Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the GA Meets For a Briefing and a Discussion on the Synopsis of its June Meetings

Report by Daniel Safran-Hon 13 August 2009

Taking place on 27 July 2009 and convoked by the two Co-Chairs of the Ad Hoc working group, Ambassador Morten Wetland of Norway and Ambassador Maria Fernanda Espinosa from Ecuador, the meeting was a follow-up to the working group’s meetings in June held pursuant to GA resolution 62/276. Three issues were presented and discussed in this informal meeting - Balloting, Documentation and Press Relations. This was followed by Member States’ comments on the synopsis, sent by the Co-Chairs to Member States on 8 July 2009, which summarizes the three informal debates on GA revitalization that took place during the month of June.

The Synopsis
As the Co-Chairs describe in their synopsis, the meeting on 3 June 2009 first dealt with the implementation of GA resolutions and the GA agenda. There was support for the implementation of proposals already adopted on this issue and for the creation of a chart, which would report on the status of the implementation of resolutions. The chart would be maintained by the SG and would be based on the one created during the 62nd GA.

On the issue of the agenda of the GA, it was suggested that the GA be mandated to deal with the most pressing issues of international interest. Some Member States expressed support for the idea of convening relevant thematic debates, as long as these debates would not reproduce work done in other UN fora.

A diversity of opinion was expressed when discussing operational and technical issues, including information on the GA voting system. Some Member States were more hesitant of the implementation of new technologies while others seemed forthcoming. More information was requested on this issue and the possibility of referring the issue to the Fifth Committee was also mentioned. Finally, the issue of documentation was raised and more information was requested from the Secretariat on possible ways to increase savings. Nine delegations took the floor during this meeting.

The second meeting took place on 5 June. In their synopsis, the Co-Chairs report that this meeting was used to discuss the role of the General Assembly and its relationship to other principle organs of the UN. Many Member States argued that there is a need to strengthen the role of the GA as the major UN forum. In response, other Member States reminded the respective organ’s functions and powers as prescribed by the UN charter. These give the GA the prerogative to approve the budget as mentioned in Article 17.1 of the UN charter and only make recommendations on other issues such as Peace and Security where the GA may take action only when the Security Council so requests as mentioned in Article 12.1. Some Member States also stated that the Security Council has been expanding its activities at the expense of the GA. It was noted that there already exists a body of resolutions on the issue that awaits implementation.

Concerning the visibility and public outreach capacity of the GA, Member States expressed their support in increasing the GA’s public visibility and in further exploring ways to do so.

The meeting was also dedicated to the role and responsibility of the GA in the process of appointing Secretaries-General of the UN. While some Member States supported the current state of affairs and compliance to the UN Charter, others criticized it arguing that the Permanent Members of the Security Council have too much power in these elections and that the GA has become a “Rubber Stamp” of the P-5. It was also suggested that the GA be a forum for the candidates to introduce themselves and their agendas. Fifteen delegations took the floor during this meeting.

Finally, the Co-chairs report in their synopsis that the last of the three meetings, held on 19 June, was dedicated to the strengthening of institutional memory of the office of the President of the General Assembly and enhancing its functions and relationship with the Secretariat.

During the debate, several Member States supported increases in financial and human resources of the PGA’s office. While many Member States reiterated the importance of implementing existing resolutions and using existing resources, others indicated that the current resources were not sufficient. Concerning the strengthening of the PGA’s office’s institutional memory, several Member States argued that each outgoing PGA should submit a report to the following PGA-elect. This report should also be available to Member States. The possibility of creating a consultative mechanism between the PGA and the Main Committee Chairs was also put forward. Ten Delegations took the floor during this meeting.

Member States comment on the Co-Chairs’ synopsis
The meeting on 27 July was an opportunity for the Co-Chairs to take note of Member States' opinions on their synopsis.

The reaction of Member States was characterized by an endorsement of the synopsis. Several Member States noted that the synopsis was representative of the discussions and variety of opinions in the three meetings.

Many Member States, such as Sweden, on behalf of the EU, encouraged the implementation of existing resolutions and especially those from the 2005 World Summit (In paragraphs 149, 150, 151), a point reiterated by Algeria that spoke on behalf of the countries of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM). The US followed this by supporting simple and practical steps, within the current UN structure, that may bring quick results instead of concentrating on complex political issues. Others, such as Venezuela, argued that the current system that gives more power to the SC than to the GA does not represent the existing “Rapport de force” in the world and should thus be reformed, giving the GA more authority, especially in the process of nominating Secretaries-General. Other Member States suggested that the GA may be more proactive in this process if the candidates for SG would give presentations to the GA before their election.

Member States, such as Mexico, also suggested that a clearer division in the synopsis between substantive issues (or political issues, as some Member States called them) and operational issues, be made. This should be helpful in so far as clarifying which issues are more complex and which are of less difficulty to deal with and facilitate their prioritizing. Several Member States also recommended the creation of a chart that would include the status of the implementation of various relevant resolutions based on the chart created for the 62nd GA. This chart may also help prevent duplication of initiatives.

Finally, Colombia suggested a process for implementing decisions that would begin by purging the pending resolutions from the implemented ones, classifying tasks in long term and short term categories as well as thematic areas, and finally elaborating specific plans of action.

Technical presentations and Member State's Comments
The meeting on 27 June also included three presentations, each one of them followed by a short discussion.

The first presentation dealt with the issue of electronic balloting. The presentation was given by Mr. Andrew Nye, Chief of the Facilities Management Services of the Department of Management, concerning the new electronic module planned within the Capital Master Plan. This module will permit regular elections as well as the use of secret ballots. The results of the vote, with a graphic presentation, would be given institutionally at the end of each vote and may be projected on a video screen as well as printed in the form of a report. The problem of the possibility to verify that a Member States' vote was counted was raised by a few delegations and it was mentioned that with a paper ballot the casting and counting of the vote can be openly seen by Member States. Mr. Nye replied that the electronic voting system does not have a way of assuring a delegation's vote when the vote is secret, although technically it is very reliable and has self-test systems. To the question concerning the way the provider of this system was chosen, the reply given was that this was done in a competitive selection. Information about prices was not available at the moment but would soon be sent to Member States. Finally Mr. Nye informed Member States that more information will be provided in due time and that they will be able to experience and test this system in the temporary installations that are being built in the north lawn of the UN.

The second presentation regarded documentation and was given by Mr. Magnus Olafsson from the publishing section of the UN. First it was noted that the publishing section has asked Member States to notify the unit of the exact amount of documents each of them was interested in receiving. Most Member States have not replied to this request and Mr. Olafsson strongly encouraged them to do so. He nevertheless noted that printing amounts have gone down by 3%-4% annually. Furthermore, since the document printing unit is a professional printing house, its costs are 8 to 10 times lower than office printers, it was thus recommended by Mr. Olafsson to print less at offices and to make good use of printing services. Member States were also informed that the printing services are shifting to full digital printing which is more environmentally friendly, and will also permit in a later stage conducting individual printing projects for Member States. Member States did not take the floor after this presentation.

The third presentation concerned working dynamics of the GA with the media. Ms. Evelyn Leopold, a veteran UN reporter, reviewed the points raised in a meeting the Co-Chairs had with the UN correspondents association (UNCA) about the exposure of the GA in the media. Ms. Leopold mentioned several points. The first was the lack of a second spokesperson, especially during the period of the opening of the GA (September until December). Adding to this difficulty is the fact that the spokesperson changes every year and since it takes time to get used to this environment, the new spokesperson is usually not yet used to the position when the GA opens. Another point raised was the hostility of the GA staff to the distribution of documents very much needed for the reporter's understanding of events taking place at the GA. The relaxing of security would be another very beneficial step to providing journalist with access to meetings and information. The mentioning of names of speakers was also raised as a necessity, as these are a needed for journalists covering meetings. To conclude, Ms. Leopold noted that many journalists only covered specific fields of interest and not the GA as a whole. This, combined with the quick pace of world events gives the GA the possibility to catch the interest of the world media only if it acts quickly and in a relevant way to current events. Member States agreed with the comments Ms. Leopold made and reiterated that progress on this is in their hands.

Next Steps
The Co-Chairs explained that the next steps would include consultations and negotiations concerning a draft resolution that will be prepared towards the end of the 63rd General Assembly.

Conclusion
Several of the more technical issues mentioned in the synopsis and the presentations such as holding relevant thematic debates and improving, in various ways, the GA's relations with the media – actions that would not infringe the UN Charter or the SC's authority, may be productively promoted. This depends mostly on Member States and the President of the GA and their will to implement existing resolutions. As there are several resolutions that already deal with these issues, the forthcoming resolution is not expected to add much substance matter. The more political issues that were raised in the various debates, issues that entail more than just changing the habits of the GA - for example giving much more of a stronger role to the GA in electing the SG (other than inviting the candidates to give presentations at the GA, as mentioned in the GA's resolution on its revitalization at the 60th session, which is an example for a way to involve the GA in the process without expanding its authority), are highly complex as well as politically flammable. Expectations for their advancement at this stage would seem premature.

Unless attributed to a specific source, all expressions of opinion are those of the author. The Center for UN Reform Education does not endorse any particular reform proposals.