General Assembly Session 60 meeting 79

The President

This afternoon, the General Assembly will first consider the reports of the Fifth Committee on agenda items 122, 124, 125, 127, 130, 132, 122 together with 124, 128, 129 and 136, and 122.

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the Fifth Committee which are before the Assembly today.

The President

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of the Fifth Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records.

May I remind members that under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401, the General Assembly agreed that

"When the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, that is, either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation's vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee."

May I remind delegations that, also in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats.

Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Fifth Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we are going to proceed to take decisions in the same manner as was done in the Fifth Committee, unless notified otherwise in advance. This means that where recorded or separate votes were taken, we will do the same. I should also hope that we may proceed to adopt without a vote those recommendations that were adopted without a vote in the Fifth Committee.

The President

The Assembly has before it one draft resolution, recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 7 of its report.

We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The President

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 122.

The President

The Assembly will take up the two reports of the Fifth Committee on this item.

The delegation of the United States has asked to speak in explanation of vote before the vote.

Mr. Wallace (United States)

The United States appreciates and supports the work of the Secretariat on the Capital Master Plan, in particular the efforts of Assistant-Secretary-General Fritz Reuter in the Capital Master Plan Office, to implement a cost-effective project. We support the Capital Master Plan and the very strongly needed renovations to make the United Nations facilities safe and secure. We look forward to continuing to work with other Member States to reach a final decision on a project strategy. We look forward to working with all Members to reach decisions on a successful basis. This is an urgent project to ensure all United Nations employees work in a safe and secure environment.

A General Assembly decision on a strategy is critical. To ensure continued progress on the project, we endorse a $23.5 million appropriation for the continuation of pre-construction activities, and we expect, based upon the firm assurances of the Secretariat, that the United Nations will not need to utilize the $77 million in commitment authority before the second resumed session of the Fifth Committee. We hope by the second resumed session Member States will be prepared to reach a final decision on the Capital Master Plan strategy. We pledge to work constructively and cooperatively to resolve all outstanding issues. At this time, without a decision on project strategy, the United States disassociates itself from consensus on this resolution.

The President

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 7 of its report in A/60/608/Add.1.

We will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled "Special subjects relating to the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007". The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The President

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 8 of its report in A/60/608/Add.2.

We will now take a decision on the draft resolution, entitled "Capital master plan". The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The President

The delegation of the Syrian Arab Republic has asked to speak in explanation of vote after the vote.

Mr. Al-Nuqari (Syria)

My delegation joined in the consensus on the draft resolution recommended in A/60/608/Add.1, entitled "Special subjects relating to the programme budget for the biennium 2006-2007", particularly part I, regarding the financing of special political missions.

Before explaining our agreement with the consensus, I would like to express our thanks for the efforts of Secretary-General Kofi Annan as part of his functions under the Charter. I would also like to say that our joining in the consensus goes hand in hand with the flexibility shown by our delegation and speaks of our respect for this Organization and its role and functions.

When my country objected to the mandate with regard to Syria, we based ourselves on the need to respect the Charter as well as to respect the fact that the budget proposals have to be in line with resolution 55/231. I would like to stress that the fact that we are going along with this resolution is based on respect for the following principle, i.e., that the mandate of the resolution is clear. Syria has implemented everything with regard to this mandate, as recognized by the Security Council.

Secondly, the first and second performance indicators -- regarding the establishment of the border and the establishment of diplomatic relations -- that are contained in the report of the Secretary-General are in contradiction with the above-mentioned mandate. The establishment of diplomatic relations and the drawing of the border between two countries are two matters within the jurisdiction of the Member States involved, and United Nations bodies should not intervene -- not even the Security Council or the Secretariat. This is in conformity with paragraph 7 of Article 2 of the Charter of the United Nations, which states, "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state ...".

There is also the need to scrupulously respect paragraphs 9 and 10 of part I of the resolution when the mandate of the special envoy is being studied with regard to the implementation of Security Council resolution 1550 (2004).

The President

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 124.

The President

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 8 of its report.

We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The President

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 125.

The President

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 5 of its report.

We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The President

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 127.

The President

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report.

We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted the draft resolution without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The President

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 130.

The President

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 6 of its report.

We will now take a decision on the draft resolution. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

The President

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 132.

The President

The Assembly has before it a draft resolution recommended by the Fifth Committee in paragraph 9 of its report.

I shall now give the floor to the representative of Japan, who wishes to speak in explanation of vote before the voting.

Mr. Oshima (Japan)

My delegation supports the commitment of the Secretary-General to reform the Organization so that it can better respond to current needs and make the Organization a more effective, efficiency and accountable one. We have actively and constructively participated in the discussion on his report entitled "Investing in the United Nations: for a stronger Organization worldwide", and we will continue to be actively engaged in future discussions.

My delegation believes also that many of the proposals contained in the Secretary-General's report do not require legislative action at this juncture, as rightly pointed out by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions in its report (A/60/735). My delegation therefore urges the Secretary-General to implement those measures with which he can proceed without legislative action.

In the Fifth Committee on 17 April, my delegation made a humble request to the promoters of draft resolution A/C.5/60/L.37/Rev.1, before the vote in the Fifth Committee, not to seek action. It was a plea not to breach the longstanding practice of working by consensus in the Fifth Committee and to continue negotiations in good faith.

The Secretary-General, for his part, made a sincere effort to preserve the well-established and valuable practice of consensus by making his suggestions and proposals 20 and 21. My delegation appreciated the Secretary-General's efforts in that regard. We appreciated also the last-minute efforts made by the Group of 77 and the European Union. We were disappointed at the failure to reach agreement in those efforts.

Our position throughout on this question has been that it would have been far preferable for the Fifth Committee to report back to the plenary areas of agreement and disagreement faithfully and accurately so that it could consider the way forward. It is regrettable that that has not been the case. We regret that, despite all the efforts made, a vote had to be taken in the Fifth Committee.

Mr. President, in the last few days, you yourself made efforts to avert a vote in plenary under certain conditions. Again, we regret that your efforts failed to bear fruit. My delegation is disappointed that we had to vote on draft resolution A/C.5/60/L.37/Rev.1, which clearly did not enjoy a consensus. Voting in the Fifth Committee was in breach of the Committee's longstanding consensus practice.

We regret that today we have to vote once again in plenary on this matter. My delegation, for the reasons I have just cited, will have no choice but to cast a negative vote. The outcome of the vote would send a strong message -- more negative than positive. There would be no winners in this vote, and, if there are any losers, it will be reforms of the Organization. If the draft resolution is adopted, it will be likely to be interpreted as, at best, rejection or deferral of the necessary reforms. We therefore ask those delegations that feel uneasy about sending such a message to vote against or to abstain in the voting.

The President

The Assembly will now take a decision on the draft resolution entitled "Investing in the United Nations: for a stronger Organization worldwide".

We shall now proceed to a recorded vote, as was done in the Fifth Committee.

The President

I shall now give the floor to those representatives wishing to make statements in explanation of vote on the resolution just adopted.

Mr. Kumalo (South Africa)

I should like to make a general statement on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.

The Group of 77 and China hopes that, with the adoption of this resolution, we will all move ahead and deal with the reform of the United Nations. There are many issues that await our collective decision, and it is time we focused on the future and helped to strengthen the Organization. On many occasions, we have gone on record to say that we welcome the proposals submitted to us by the Secretary-General that will help strengthen the Organization's ability to implement its mandates more effectively and enable it to serve the interests of the entire membership.

The Group of 77 and China has been supportive of a number of major reforms. We supported the approval of the resources needed for the Human Rights Council, which will be voted on tomorrow. It was the Group of 77 and China that fought to have a Peacebuilding Support Office be funded from predictable new resources and not from within existing budget levels or through the establishment of temporary posts.

It is the Group of 77 and China that wants to ensure that we deal with development challenges in more concrete and tangible ways. As of today, we are still waiting for our negotiating partners to join in a consensus that will build on the Global Partnership for Development, which was confirmed by the September summit.

We of the Group of 77 and China were instrumental in the approval of the amount of $100 million that the Secretary-General urgently needed to proceed with the capital master plan. It was the developing countries that have always insisted that the Secretary-General should receive adequate and predictable resources to undertake effectively the numerous tasks of the Organization. It was also the Group of 77 and China that supported the budget level requested by the Secretary-General in 2004, as opposed to the spending cap.

Since the adoption of the outcome document last September, the Group of 77 and China has supported the creation of an Ethics Office, the finalization of a whistleblower policy and an increase in the investigation and auditing capacity of the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

Clearly, the suggestion that the Group of 77 and China is somehow blocking or delaying reform is at best misleading and, at worst, absolutely untrue.

We want to reassure all Member States that the resolution we have just adopted does not in any way delay or prevent the reform of the United Nations. In fact, a careful reading of the resolution will show that many of the proposals in it are meant to take this Organization further and make it even better. A large part of the resolution captures areas in which there is general agreement among Member States about their importance and necessity. The exceptions are those proposals that would amend the oversight of the Member States through the General Assembly.

In addition to the governance issues, the elements of the resolution on which we differed with our negotiating partners were on the enforcement of gender targets in the Secretariat; ensuring equitable geographic representation in the recruitment of the Secretariat, in particular at senior levels; and increasing procurement opportunities for developing countries. Those elements are important to developing countries, and to suggest that fighting for them would detract from the reform initiatives of the Secretary-General is indeed misleading.

Everyone in this Assembly Hall knows that this Organization does not reflect the international character of its membership, in particular at senior levels that seem to be monopolized by nationals from a few countries. That is so despite repeated calls on that matter by the General Assembly. The suggestion that nationals from developing countries are somehow less qualified and not able to meet the standards that we have set for our international civil servants in the Charter of the United Nations is also untrue.

The Secretariat must stop paying more than just lip service to the calls to ensure a greater gender balance and equitable geographical representation in the recruitment and promotion of its staff. Our resolution merely asks for proposals on gender targets and geographical distribution to be included in the September 2006 report. To suggest that those requests will delay the proposals of the Secretary-General or halt the reform exercise is false.

The June report on procurement will, inter alia, elaborate on the Secretary-General's proposal to move towards a lead agency concept, where provisions of General Assembly resolutions may not apply. Our resolution simply requests that an assessment of the internal controls of those organizations be undertaken to ensure effective oversight. The Group of 77 and China are therefore not delaying reform by asking that Member States receive assurances that the provisions of General Assembly resolutions will be respected and that effective internal controls will be in place.

In conclusion, the Group of 77 and China support the Secretary-General as chief administrative officer of the United Nations. The Secretary-General is elected by the Member States and therefore we believe that he is accountable to the General Assembly. For that reason, we did not understand or even accept the idea that, if the Secretary-General is to carry out his duties, that must be accompanied by denying the majority of Member States the right to pronounce on the administration of the United Nations. The Group of 77 and China have continued to maintain that for a so-called small but representative group of Member States to replace the role of all Member States in carrying out the oversight responsibilities of the General Assembly is an attempt to deny every Member of the United Nations the role due to it.

Mr. Pfanzelter (Austria)

On behalf of the European Union, I would like to stress that management reform is vital to strengthening the United Nations. We welcome the report of the Secretary-General, entitled "Investing in the United Nations", and encourage him to continue his reform efforts. We would like to see a more detailed elaboration of those proposals, and we ask the Secretary-General to take action in those areas where no legislative mandate is needed.

The European Union could not agree to the adoption of the present resolution, as it does not reflect crucial concerns of its members and other countries. We are of the firm belief that, at this early stage, pending more detailed information and without a request for action, proposals should not be selectively rejected, amended or convoluted with conditions.

The European Union, as all here know, made every possible effort to reach a consensus on the resolution. Those efforts have failed. The request for action on a non-consensus resolution has resulted in a vote. That is regrettable. Decisions on sensitive political matters need the support of all Member States.

During the developments leading up to the adoption of the resolution, we experienced a collapse of the consensus principle in the Fifth Committee, which should be a matter of serious concern to all of us. All efforts need to be made to restore the long-standing working methods of the Committee.

It is now time to take a forward-looking approach. We need to re-establish a climate of trust and cooperation. We need to engage in consensus-based decision-making. We all need to work together to make the United Nations stronger.

Ms. Banks (New Zealand)

On behalf of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, I wish briefly to explain our vote against resolution 60/260.

We set out our concerns over both procedure and substance when action was taken in the Fifth Committee on 28 April. I do not intend to repeat those concerns, though our objections remain unchanged, and we would repeat our hope, expressed then, that the Secretary-General will proceed with the mandates he already has.

We were deeply disappointed that, despite efforts to avoid that, the submission of a draft resolution on which there was clearly no consensus went ahead in the Fifth Committee, leaving Canada, Australia and New Zealand no option but to vote against it. We strongly believe, looking ahead, that the practice of consensus decision-making in the Fifth Committee should be restored and the climate of trust renewed.

On that positive note, it is heartening that, over the past few days, so many have spoken of the need to look ahead, to look forward and to direct our efforts to producing as much progress as we can over the coming weeks. Ambassador Kumalo, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, has just now reaffirmed that commitment and we welcome his words. To renew our efforts is indeed the challenge for all of us. Canada, Australia and New Zealand will continue to work with the Secretary-General and all Member States on management reform.

Mr. Bolton (United States)

The United States, on 28 April, gave a statement in the Fifth Committee explaining its vote on this item. That position still stands. Since others have taken the floor on the occasion of today's vote, I would like to make several additional points.

The United States strongly supports a United Nations that is sharply focused on addressing the challenges of today's world in efficient and effective ways. The Fifth Committee's consideration of the Secretary-General's report on United Nations management reforms was supposed to have been an important part of a process leading to a more efficient and effective Organization -- a process that our leaders started last year with their historic consensus agreement on the world summit outcome document.

Unfortunately, the vote on management reforms in the Fifth Committee, as well as the vote called for today in the General Assembly, raise deep concerns about the breach of the consensus decision-making principle that has been the practice of the Fifth Committee for nearly two decades. Let me just review for a minute how that practice developed.

From the perspective of the United States, it developed because, in the mid-1980s, the United States was repeatedly and overwhelmingly outvoted in the Fifth Committee on important budget questions. The consequence was that the United States Congress withheld substantial appropriations from the United States assessed contribution, so the practice of consensus-based decision-making in this Organization on budgetary matters was intended to reflect clearly the opinions of all United Nations Members.

During the past 20 years, as early as the late 1980s and early 1990s, there were doubts whether the consensus budgeting approach was working to fulfil the intentions that had led to its creation in the first place. In fact, the current situation, as reflected in today's vote, raises that question again. The result of consensus-based decision-making in the Fifth Committee is often the same, in fact, as today's vote, so when we are asked, whether in Congress or elsewhere, "What is the real distribution of opinion in the United Nations on budget questions?", we can fairly say that it is reflected in today's vote.

So, one might well then ask what is gained by the consensus process. We believe that many comfortable elements of the governance of this Organization now need to come under scrutiny, as the Secretary-General and others have suggested. We maintain our view on consensus decision-making on budget matters, but we are carefully evaluating how it actually works -- as is appropriate after 20 years.