/PV.7, p. 1)

My delegation is in full agreement with that statement. For that reason, it is expedient, in our view, that we revive the role of the General Assembly as the supreme political body that addresses major international issues. The question is: How would we solicit varying responses and how is this linked to other issues, including the agenda? As a preliminary answer, my delegation would like to offer that the General Assembly may revive its role by having more meaningful deliberations and debates, rather than the scripted and non-interactive approach, and by focusing on implementation of its resolutions and decisions without compromising or marginalizing the issues on its agenda.

On the matter of leadership and the office of the President, we would further posit that the revitalization of the General Assembly, and particularly its centrality, is inextricably linked to the role of the President. As early as its resolution 46/77 of 12 December 1991, the General Assembly acknowledged that its capability to fulfil its role as prescribed under the Charter of the United Nations was linked to the roles of the President of the General Assembly and the Secretariat in dealing with the affairs of the General Assembly. That resolution further recognized the need to ensure the assignment of adequate staff and the provision of adequate facilities to enable the President of the Assembly to carry out his functions and responsibilities. My delegation is of the view that the time is opportune to revisit how the role of the President can be enhanced through the strengthening of that office.

With respect to media interest, my delegation would like to underscore the importance of the press in the revitalization of the General Assembly. That interest may logically follow from our efforts to revive the Assembly's role, but it is an interest that we must nonetheless actively seek out and engage. My delegation would like to reiterate its willingness to work along with others in the efforts for the revitalization and reform of the General Assembly and the United Nations with a view to achieving concrete results. We fully agree with the consensus that it is now time for us to change.

Mr. Niang (Senegal)

A problem occurred in a Python script. Here is the sequence of function calls leading up to the error, in the order they occurred.

<type 'exceptions.UnicodeEncodeError'>: 'ascii' codec can't encode character u'\xe9' in position 9101: ordinal not in range(128)
      args = ('ascii', u'\n\t<p id="pg012-bk01-pa01">Allow me at the outset..., proactive and resolute in serving humanity.</p>', 9101, 9102, 'ordinal not in range(128)')
      encoding = 'ascii'
      end = 9102
      message = ''
      object = u'\n\t<p id="pg012-bk01-pa01">Allow me at the outset..., proactive and resolute in serving humanity.</p>'
      reason = 'ordinal not in range(128)'
      start = 9101