|
|
Working Group on GA Revitalization Sets Agenda for 62nd SessionBy ReformtheUN.org The General Assembly’s Ad Hoc Working Group on GA Revitalization convened on Thursday, 21 February to discuss how to move forward with enhancing the role, authority, effectiveness and efficiency of the Assembly. Co-Chaired by Ambassador Andrzej Towpik of Poland and Ambassador Eladio Loizaga of Paraguay, this was the Group’s first meeting of the 62nd Session. The Co-Chairs presented a paper – “Considerations by the Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the UN General Assembly” – that proposed next steps in the revitalization process. As anticipated (see Latest Development Issue #232), the paper proposed a “pragmatic” approach and suggested a two-tier agenda. Click here to view the Co-Chairs’ paper. The GA President’s spokesperson said on 22 February that the co-Chairs would continue to consult with Member States about the proposals and report back to the Assembly within the 62nd session (before September 2008). Co-Chairs’ “Considerations” Paper In their paper, the co-Chairs noted that Member States’ positions on GA Revitalization are well known and that their previous proposals for revitalization remain relevant. To avoid further debate on the same positions, the co-Chairs suggested a new approach for the next round of discussion. In the “two-step approach,” A. The Working Group would begin by gaining a clearer picture of all previous decisions on GA Revitalization that have not been implemented fully. This focus is consistent with part of the mandate of the Working Group (as given in GA Resolution 61/292 of August 2007) – to evaluate and assess the status of implementation of relevant resolutions (see Background below). Such a project would entail: 1. A first round of consultations within the Ad Hoc Working Group concentrating on evaluation and assessment of the implementation of relevant GA revitalization resolutions, followed by; 2. The preparation of a synopsis of all decisions on revitalization, in order to indicate where and by whom implementation of decisions still is required. B. Member States also would select a few specific items on which to hold in-depth discussion. This proposal is based on the co-Chairs’ view that in debates on UN reform, “large packages might be difficult to move forward.” By contrast, “practical and pragmatic” solutions may have more success. The specific items should be both 1) important for the revitalization of the General Assembly and 2) those on which wide agreement can be expected. The Co-Chairs’ suggestion for a specific item of focus was “the question of the Presidency of the General Assembly.” They presented this issue as important for GA revitalization: “the vitality of the General Assembly to a considerable extent depends on the President of the General Assembly.” They also suggested that it would be possible to reach wide agreement on the issue: the geographical rotation of the Presidency “ensures that all regional groups should have equal interest in a better leadership position for the General Assembly.” Specifically, the Co-Chairs proposed that the Working Group compile provisions and best practices relating to the President of the General Assembly “which would clarify also his/her responsibilities, status, privileges and immunities” in order to “create a useful tool to facilitate their work.” Responses from Member States: Much of the Working Group’s discussion focused on three areas: 1. Concern for implementing previous Resolutions on GA revitalization: -Egypt: “It is important not to give the impression that the General Assembly is merely adopting resolutions, or that a job is ‘done’ by merely adopting a resolution.” -Belarus: The time taken to move from consultation to action undermined both the image of the General Assembly and of the wider UN system. -The Rio Group and Japan also supported the focus on implementation. Japan agreed with identifying specific topics to generate broad agreement. 2. The lack of balance between the principle organs of the UN, as well as perceived “encroachment” upon General Assembly issues by the Security Council: -The Non-aligned Movement: Expressed disappointment at the lack of political will to maintain balance among the UN principle organs, citing the Security Council for failing to cooperate with requests of the General Assembly. Colombia echoed concern about imbalance between the main bodies of the UN. -Cuba: Further elaborated on this issue, stating concern “at the establishment of norms and definitions by the Security Council that exceed its competence.” -Pakistan: The GA should be afforded a greater role in issues of peace and security. 3. The role of the President of the General Assembly: -Pakistan: The President of the GA should be better equipped in his/her role as an instrument of the will of the Assembly. Whilst commending the efforts of previous Presidents, he suggested that the President should be required to issue progress reports, to provide a smooth transition and sustain momentum between presidencies and Sessions. -Japan: There is a need for better relationships between the presidents of major UN organs. Supported the proposal to compile the best practices of the GA and its presidency. One analyst on UN reform has noted that for members of the Non-aligned Movement and Group of 77, implementation of existing Resolutions particularly refers to implementation by the Security Council of standing “invitations” to improve its reporting to the GA. Thus, these States would prefer to see implementation efforts succeed first, followed by debate on other issues, such as strengthening the role of the GA president. Security Council members and some of their allies, by contrast, wish to resist the use of GA revitalization discussions to pressure the Council on working methods reform. Their preference is either to achieve concrete steps this year or to forego further debate. Next Steps In response to delegates’ comments, Ambassador Towpik articulated a three-point plan the Working Group’s efforts. Expressing his hope that with the new agenda Member States would “overcome Revitalization fatigue,” he proposed:
Background Revitalization of the General Assembly has been on the UN’s agenda since 1991, resulting in multiple resolutions to strengthen working practices between the General Assembly, Member States and the Secretariat. The 2005 World Summit Outcome (Resolution 60/1) created a specific agenda for implementation of Resolutions already adopted, and in August 2007 the Working Group on General Assembly Revitalization was established (Resolution 61/292). It tasked the Working Group with: Evaluating the status of implementation of previous resolutions on revitalization of the GA, and Identifying ways to enhance the Assembly’s “role, authority, effectiveness, and efficiency.” The Report of the Secretary-General on Revitalization of the Work of the General Assembly was subsequently published in December 2007 (A/62/608), providing updates on the status of implementation of existing Resolutions. On 26 November 2007, President Kerim appointed Ambassador Andrzej Towpik of Poland and Ambassador Eladio Loizaga of Paraguay to serve as co-Chairs of the resumed working group. In a 7 February 2008 briefing to update NGOs on the work of the Assembly, GA President Srgjan Kerim commented that three elements were essential to ensuring a central role for the GA in the UN system: 1) Member States, the shareholders of the UN, should be the driving force in setting the agenda and establishing priorities; 2) The President should be able to serve as a moderator, conductor, facilitator, and spokesperson, not just a meeting chair; and 3) Regular briefings must take place between the General Assembly and the Secretary-General, and between the Assembly and the Security Council.
|
