UN BUDGET: FIFTH COMMITTEE VOTES ON DRAFT DECISION

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 002263 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AORC UNGA KUNR PREL IS SUBJECT: UN BUDGET: FIFTH COMMITTEE VOTES ON DRAFT DECISION ON REGISTER OF DAMAGES REF: A. USUN 02231 ¶B. SECSTATE 197203 ¶1. SUMMARY: On December 11th and 15th, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) voted on draft decisions regarding the program budget implications (PBIs) of A/ES-10/L.20 and A/ES-10/L.20/Rev.1, a draft resolution (reftels) to be acted on at the December 15th Emergency Special Session. The Fifth Committee had to reconsider the additional PBI after changes were made to the underlying resolution that changed the budget implications. END SUMMARY. December 11th decision -------------- ¶2. The Fifth Committee on December 11 considered the program budget implications of draft resolution A/ES-10/L.20. The budget implications were related to operative paragraphs in the draft resolution regarding the creation of a Register of Damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. After various language amendments (related to whether the Committee should reaffirm Rule 153 of the rules of procedure) were discussed amongst delegations during the various suspensions of the meeting during the morning session, the Committee decided to return to the issue in the afternoon, so that delegations would have time to consult internally. The Japanese delegate indicated to delegations during the morning session that he needed to seek instructions from Tokyo and would not be ready to act until the next day given the time difference between New York and Tokyo. ¶3. Upon reconvening, Israel requested a vote on the UN Register, saying the technical nature of the Fifth Committee's decision was tainted by political considerations. Evidence of the political nature of the budget implication statement was demonstrated by the detailed description of the Registry, as well as the exorbitant figure and large staffing requested. He was also concerned about duplication, as a mechanism for compensation already existed in Israel, with 140 cases reviewed and more than $1.5 million paid by Israel to individuals and organizations. Another mechanism, paid for by the taxpayers of the Member States, would be a waste of money, he said. A solution to the conflict would only by settled through negotiations of the two parties. If the technical Fifth Committee had not accepted the infiltration of politics in its debate, the current debate would not have been necessary. ¶4. As Japan did not request more time to seek instructions, the Committee, acting by a vote of 116 in favor to six against (U.S., Australia, Canada, Israel, Nauru, Palau) with one abstention (Republic of Moldova),decided to inform the Assembly that the adoption of the text would require an appropriation of up to $3.1 million of the 2006-2007 budget for the establishment and maintenance of the Register. Both Niger and Armenia asked the Secretariat to record their votes in favor of the draft resolution, since they were not able to vote earlier for technical reasons. ¶5. Japan's representative offered an explanation of vote, saying the decision to vote "for" the UN Register had been taken while discussion on the draft resolution L.20 was ongoing, which should not be used by delegations for political purposes. He said if the need arose the Fifth Committee would act in accordance with established procedure. ¶6. The Finnish representative (on behalf of the European Union) explained the EU's vote in favor of the draft resolution, saying the EU supported the draft decision on the budget implications statement submitted by the Secretary-General. It also supported the report by the SIPDIS Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ),particularly in paragraphs six and seven (document A/61/614). The EU noted the discussions on the substance of L.20 were still ongoing, and the position on the budget implications was without prejudice to those details. Any substantive changes to the text would give rise to the application of rule 153 of the rules of Procedure. She added it was time to restore the working methods (i.e., "principle of consensus") of the Fifth Committee. ¶7. Australia's representative said her country opposed the draft resolution on the legal consequences of the building of the wall and continued to oppose the Assembly's treatment off the matter. Israel already had a mechanism for settling damages as a result of the construction of the wall, and the USUN NEW Y 00002263 002 OF 002 proposed registry would not advance the issue of peace. As Australia did not support the draft resolution, it also did not support the required resources. ¶8. The South African representative (on behalf of the Group of 77 and China) said the G-77 had the long-standing position that the Committee was a technical, not political body. As a rule, the G-77 supported the budget implication statement before it. The G-77 strongly backed rule 153 of the rules of procedure, and supported the current statement on budget implications as it would any other budget implication statement. ¶9. Ambassador Wallace spoke on behalf of the U.S. delegation regarding the draft decision on the UN Register. The text of his statement is as follows: BEGIN TEXT: Mr. Chairman, The United States has consistently opposed the creation of the UN Register of Damage as contemplated by A/ES-10/L.20. This clearly political mandate comes at a destructive time and diverts attention from practical efforts to achieving peace and security for both the Palestinian and Israeli peoples. Moreover and unfortunately, the draft decision before us today supports a resolution that goes well beyond what was requested in resolution A/ES-10/15. The resolution called upon the Secretary-General to establish a register of damage. Now this body seeks to approve funding for a draft resolution that includes components- verification and assessment- that both further politicizes this body and costs substantial sums to all Member States. As the report of the Secretary-General states: "The act of registration of damage, as such, would not entail an evaluation or an assessment of the loss or damage claimed." In addition to our continuing opposition to the establishment of any Registry, my delegation strongly opposes the expansion of the mandate of the registry by the action that we are taking today. At nearly $4 million per year, with no provision for the mandate to be either reviewed or concluded this body is committing scarce financial resources- for a political statement. This action today continues to raise questions regarding the efficacy of the UN at a time when we are failing to institute reform and the world faces so many challenges that go unaddressed in this building every day. In conclusion, my delegation voted against this draft decision because the U.S. opposes the establishment of the Registry, the expansion of the Registry's mandate in today's action and we reiterate our real concerns about the large and open-ended financial commitment to this politically charged mandate. END TEXT. December 15 decision -------------- ¶10. On December 15, the Committee considered a revised PBI and ACABQ report, as the underlying resolution had changed since Monday's action. The result of the Committee vote was: 128 votes in favor; five against (U.S., Australia, Israel, Micronesia, Palau); with one abstention (Cote d'Ivoire). Finland (on behalf of the EU) was the only Committee member to register an explanation of vote, saying the EU trusted that any effects of the resolution would be funded through existing resources of the 2006-2007 programme budget. She was sorry, however, that the Committee deviated from the long-standing practice of consensus on this issue. WOLFF