Sommaire: EU Presidency Statement - Mandate Review (New York, 25 April 2006)
General Assembly; Third Informal Plenary Meeting on Mandate Review; Statement by Minister Alexander Marschik, Deputy Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations, on behalf of the European Union.
Mr Chairman,
I have the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union. The Acceding Countries Bulgaria and Romania, the Candidate Countries Croatia, Turkey, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the Country of the Stabilisation and Association Process and potential candidate Albania and the EFTA country Iceland, member of the European Economic Area align themselves with this statement.
Today, following the Programme of Work presented by Co-Chairs, I will focus my remarks on Cluster A, "Maintenance of international Peace and Security" and Cluster G "Disarmament", based on the SG's report "Mandating and Delivering […]" (A/60/733).
Before entering into the details of these clusters, let me first say that for us, Mandate Review is an essential part of the UN's reform agenda. We share the goal of making the United Nations more effective for the benefit of all member states by identifying and consolidating obsolete, redundant or unnecessarily duplicative mandates and using the resources freed up to focus on priority areas of work. Mandate Review is not intended as a cost-cutting exercise but as an ongoing process to improve
the relevance and quality of the organisation's work. We have emphasised that in our view politically sensitive mandates should be approached with appropriate sensitivity. We bear these principles in mind when we examine the SG's suggestions and make our own proposals.
Mr Chairman,
Let me first turn to the substance of Cluster A "Maintenance of international Peace and Security". The EU supports the need for examination of mandates in the field of peace and security by the principal organs while respecting the provisions of the Charter on the respective roles of the organs involved.
As the Cluster "Peace and Security" is one where potential overlap between the GA and the Security Council is to be identified, we encourage Co-Chairs to help initiate the review process in the Security Council as soon as possible. We would expect that the review process in the Security Council be such as to ensure that member states who are not currently members of the Council and directly affected by mandates being reviewed be given the opportunity to participate in those consultations.
The overall objective in Cluster A should be, as the SG's report suggests, to produce more effective action by UN organs, on the basis of fewer, better targeted and better quality reports, which reduces the burden on the Secretariat and on member states and avoids unnecessary duplication of effort. In this context, the EU agrees in broad terms with the SG's proposals to move in the direction of fewer reports and fewer resolutions, produced at less regular intervals or - ideally - only when a
genuine demand occurs.
We agree that member states should consider ways to reduce the demands for parallel reporting on the same subjects to different organs, for example by seeking to clarify which organ should be the primary form for consideration of certain items. As part of this, the EU would support considering that reports to the Security Council, for example on Western Sahara, also be communicated directly to the GA and to the Special Committee.
The SG has offered some concrete examples in his report of how to make our work more effective. Let me just highlight some of the proposals that the EU can support. The EU is favourable to reducing the frequency of the report on the "Zone of peace and cooperation in the South Atlantic" from two years to as needed. We support reducing the number of reports requested by the Committee on Information and examining the overlaps between this committee and other organs. We agree with the suggestion
that the agenda item on "Support by the United Nations System to the efforts of Governments to promote and consolidate new or restored democracies" should be triennialised.
The EU agrees that the PBC will have an important role to play in the field of peace and security and should contribute to more effective overall action. The aim of the Commission, as an inter-governmental advisory body, should be to improve the effectiveness of international action, by the UN and others, in post-conflict countries. This should be done with a minimum of bureaucracy and duplication. In particular the PBC should set an example by not producing detailed and lengthy reports and
resolutions which parallel work elsewhere. Its output should be concise, action-oriented advice, which will be the basis for decisions by UN organs and other international actors.
Mr Chairman,
I will turn now to Cluster G "Disarmament". Over the past sixty years numerous mandates have been created by different UN organs to promote disarmament and non-proliferation. As the Secretary-General rightly pointed out in his report, In Larger Freedom, this disarmament machinery has been "central to the maintenance of international peace and security ever since those instruments were agreed." The unsatisfactory outcome of the 2005 NPT Review Conference, the current difficulties of the
Conference on Disarmament as well as the absence of any reference to disarmament in the Outcome Document clearly indicate, however, that the mandate review process in the field of disarmament will not be an easy task.
Nevertheless, the exploration of creative solutions remains a pertinent exercise, which requires both political will and the greater involvement of the member states. The review of disarmament mandates should reflect the coherence, complementarity and interdependence of various components of the disarmament and non-proliferation system. The process should also be perceived in the broader context of the current reform efforts, including the revitalization of the General Assembly and its First
Committee, but first of all it should be conducted with the aim to strengthen the entire disarmament and non-proliferation machinery.
At this moment, we see common challenges and problems that are pervasive throughout the entire system of disarmament mandates: duplications, difficulties in implementation, burdensome reporting requirements. Reporting requirements make up most of the disarmament mandates. In some cases, the Secretariat bears the main responsibility for preparing a report. In others, the Secretariat has only a supporting role, which could be further examined with regard to its necessity and effectiveness.
An important issue is the frequency of reporting. As proposed by the Secretary General, to save time and resources, issues which are not connected to any current situation but rather of a thematic nature, could be taken up less frequently, in two-year or three-year cycles, instead of annually. We would also support the SG's proposal to streamline existing disarmament reporting mandates, which would allow member states to concentrate more effectively on the issues of particular concern and
relevance. However, reports of particular importance, such as for instance the annual report of the IAEA, or report on the implementation of the CTBT should be considered annually also in the future.
In some cases, similar mandates are implemented by different organisational entities within the Secretariat, mostly DPA or DDA. Those mandates could be possibly streamlined in order to avoid unnecessary duplications. It would be useful to receive proposals from the Secretariat in that regard.
Some mandates have become obsolete due to changed circumstances. The termination of such mandates should take into account the possible utilisation of existing capabilities. In this context, as proposed by the Secretary General, a Security Council review of the UNMOVIC mandate may be warranted, including examination of whether and how the United Nations could utilise certain areas of the Commission's expertise such as its roster of trained and technical experts. This of course is a matter for
the Security Council as part of its consideration of its own mandates.
Turning to the detailed proposals of the SG, many of which the EU can support, let me highlight two or three examples. We agree with the SG's proposal that items assigned to the First Committee on general matters of security and disarmament, which are not connected to any current situation should be taken up less frequently. An example of such an item could be "Role of science and technology in the context of international security and disarmament". We also support the SG's suggestion of
reviewing the activities of the "Standing Advisory Committee on Security Questions in Central Africa".
Mr Chairman,
As we have emphasised, the EU is examining with an open mind all mandates falling under this review, including those initiated or co-sponsored by its members. The short period of time for the review of the mandates and the complexity of that task makes it practically difficult to offer a detailed analysis of all relevant mandates. However, we will deliver more detailed proposals on particular mandates at a later stage in the process.
We appreciate both Co-Chairs' genuine efforts to generate confidence and momentum around Mandate Review. We encourage all member states to approach this inclusive and transparent process without preconceptions. The EU will contribute its effort towards achieving a successful outcome.
| Haut |
Etats Membres de l'Union Européenne
Alertes par e-mail
Envoyer par e-mail
Imprimer cette page