JOINT INSPECTION UNIT: A MORE EFFICIENT ELECTION

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000399 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AORC KUNR UNGA SUBJECT: JOINT INSPECTION UNIT: A MORE EFFICIENT ELECTION PROCESS? REF: A/50/659 ¶1. This is an action request; please see para. 5. ¶2. SUMMARY: As invited by the General Assembly (GA) in its resolution 59/267, the President of the General Assembly (PGA) has reviewed the procedures followed by the General Assembly to appoint inspectors to the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU). He has determined that they could be simplified and has submitted for the GA's approval proposals to streamline the existing procedures (A/60/659). The new procedures would shorten the election period from two years to one year, while maintaining the consultative process required in Article 3 of the JIU statute. The new procedures would also eliminate the need to vote first on the countries which can present candidates and then on the candidate themselves. The new procedures would also require the PGA to review the qualifications of inspectors prior to putting them forward as candidates. The report does not address the timing of when the new procedures, if approved, would take effect nor the impact on current or future election cycles. END SUMMARY. ¶3. The President of the General Assembly, as invited by the General Assembly in its resolution 59/267, has reviewed the procedures used to appoint inspectors to the JIU and has determined that the process needs to be simplified. The report notes that the current selection process begins two years prior to an inspector taking up his/her post. In the first year, in consultation with Member States, a list of countries that will be requested to propose candidates is drawn up and voted on in the General Assembly. In the second year, after appropriate consultations, the President of the General Assembly submits a list of candidates from the approved countries to the GA for approval. He therefore proposes that the General Assembly approve new procedures that would shorten this cycle to one year and would allow regional groupings to put forward any number of qualified candidates from countries in their region. ¶4. The new procedures would have the PGA inform regional groups in January of the post(s) that will be vacant at the end of the calendar year. The regional groups would then simultaneously submit the names of countries and candidates in March. The PGA would conduct consultations and a review of qualifications of proposed candidates from April to July and then present the list of candidates to the GA in September, for a decision during the main session. ¶5. COMMENT: It appears that in addition to shortening the long election cycle, the PGA is hoping to increase the emphasis on and review of the qualifications of candidates that are nominated by Member States. USUN supports both of these positions, but has doubts as to whether these new procedures would actually improve the generally poor quality of candidates put forth by Member States. The likelihood is that deals will be made within regional groups so that a limited number of Member States (maybe even only one) would actually put forth candidates and that not all Member States would necessarily put forward the most qualified candidates. If that is the case, a PGA review of candidates would only be marginally useful. Nevertheless, USUN supports the PGA's attempts to make the election process for JIU inspectors more efficient and rational. A recommendation in a recent JIU report on oversight would, if implemented, help to improve future JIU candidates by barring members of other oversight bodies (ACABQ, ICSC, etc.) from seeking the lucrative D-2 JIU posts in Geneva. Unless otherwise instructed, USUN intends to support these new procedures. BOLTON