EU Presidency Statement - Improving the Effectiveness of 1st Committee Work Methods

Mr. Chairman,

I have the honour to take the floor on behalf of the European Union. The candidate countries, Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey and Croatia*, as well as the EFTA countries, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, members of the European Economic Area, and the countries of the Stabilisation and Association Process, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and Serbia and Montenegro, align themselves with this statement.

Mr. Chairman,

1. The European Union continues to believe that the working methods in the First Committee could be rationalised to the benefit of all members, and has dedicated great attention to this issue in the past years.

Mr. Chairman,

2. This debate is actually about two subjects. The first one is relevance, the second one is efficiency. They do not necessarily coincide. But there is a certain overlap: it is difficult to keep discussions relevant in an inefficient forum.The European Union considers it important to strike a balance between these two concepts. If all delegations are only concerned with relevance, perhaps even only with what is relevant to them at a strictly national level, our agenda would spill over, as it has. On the other hand, if we would be focusing too much on efficiency only, we could be throwing the baby out with the bathwater in the process of shortening, limiting and cutting.The real art is of course to find the middle ground between the two. That is where effectiveness can be found.

3. To obtain a maximum of effectiveness of the First Committee, the European Union considers three suggestions vital. They elaborate upon our earlier active contributions to the process, including our common reply to last year's consensus resolution, which we will distribute as an annex to this statement. Taken together, these suggestions might constitute the balanced approach that is needed.

4. First, there are the practical measures already implemented this year, such as on speaking time, on the rolling list of speakers and on the clustering of the agenda. We salute you, Mr. president, for your diligence in that field. The ground work by your predecessor ambassador Sareva of Finland has been important as well. Other practical measures might follow.

5. Member states have a special responsibility on this level as well. They should actively pursue a lower frequency of resolutions where possible, and merge them where applicable. As an illustration, Germany, Romania and the Netherlands are in the process of merging the resolutions on Transparency in Armaments and Transparency in Military Expenditures.

6. Member states could also end their resolutions by not automatically including a reference to next year's meeting, but to state, as appropriate, in more general terms that the General Assembly decides "it will remain attentive to the matter".

7. Second, there are those actions, on which decision should be taken. They include forms of interactivity, broadening the discussions, and further administrative reform.

8. On introducing more interactivity, the suggestions that already circulate range from 'question time' and panel discussions to interactive thematic debates. The differences between these formats should be further elaborated upon. The EU is of the opinion that more interactivity between delegations could improve the debate. But interactivity should not be a goal in itself. We do consider it important to have within the First Committee presentations of, and focus discussions on, reports on the work of expert groups. Also, high-level governmental and intergovernmental experts could introduce thematic debates. The question of whether or not interactive debate should be recorded, must be further explored.

9. The EU regards the further development of a system of comprehensive electronic support for the work of the First Committee as crucial. Presently, it is not possible to find a coherent set of documents for our work on any official website. For instance, delegations are still not able to receive draft resolutions electronically. The constant struggle of all individual delegations with administrative overview, renders a rather archaic quality to our work.

10. Our third point is on the wider context of our work. As the EU has emphasized in its general statement, the world of today forces us to think globally, across borders and particularly across issues. This implies that the times in which delegations could effectively approach the First Committee as a stand-alone body have passed. Addressing the root causes of conflict and insecurity, includes addressing the root causes for armament, and thus is crucial for achieving progress in disarmament. So in dealing with our subject matter, co-operation with the work in other Committees should not be excluded. While keeping our focus on disarmament and security issues, one of our further recommendations to the General Assembly could therefore be that the General Assembly focus on exploring forms of co-operation between the First Committee and other Committees or U.N. bodies.

11. As the EU stated last year: "This is not a task which can be settled once and for all. Rather, we need to keep the work of the First Committee constantly under review in order to rationalize it and to keep abreast of the security challenges that need to be addressed."

Mr. Chairman,

12. Let me conclude with some words on the process up to April 1st, 2005, as set out by the General Assembly. It would be good if we could succeed in agreeing on detailed proposals and recommendations to the General Assembly before the end of this session. But it might still be needed to further discuss proposals in the coming months; the report by the High-Level Panel which we expect in December, could have direct implications for our work.

Thank you.

* Croatia continues to be part of the Stabilisation and Association Process

| Top |