UN REFORM: G-77 WINS FIFTH COMMITTEE VOTE IN

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000908

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC KUNR UNGA
SUBJECT: UN REFORM: G-77 WINS FIFTH COMMITTEE VOTE IN
SHOWDOWN OVER MANAGEMENT REFORM MEASURES


1. SUMMARY/COMMENT: The Fifth Committee, meeting in formal
session April 28, voted 108 to 50, with 3 abstentions, to
support adoption of a draft resolution introduced April 21 by
the G-77 and China that attempts to impeded ongoing
Secretary-General efforts to pursue management reform in the

SIPDIS
UN. The U.S., joined by 49 other states who collectively are
assessed 86.692 per cent of the regular UN budget, opposed
adoption of the draft text. The language in the G-77
resolution (A/C.5/60/L.37; available on www.ods.un.org)
provides no positive expressions of support for management
improvements or for the SYG's initiatives. By repeatedly
reaffirming the existing rules, regulations, and resolutions
on budget and administration, the text sends a clear signal
that new approaches cannot be considered, thus denying the UN
the ability to benefit from modern management practices. The
discretion of the SYG and other UN officials to ensure
fairness of treatment is effectively removed, and proposed
efficiencies are stymied. The SYG's proposals to achieve
greater transparency are watered down to suggestions on ways
to disseminate information that already is widely available.
The text repeatedly reaffirms and reasserts the primacy of
the General Assembly in deciding on all aspects of the UN's
management and administration, thereby signaling that the SYG
has limited flexibility to manage the Organization.


2. SUMMARY/COMMENT (continued): Perhaps most importantly,
the Fifth Committee's April 28th vote contravenes a
long-standing Committee practice, established in Resolution
41/213 (1986),to seek the "broadest possible agreement" for
Committee decisions on budgetary matters. The G-77's
insistence on bringing its draft resolution before the Fifth
Committee absent consensus may be indicative of more
contentious times ahead as Members begin to consider whether
to grant the UN additional spending authority beyond the $950
million approved in December 2005 (A/60/246). It appears the
G-77 is preparing to face down those linking progress on UN
reform to the provision of finances needed to run the UN.
END SUMMARY/COMMENT.


RUN-UP TO THE VOTE
--------------


2. After several weeks of lengthy and contentious
negotiations in the Fifth Committee that began April 12 on a
coordinator's draft resolution incorporating language
proposals from all delegations dealing with the
Secretary-General's March 7 report (A/60/692),the Group of

SIPDIS
77 and China provoked a crisis April 19 by introducing its
own draft resolution (A/C.5/60/L.37) that took issue with
several key SYG proposals on UN efficiency, the future role
of the Deputy Secretary-General, and governance issues. The
Group's proposal modified or eliminated more positive
language proposed by the U.S., EU, and others. Repeated EU,
Japanese, CANZ, and U.S. attempts to resume consideration of
the coordinator's draft were rejected by the South African
delegate representing the G-77, who insisted on negotiations
based solely on the Group's text. The Group's threats to put
its text before the Fifth Committee for formal adoption,
despite the absence of consensus, prompted renewed
negotiations April 26. While several minimal language
changes to the G-77 text were achieved, consensus on the
SYG's proposals concerning improved efficiency in budget
planning and implementation (Proposal #16),improved
interaction between the Secretariat and Member States
(Proposal #20),and reform of key governance structures
(Proposal # 21),could not be reached. In addition,
paragraphs elsewhere in the G-77 text would have the effect
of postponing the Secretary-General's initiatives to pursue
outsourcing and install a freedom of information regime in
the UN. Also of concern was a paragraph calling on the
Secretary-General to present proposals for increasing the

SIPDIS
representation of "developing countries" in the staff of the
UN.


3. Tensions were raised further on April 26, when Ambassador
Kumalo of South Africa made the following points in a press
conference at the UN:

-- just because the U.S., UK and Japan pay more money than
other member states, the UN is not a private corporation in
which they are entitled to a greater say;

-- the spending cap imposed during the December 2005 debate
over the budget is a sword hanging over us right now that we
(i.e., the G-77) will fight;

-- the UK, EU and U.S. are the ones putting this Organization
in a crisis, but they are trying to blame the crisis on us.
Just because they have more money, they are trying to force
us to give up our rights as UN members, or they will withhold
money;



-- we are not opposed to reform, but the UN is not based on
who has money and who does not. It's like a shake-down;

-- we haven't called for a vote; we've called for consensus.
It's up to those who don't want to lend consensus to tell us
what they want;

-- we are being forced to give up our rights under the
Charter, or face not having an Organization.


4. On April 27, G-77 Ambassador Kumalo introduced his
Group's text (A/C.5/60/L.37/Rev.1) in a formal meeting of the
Fifth Committee, seeking the Committee adoption without a
vote in accordance with the rules of procedures of the
General Assembly. Ambassador Bolton, Austrian PermRep
Pfanzelter (on behalf of the EU),Japanese Ambassador Ozawa,
and New Zealand PermRep Banks (on behalf of CANZ) all
protested that the G-77 text did not enjoy consensus support.
Ambassador Pfanzelter, speaking on behalf of the EU,
indicated that 46 countries, including the U.S., Japan, and
CANZ, had endorsed a letter addressed to GA President
Eliasson (full text - see para 11) underscoring that the G-77
draft resolution lacked consensus and expressing a readiness
to work to achieve a mutually agreeable text.


5. Also on April 27, the Secretary-General sent a letter to
GA President Eliasson (full text - see para 12) suggesting
that the proposals on improving interaction between the
Secretariat and Member States (Proposal #20) and reforming

SIPDIS
governance structures (Proposal #21) be "set aside" to
facilitate agreement on other elements of the draft
resolution. The SYG's proposal prompted renewed discussion
among Fifth Committee members during the evening of April 27
much of the day on April 28. Despite this major concession
from the Secretary-General, the G-77 was still not willing to
back away from its position. Instead, Ambassador Kumalo
provoked additional objections when he proposed language to
prohibit any possible mention or consideration of governance
proposals in any future document or UN forum, effectively
rejecting the SYG's efforts at compromise.

THE VOTE
--------------


6. EU Chair Pfanzelter and G-77 Chair Kumalo engaged without
success in last-minute informal negotiations throughout the
day on April 28 in an attempt to reach consensus. Early in
the evening, when it became apparent that language agreeable
to all parties, including the U.S., could not be finalized,
Kumalo reiterated his request, first pronounced April 26, for
Fifth Committee adoption by consensus of the draft G-77 text.
EU Chair Pfanzelter, supported by the U.S., Japan, CANZ, and
other signatories of the EU letter to GA President Eliasson,
requested a recorded vote. The result: 108 members voted to
adopt the G-77 draft resolution; 3 states abstained (Armenia,
Norway, Uganda); and, 50 states opposed (U.S., Japan,
Germany, UK, France, Italy, Canada, Spain, Republic of Korea,
Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden,
Austria, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Portugal, Israel, Poland,
Turkey, Ireland, New Zealand, Czech Republic, Hungary,
Slovenia, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Cyprus, Ukraine,
Croatia, Iceland, Lithuania, Serbia and Montenegro, Bulgaria,
Latvia, Malta, Estonia, Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Albania, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Georgia, Monaco, San Marino, Palau, and Republic
of Moldova).


7. Ambassador Bolton gave an explanation of the U.S.
position (full text in para. 13) before the vote, as did many
other speakers. Bolton voiced respect for the tenacity with
which the Group of 77 and China argued their position.
Bolton also said he respected the good faith in which the
parties conducted negotiations in an effort to reach
consensus, as well as the fact that G-77 members stuck to
their position. However, he also noted that, "absent
top-to-bottom management reform, the United Nations will
continue to be ill-equipped to meet the current demands that
we, as Member States, place upon the Organization." The
United States, he said, was committed to pursuing necessary
management reforms to ensure that the United Nations remains
an effective, efficient, transparent and accountable
Organization. Ambassador Bolton then read the text of the
letter sent April 27 to GA President Eliasson and listed the
names of the 46 states that had signed it. Bolton further
indicated the U.S. would vote against the G-77 text.


8. Austrian PermRep Pfanzelter, on behalf of the EU,
expressed regret that his last-minute negotiations with G-77
Chair Kumalo had failed to produce an acceptable text.
Pfanzelter voiced concern that the long-standing tradition of
the Fifth Committee to act on consensus documents was being


violated. Pfanzelter said he stood ready to continue
discussions in an attempt to bridge existing differences, but
that "it's unfortunate this is not acceptable for the G-77.
We deplore that." Japanese PermRep Oshima also expressed
concerns that the consensus principle was being violated.
Oshima said there were no winners in the vote, "and if there
are losers, it is reform of the Organization. It (the vote)
is likely to be interpreted as rejection, or at best
deferral, of these necessary reforms." Speakers from the UK,
New Zealand, Germany, Belgium, Slovakia, and the Netherlands
echoed similar themes, including expressions of concern that
the debate had become so polarized.


9. Following the vote, G-77 Chair Kumalo reiterated his
Group's support for UN reform and for making the UN a better
Organization, but only through an inclusive approach that
involved all members. "We in the Group of 77 and China
believe in the right of every Member State to have an equal
say in the decision-making of this Organization ... This
right for us is not dependent on the financial contributions
of Member States to the budget of the Organization." That
was why the Group had been so vocal in seeking to protect the
nature of the Organization, particularly the oversight role
of the General Assembly. Brazilian PermRep Sardenberg said
his government remained committed to management reform that
would improve the UN's performance in areas including
development, peace, security, and human rights. Egyptian
PermRep Abdelaziz said the goal of all delegations should be
to create a more credible, efficient and effective United
Nations. He said that Member States needed to work
constructively and in cooperation with others, regardless of
their level of development and regardless of how much they
contributed to the Organization.

NEXT STEPS
--------------


10. The resolution adopted by the Fifth Committee on April
28 now will be sent to the General Assembly for its
consideration and final action. The GA President's Office
has advised USUN privately that no action is contemplated
until after PGA Eliasson returns to New York, likely the week
of May 8.

LETTER TO GA PRESIDENT
--------------


11. Text of April 27, 2006 Letter Sent by 46 Signatory
Countries to GA President Eliasson:

Begin text:

Excellency,

We wish to bring to your attention an urgent problem that has
arisen in the context of management reform. You are well
aware of the background to our negotiations on the
Secretary-General's report, "Investing in the United Nations:

SIPDIS
for a stronger Organization worldwide," and the difficult
path they have pursued. You know the depth of feeling on the
issues and the many efforts that have been made to find
agreement.

There is now a resolution tabled by the Group of 77 and China
in the Fifth Committee which the Group of 77 and China
believes could be the basis for consensus. We have to
underline that this draft resolution is not acceptable to us.
By convention, those who propose resolutions in the Fifth
Committee do so when they believe conditions for adoption
without dispute have been established. This is not the case
now.

We stand ready to work for true consensus on a mutually
agreeable text. We are prepared to conclude our discussions
in the Fifth Committee by reporting back to you that we were
unable to reach a consensus. Forcing a decision on a
non-consensual resolution would trigger a vote. This would
leave us no alternative but to vote against the Group of 77
and China draft resolution. We are concerned that a vote
under these circumstances could entail consideration
disadvantages for the United Nations, for this proposal and
for the budget process.

Therefore, we hope that you could continue to assist us in
taking this forward in a way which permits us to find
consensus on this important issue.

(Signatories - Permanent Representatives of: Albania,
Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Canada Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark,
Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,
Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Liechtenstein,


Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New
Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, San
Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Turkey, UK, U.S.)

End text.

SECRETARY-GENERAL'S LETTER TO FIFTH COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

SIPDIS
-------------- --------------


12. Text of April 27, 2006 Letter from SYG Annan to Fifth
Committee Chair Ashe:

Begin text:

Dear Mr. Chairman,

Over the last several days, I had the opportunity to discuss
with Member States my report on "Investing in the United
Nations: for a stronger Organization worldwide."

It is apparent that there are some concerns related to
proposals 20 and 21. While my sole purpose was to propose
more efficient working methods for the intergovernmental
process, I recognize that these two proposals have provoked
concern and resistance.

Certainly they should not be allowed to stand in the way of
consensus or lead to a departure from the valuable and
well-established practice of avoiding divisive votes on
budgetary matters. Neither should they be an impediment to
achieving progress on other aspects of reform. Accordingly,
the Committee may wish to set aside proposals 20 and 21.

With this contentious issue set aside, I would urge the
Committee to proceed quickly to an agreed resolution adopted
by consensus that allows the programme of work on the
management reforms to continue without delay.

Please accept, Mr. Chairman, the assurances of my highest
consideration.

Kofi A. Annan

End text.

U.S. EXPLANATION OF VOTE
--------------


13. Text of Ambassador Bolton's April 28 remarks:

Begin text:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to say, on behalf of the United States,
that even though we disagreed with the L.37 text, that we
respect the position taken by the G-77 and China. We respect
the tenacity with which they argued for their position. We
respect the good faith in which they conducted negotiations
in an effort to reach consensus. And we respect the fact
that they stuck to their position. It is an honorable thing
to do.

Mr. Chairman, during the course of our discussions this week,
a number of countries drafted a letter to the President of
the General Assembly, Ambassador Eliasson. I would like to
read that letter, dated April 27:

Excellency,

We wish to bring to your attention an urgent problem that has
arisen in the context of management and reform. You are well
aware of the background to our negotiation on the
Secretary-General's report, "Investing in the United Nations:

SIPDIS
for a stronger Organization worldwide," and the difficult
path they have pursued. You know the depth of the feeling of
the issues and the many efforts that have been made to find
agreement.

There is now a resolution tabled by the Group of 77 and China
in the Fifth Committee, which the Group of 77 and China
believes could be the basis for consensus. We have to
underline that this draft resolution is not acceptable to us.
By convention, those who propose resolutions in the Fifth
Committee do so when they believe conditions for adoption
without dispute have been established. That is not the case
now.

We stand ready to work for true consensus on a mutually
agreeable text. We are prepared to conclude our discussions


in the Fifth Committee by reporting back to you that we were
unable to reach a consensus. Forcing a decision on a
non-consensual resolution would trigger a vote. This would
leave us no alternative but to vote against the Group of 77
and China's draft resolution.

We are concerned that a vote under these circumstances could
entail considerable disadvantages for the United Nations, for
this proposal and for the budget process. Therefore, we hope
that you could continue to assist us in taking this forward
in a way which permits us to find consensus on this important
issue.

The letter, Mr. Chairman, was signed by the representatives
of the following governments:
Albania, Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech
Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Latvia,
Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the
Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Republic of
Korea, Romania, San Marino, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, the United Kingdom,
and the United States.

Mr. Chairman, absent top to bottom management reform, the
United Nations will continue to be ill-equipped to meet the
current demands that we, as Member States, place upon the
Organization. The United States is committee to pursuing
necessary management reforms to ensure that the United
Nations remains an effective, efficient, transparent, and
accountable Organization. As such, the United States is
joined by many other states in voting "no" against the
resolution tabled by the Group of 77 and China.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

End text.

BOLTON