UN REFORM: BATTLE WITH G-77 LOOMING OVER CONTROL

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000546

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC UNGA
SUBJECT: UN REFORM: BATTLE WITH G-77 LOOMING OVER CONTROL
OF SYG REPORT ON MANAGEMENT REFORM

REF: A. USUN 461


B. USUN 442


1. SUMMARY: Ambassador Wolff met March 16 with GA
President's Chef de Cabinet Lars Wiede to discuss next steps
in Member States' consideration of the Secretary-General's
report on management reform introduced March 7 entitled,
"Investing in the UN: For a Stronger Organization Worldwide"
(reftels). Wolff argued that the GA Plenary should retain
full control over the process, given the letter and intent of
world leaders regarding the handling of the report as
expressed in the Outcome Document (paragraph 163 a),the
consequent GA General Committee decision to allocate
consideration of the report to the Plenary, and the use of
similar procedures in November/December 2005 when the Plenary
took decisions to establish an ethics office; authorize an
external evaluation of UN auditing and oversight; and, create
an independent audit advisory committee. Wiede agreed that
while reason and logic supported the U.S. arguments, G-77
members were determined to refer the SYG's Report to the
Fifth Committee - a position that Wiede noted they had
articulated even before the report's March 7 release. Wiede
also agreed with Wolff's insistence that any decision by the
Plenary to allocate consideration of the Report or parts
thereof to the Fifth Committee would have to be strictly
time-bound, with a clear deadline for Fifth Committee
response required. Wiede said GA President Eliasson was
planning to convene a plenary session the week of March 20 to
resolve the procedural dispute over the SYG's Report, but
might delay such a discussion until ACABQ released its
analysis, which might help to identify those issues that
merited Fifth Committee consideration. END SUMMARY.

PROCEDURAL DEBATE
LIKELY
--------------


2. Wiede said he welcomed U.S. views on how best to handle
Member State consideration of the SYG's management report in
light of the G-77's continued insistence that the entire
report be allocated to the Fifth Committee for analysis and
review, a position key G-77 members publicly signaled even
before the report's March 7 release. Wiede's recent private
consultations with a number of G-77 members revealed little
change in their tough stance on this issue. Wolff responded
that reason and logic clearly supported allocation of the
report to the Plenary. The intent of world leaders, as
specifically reflected in the actual language of paragraph
163 (a) of the Outcome Document, was that the SYG's report on
budgetary, financial and human resource policies be submitted
directly to the General Assembly Plenary for its
consideration and decision. Reflecting this, the GA's
General Committee in September 2005 allocated follow-up on
the Outcome Document during the 60th UNGA to the Plenary, not
the Fifth Committee, under agenda items 46 and 120, and the
GA approved of this allocation. In this manner, the Plenary
was given the lead on the SYG's management report. In
addition, the recent precedent of the GA's handling of reform
initiatives contained in A/60/568 (i.e., establishment of a
UN ethics office, authorization for an external evaluation of
UN auditing and oversight, creation of an independent audit
advisory committee) placed overall control and
decision-making in the Plenary, taking into account views
sought from ACABQ and the Fifth Committee.


3. Wiede agreed that logic and reason supported the U.S.
approach, but noted G-77 members were insisting that past
precedents demanded that a SYG report on administrative and
budgetary matters be sent directly to the Fifth Committee.
In response to a Wolff query, Wiede confirmed that ACABQ
currently was evaluating the SYG's report without prejudice
to the future venue in which Member State discussions would
take place. Wolff suggested the ACABQ report could prove
helpful if it identified those initiatives on which the SYG
could take immediate action, as well as those issues, such as
the future role and working methods of the Fifth Committee,
for example, that were more appropriately left for Plenary
consideration of governance matters. An ACABQ analysis of
this nature could help to identify those initiatives that
required further GA authority, and, hence, allocation by the
Plenary, hopefully with minimal debate, to the Fifth
Committee.


4. Wolff and Wiede agreed that any Fifth Committee
consideration of the SYG's report, or portions thereof, would
have to be time-bound. Once the Plenary decided to allocate
items to the Fifth Committee, the GA President would have to
specify a date by which Fifth Committee comments would be
due, as was done with Fifth Committee consideration of
A/60/568. Otherwise, Fifth Committee discussions would drag
on, with no concrete decisions taken. Given the exclusive
focus of the Fifth Committee during the resumed May session


on UN peacekeeping budget issues, any Fifth Committee
consideration of the SYG's management report ideally would be
concluded prior to commencement of the resumed May session.
Wiede suggested that G-77 members probably would seek a far
longer time to consider the SYG's report.


5. Wiede said that while GA President Eliasson was
considering convening a GA Plenary session early in the week
of March 20 to permit discussion of the procedural impasse
over allocating the SYG's report, it might prove helpful to
synchronize the scheduling of the next Plenary with ACABQ's
issuance of its report. In any event, Wiede said he likely
would convene a private meeting of 8 to 10 ambassadors,
including from the U.S., on March 21 or 22 with a view to
brokering consensus on a way forward.

BOLTON