GA/AB/3388

DISCUSSION OF DIVISION OF PEACEKEEPING EXPENSES BEGINS IN FIFTH COMMITTEE

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) began its general debate of the peacekeeping scale of assessments this morning. Most speakers agreed that, in conditions of unprecedented expansion of peacekeeping activities and financial expenditures, a review of the methodology for apportionment of United Nations expenses for peacekeeping operations assumed a high priority.

Speakers also welcomed the recent report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (the Brahimi Report), which they said provided a good basis for discussions on making peacekeeping operations more effective and efficient.

[Currently, peacekeeping operations expenses are apportioned to Member States using as �an ad hoc arrangement� -- a special scale -- the methodology for which was approved by the General Assembly in resolution 3101 (XXVIII) of December 1973.

The representative of the Republic of Korea stressed that the current financial difficulties were adversely affecting peacekeeping operations, seriously hampering operational efficiency and delaying reimbursement to troop-contributing countries.

Next year, the peacekeeping assessment for the United States would be 31 per cent of the total budget, that country�s representative said, and he did not think that level was fair. The scale must better reflect the diversity of the world economy. United Nations Member States had more than four different levels of economic strength. The breakdown into four categories was, therefore, inadequate and he supported the creation of intermediate groups for middle income countries.

The representative of Israel agreed that the scale of assessments must be modified to distribute the burden of financing more evenly. A successful reform must first and foremost lessen the United Nations reliance on the contribution of one Member State. To that end, a more realistic ceiling should be instituted for both the peacekeeping and the regular budget scale.

The representative of South Africa, speaking on behalf of the Non- Aligned Movement), said that any unilateral attempt at modifying the scale by applying conditions contrary to the principles of the United Nations was unacceptable. The principles and guidelines for the apportionment of peacekeeping expenses, approved by the Assembly in 1963 and 1973, should be adopted on a permanent

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3388 7th Meeting (AM) 3 October 2000

basis. Account must be taken of the special responsibilities of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, the representative of France drew attention to the Union�s proposals, which dated from 1996. The Union�s proposals were based on three principles which must be closely observed in establishing any future scale. They were: capacity to pay; the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council; and the relatively limited capacity of countries with less developed economies to make contributions.

The representative of Cyprus stressed the need to strengthen the Department of Peacekeeping Operations, which was faced with a great challenge in fulfilling its responsibilities. He also drew attention to the need for greater interaction and fine-tuning between that Department and the Department of Political Affairs, in order to foresee possible outbreaks of violence so preventive action could be taken. In addition, governments must ensure that the Secretariat could access on short notice the special expertise needed to respond to the emerging needs.

The representative of Bangladesh affirmed that peacekeeping operations were a collective responsibility, and, therefore, their costs should be shared collectively. He called on Member States to engage in an open, creative and focused exercise, in the best interests of the United Nations. As representative of one of the largest troop-contributing countries, he also emphasized the importance of timely reimbursement to Member States for troops and equipment they contributed to vital peacekeeping operations.

[Updating the Fifth Committee on the United Nations financial situation last March, Under-Secretary-General for Management Joseph Connor had said that in 1999, the total assessment level was the lowest in six years -- at $2,065 -- with $826 million for peacekeeping operations. In 2000, the projected assessment level would be more than $1 billion higher due to increased requirements for peacekeeping operations. At the end of 1999, the Organization owed $800 million to troop- and equipment-contributing States, and that amount was expected to be reduced by $692 million by the end of 2000. On 31 May 2000 outstanding contributions to peacekeeping operations totalled $2,010.3 million, of which $1,298 million, or 64.6 per cent, was owed by the United States.]

Also speaking in today�s debate were the representatives of Norway, Pakistan, Japan, Croatia, Argentina, Mexico, Turkey, Burkina Faso, Hungary, Australia (also speaking on behalf of Canada and New Zealand), Romania, Estonia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Libya.

The Committee will continue its consideration of the regular scale of assessments tomorrow, 4 October, at 10 a.m.

Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3388 7th Meeting (AM) 3 October 2000

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to begin its consideration of scale of assessments for the apportionment of the expenses for peacekeeping operations.

[On 11 December 1973, the General Assembly adopted resolution 3101 (XXVIII) which divided the United Nations membership into four groups for apportioning peacekeeping expenses. Those in Group D were specifically named economically less developed Member States and would pay 10 per cent of their regular budget assessment rates. Countries in Group C were economically less developed Member States which would pay 20 per cent. Group B contains specifically named economically developed States that are not permanent members of the Council and would pay 100 per cent. In Group A are the permanent Security Council members which would pay 100 per cent plus what is left unapportioned.]

Statements

JEAN-DAVID LEVITTE (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States, said that the Union welcomed the fact that the Assembly could finally open negotiations on the scale of contributions for peacekeeping operations. Reform of the scale for peacekeeping operations was essential if the Organization was to have an equitable, and therefore stable and sustainable, financial basis. In March 2000, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of the European Union reaffirmed the Union�s wish to see an overall reform of the scales for the regular budget and for peacekeeping operations. They emphasized that the Union could not consider overhauling the scale of contributions to the United Nations unless negotiations were open, aimed at a fairer distribution of the financial burden, and protected the financial interests of Union members which currently contributed a proportion far exceeding their share of world wealth. This year, the Union was contributing some 39 per cent of the costs of United Nations peacekeeping operations, and also paying substantial amounts for peacekeeping operations within the framework of regional organizations.

The Union's proposals for the scale for peacekeeping operations dated from 1996, he said. The European Union analysis was based on three principles which must be closely observed in establishing the future scale. They were: capacity to pay; the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council; and the relatively limited capacity of countries with less developed economies to make contributions. Finding resources to provide financial backing for the United Nations mandates was a collective responsibility. Arrangements for financing peacekeeping operations must not depart from the principle of capacity to pay. The scale, however, was introduced in 1973 on a provisional basis and for the world as it then existed. Although there had been profound economic changes since, the scale had changed very little.

It was, therefore, not surprising that there were considerable anomalies in the way the scale was currently structured, he continued. Some 20 countries, whose per capita income was higher than the world average, were still granted a reduction of 80 to 90 per cent for no valid reason. On the other hand, however, one country with a per capita income lower than the world average had not been granted any reduction. That situation must be resolved. The lack of flexibility in the current scale structure also affected Member States whose economic situation was deteriorating, and which could not benefit from an automatic reduction. The structure of the groups should be based on objective criteria, particularly per capita income, allowing their composition to be regularly updated as soon as new economic data became available.

The permanent members of the Security Council must assume special responsibility for financing peacekeeping operations, he said. The scale for peacekeeping operations was primarily based on the assessment rates negotiated for the regular budget. The permanent members of the Council paid an additional charge reflecting their special responsibility. For the Union, any departure from that principle was out of the question. The level of the surcharge must be the subject of discussion, as must the structure of the groups and the reduction granted to low-income countries. The surcharge must be fixed, predictable, negotiated and agreed upon by all Member States. Fifteen per cent would be a reasonable level to aim for. The level of the surcharge must be determined on the basis of the methodology used in determining the scale for the regular budget and the permanent member�s contribution to that budget. Failing reform, the surcharge would exceed 25 per cent in 2001.

Poorer countries had a relatively low capacity to contribute to paying for peacekeeping operations, he said. It was to reduce their share of the burden that a surcharge was levied on the five permanent members of the Council. This was a solidarity measure to complement other mechanisms for redistributing the financial burden that applied to the ordinary scale. The Union was approaching coming negotiations in a spirit of openness, ready to listen to any proposals which concurred with the principles he had outlined.

THEODORE ALBRECHT (South Africa), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that during the Thirteenth Ministerial Conference of the Non- Aligned Movement held in Cartagena in April 2000, its Ministers reaffirmed the importance of maintaining the principle of capacity to pay as a fundamental criterion in the apportionment of the expenses. Any unilateral attempt at modifying the scale by applying conditions contrary to the principles of the United Nations was unacceptable.

The Ministers reiterated that the principles and guidelines for the apportionment of expenses for peacekeeping approved by the Assembly in 1963 and 1973 should be adopted on a permanent basis. Account must be taken of the special responsibilities of the five permanent members of the Security Council in financing operations. Member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement and other developing countries should be classified in a category which is no higher than Group C. The Movement was ready to join with the "Group of 77" developing countries and China in consideration of the issue.

ANNE MERCHANT (Norway) said that it was paramount that Member States actively contributed to better preparing the United Nations for the increase in the number and complexity of peacekeeping operations. Norway would give the highest priority to further strengthening of the Organization�s capacity in the field of peace-support activities. The international community should commit itself to ensuring that the United Nations had the capability and capacity to carry out the increasingly complex tasks of maintaining peace and security. It should find a sound and lasting basis for the funding of peacekeeping operations.

The principle of the scale for peacekeeping operations had not been updated since its inception in 1973, she continued. It was necessary to review the current scale to ensure that it could support current and future peacekeeping activities. Any modification of the scale should result from a comprehensive review based on political and economic considerations. It was important to make a generous and transparent low-income adjustment for developing countries, enabling them to obtain relief that was proportionate to their per capita income or some other agreed measure. Needless to say, a surcharge should be retained for the permanent members of the Council. Norway remained committed to a new scale that enjoyed acceptance of all Member States.

SHAMSHAD AHMAD (Pakistan) said that his country was proud of its consistent participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations. Pakistan attached the utmost importance to efforts to augment the financial and operational capacity of the Organization to enable it to handle growing demands of United Nations peacekeeping. Strengthening the capacity of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security was a collective responsibility of the entire membership of the Organization. The recent report of the high-level panel led by Ambassador Brahimi would facilitate the task of translating the vision of the Organization�s political leadership into reality. The Secretary-General, too, had underlined the urgent need for providing additional resources and adequate institutional support to enable the United Nations to cope with the surge of requirements of United Nations peacekeeping. In the face of long-standing unresolved disputes and the recent eruption of new conflicts, the international community had little choice but to heed his call to enable the Organization to play its due role as a reliable and effective peacekeeper.

He said that Pakistan was deeply concerned at the perennial financial problems that continued to afflict peacekeeping operations. Lately, as a result of the deteriorating financial health of the Organization, the Secretariat had resorted to the practice of cross-borrowing from peacekeeping funds. That led to delays in reimbursement to Member States providing troops and equipment, thus causing particular difficulties for the troop-contributing States like Pakistan. For the United Nations to effectively discharge its peacekeeping responsibilities, it was imperative to equip the Organization with predictable and stable financing arrangements.

The starting point was for all Member States to fulfil their financial obligations in full, on time and without conditions, he continued. It was also necessary to evolve innovative and realistic ways to update the existing system of financing peacekeeping operations. The international community should also be prepared to address the very reasons that underlay the current financial uncertainties. It was a matter of profound importance to take into account the economic difficulties of developing countries. The burden of any adjustments should not be shifted to the developing countries, but instead should be picked up by those who were in a better position to do so.

The key question was how to evolve an equitable, stable and sustainable system, he said. In that regard, the international community could be adequately guided by the principles and guidelines contained in General Assembly resolutions of 1963 and 1973. In fact, the principles that underlay the original peacekeeping scale remained valid and should remain central to any institutionalized financing arrangements. They characterized peacekeeping as a collective responsibility, with permanent members of the Security Council bearing a special responsibility. They also acknowledged that economically developed countries were in a better position to contribute to peacekeeping than economically less developed ones. Attempts to strengthen the financial base of the United Nations should not be linked to other aspects of United Nations reform, which were already being addressed through separate mechanisms.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE (United States) said that after yesterday�s opening session he had high hope for the tough work ahead. What happened in the Fifth Committee would have a profound effect on the United Nations as an institution and on peacekeeping. If today�s debate meant the beginning of a major revision of peacekeeping, they would be able to look back and say it had a historic quality. If not, the meeting would constitute just another futile effort at reform. At the start of new century, they had a historic opportunity to get peacekeeping right. There was no dispute that the scale established in 1973 was outdated. There was also no disagreement that peacekeeping must be fixed in order to be saved. The Brahimi Report was a major step in that direction. Last month, at the Millenium Summit, the leaders of the permanent five had issued a historic joint statement that stressed the importance of revising the peacekeeping scale, and the United States and the Russian Federation issued a separate statement reaffirming their mutual commitment to work together.

It was time to get into the details and move from words to deeds, he continued. Two strands of thought must be addressed simultaneously: the way the Department of Peacekeeping Operations worked and the way the Fifth Committee financed operations. The same degree of focus applied by the Brahimi Report to operations must be applied to the crisis in peacekeeping finances. Without resources, the best reform plan was just an empty set of ideas.

Whether or not to save peacekeeping was a political choice, he said. Over the last year, a clearer sense of what must be done had been developed. To enter the year 2001 without a plan would be untenable. Brazil had acknowledged in 1973 that the peacekeeping scale should not set a precedent. It concentrated 98 per cent of the expenses on 30 Members, leaving 159 nations to pay only token amounts regardless of their economic circumstances. The permanent five, the General Assembly, and the Gulf Cooperation Council had all endorsed the urgent need to adopt a revised peacekeeping scale immediately.

The United States agreed that the fundamental principles that underlined the peacekeeping scale were sound, he said. The first was that peacekeeping was a collective responsibility. The second was that the permanent five had a special responsibility, and the third was that low-income developing countries had limited ability to contribute. That peacekeeping was a collective responsibility was a common sense concept. Per capita income represented a credible basis for fair levels. Gross national product (GNP) must remain the fundamental determinant. Scale revision meant that some nations must bear greater responsiblity than they did today, and so far some 18 countries had agreed to do so voluntarily, based on their economic situation. Their leadership had paved the way for the rest to find a way that was fair to all. Others had said privately that they were in the same position, but that they were not yet ready to announce their intentions.

The scale must better reflect the diversity of the world economy, he said. The United Nations had more than four different levels of economic strength. Categories A, B, C and D were, therefore, inadequate, and he supported the creation of intermediate groups for middle-income countries. Furthermore, there must be automatic updates so that when countries got richer, they moved up, and when they suffered hardship, they could also move down.

Only three of the five permanent members of the Council were now among the United Nations top contributors. Next year, the peacekeeping assessment for the United States would be at 31 per cent. His Government did not think that level was fair.

Any revision of scale must take into account the limited capacity to pay of low-income developing nations, he said. The United States would not accept any proposal that increased their obligations. He recognized the struggle those countries faced in meeting their contributions. South Africa, for example, had been a victim of the Committee�s failure to face new economic realities and was stuck in its present category, despite the fact that its per capita income was below the world average. The United States fully supported South Africa�s request for a reduction. Other countries in similar situations should benefit from automatic adjustments.

It was his hope that the Committee could capitalize on the collective will, he said. Once the new structure was in place, they would be in a position to consider the financial implications of the Brahimi Report. The Committee had three months to succeed, and could succeed as long as it focused on what was at stake.

GENNADI M. GATILOV (Russian Federation) said that in conditions of unprecedented expansion of peacekeeping activities and financial expenditures, the issue of methodology for apportionment of the United Nations expenses for peacekeeping assumed top priority. The time had come to take specific measures to guarantee sustainable financing for the United Nations peacekeeping and approve a new scale of assessments for peacekeeping.

A number of delegations were of the opinion that it was necessary to take a new look at the proposals which had been the subject of consultations prior to the adoption of the 1973 ad hoc agreement on financing of the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF). With adjustment, the results of work at that time could be a good basis for future consultations. Various ideas had also been expressed within the High-Level Working Group on the financial situation of the United Nations.

He said that the principle of real capacity to pay should become the basis of the scale of assessments. The principle of special financial responsibility of the Security Council permanent members for peacekeeping activities was indisputable. That responsibility arose exclusively when permanent members of the Council discharged Charter functions with regard to the maintenance of international peace and security. As a permanent member of the Council, Russia fulfilled, and would continue to fulfil, additional financial obligations with regard to the peacekeeping, compared to its share of the regular, budget of the Organization. It intended to contribute in every way -� by making payments to the regular budget in full and on time, and by paying its remaining arrears for peacekeeping, which had almost been liquidated.

As for the proposals to establish a new group (between groups b and c) or several new groups for the apportionment of expenses which took into account economic realities, he said that such an idea looked quite logical. It was necessary to come to an agreement on clear economic criteria for resolving the issue of assigning countries to certain groups. A previously mentioned proposal regarding a certain surcharge -� although purely symbolic -- for non-permanent members of the Security Council deserved attention. Russia was ready for constructive cooperation on the reform of the peacekeeping scale of assessments. However, reform was inseparable from the principle of responsibility of States for the discharge of their financial obligations, the observance of which could not be undermined by imposition of any conditions and demands. Reform should be the subject of intensive multilateral consultations, and final decisions should be adopted by consensus.

SUN JOUN-YUNG (Republic of Korea) noted the expansion of United Nations peacekeeping operations in recent years, as well as the increasingly complex nature of conflicts. He said that the costs of peacekeeping activities had been increasing steeply, from $826 million last year to an estimated $3 billion this year. It was necessary to strengthen the role and capacity of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations in planning, deployment, staffing and the procurement process. In that regard, he welcomed the recent report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (the Brahimi Report), which provided a good basis for discussions on making peacekeeping operations more effective and efficient. He regretted that current financial difficulties were adversely affecting peacekeeping operations, seriously hampering operational efficiency and delaying reimbursement to troop-contributing countries.

In view of the growing demand for peacekeeping, the Organization needed a stable and more equitable financing mechanism to meet its commitments, he continued. The current system for apportioning peacekeeping expenses had been adopted in 1973 on an ad hoc basis. Given the vast changes since 1973, it was high time to review both the strengths and shortcomings of the current ad hoc system in a comprehensive manner. His delegation was prepared to look at each proposal for reform on its own merits and wished to engage constructively in discussions in order to improve the transparency and stability of the financing of peacekeeping activities.

The Republic of Korea had contributed its troops to peacekeeping operations in East Timor, Western Sahara and Angola, and would continue its contributions to peacekeeping in the years ahead, he said. Furthermore, commensurate with its economic strength, the country would take steps to fulfil its pledge to increase its contribution to peacekeeping budgets.

HIDEAKI KOBAYASHI (Japan) said that there was firm consensus among world leaders on the need to examine, in a comprehensive manner, United Nations peacekeeping operations. The Brahimi Report offered many useful suggestions. Japan was prepared to play an active and constructive role in discussions, and hoped that there would be constructive discussion and that consensus could be reached on a more equitable scale.

Two important points must be stressed. The first was that the permanent members of the Security Council had special responsibilities with regard to financing peacekeeping operations. All premiums that resulted from any adjustments in the scale must be borne by the permanent members. This was a well established principle of the scale, and he believed it should be maintained in any new system. Secondly, a new system for determining the scale should reflect the economic realities of the present world. The current system was outdated. It was important to review and revise both the formula and the groupings. It would be useful to establish objective criteria for determining groupings to ensure that the system was able, not only to reflect the present economic conditions, but also to respond to any changes in those conditions.

Given the prospect of a sharp increase in peacekeeping expenditures, it was urgent to reform the scale and secure a sounder financial base, he said. It was important that the Committee make the utmost effort to reach a consensus this year on a new scale of assessments for the peacekeeping operations, based on the new scale for the regular budget.

IVAN SIMONOVIC (Croatia) said that peacekeeping operations had become one of the core activities of the Organization. Croatia had hosted five distinct peacekeeping missions in the past nine years. It was also proud that a small group of its personnel had joined United Nations peacekeepers in Sierra Leone. The necessity for substantive reform was reaffirmed by the Brahimi Report. Croatia welcomed that report, and supported a process of reform to change the traditional peacekeeping role to one that was more multidimensional and complex. The Organization needed solid and sustainable financing, and measures to encourage the payment of assessed financial obligations by Member States. Peacekeeping was a collective responsibility and required a fair division of costs between all Member States. The budgetary requirements for peacekeeping operations continued to increase. It was important, therefore, to have the most effective administrative and financial framework for them.

Croatia supported reform of peacekeeping operations, including revision of the current scale of assessment for the peacekeeping budget. Effective peacekeeping, and the safety and security of peacekeepers, remained of paramount importance for the Secretariat and all Member States. While bearing in mind the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council, new realities must be recognized. The main principle of the capacity to pay must always be adhered to. Croatia continued to deal with the problems associated with the reconstruction of its infrastructure and economy. In the near future, however, Croatia expected that that its economic situation would allow it to take a greater share of the financial burden for peacekeeping operations.

ANWARUL KARIM CHOWDHURY (Bangladesh) said that effective functioning of United Nations peacekeeping operations was crucial to the role and responsibility of the United Nations enshrined in the Charter. It was imperative to consider the subject of financing of the peace operations in a comprehensive manner now. The Committee had before it two important pronouncements: declarations adopted at the Millennium Summit and by the Security Council. They underlined the need to look at the question of peacekeeping operations in all its dimensions afresh, with real immediacy.

In that context, Member States should listen to each other, measure the complexities objectively, and provide peacekeeping activities with the urgently needed resources, he continued. It was time to revisit and review the arrangements which currently guided those operations and their financing. The financing mechanism, first adopted in 1973, was an ad hoc one and, therefore, needed to be re-examined. Peacekeeping operations were a collective responsibility and, therefore, their costs should be shared collectively. The special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council should be recognized. He hoped Member States could engage in an open, creative and focused exercise, in the best interests of the United Nations.

Bangladesh�s contribution to United Nations peacekeeping operations over the decades was well known, he said. As one of the largest troop-contributing countries, Bangladesh also wanted to emphasize the importance of timely reimbursement of costs to Member States for troops and equipment they contributed to vital peacekeeping operations.

YEHUDA LANCRY (Israel) said that this year the Committee had before it some important issues, which all Member States should consider in a serious and comprehensive manner. Israel stressed the urgency of a comprehensive reform of the financing of the United Nations and its peacekeeping operations. The scale of assessments must be modified to distribute the burden of financing more evenly. A successful reform must, first and foremost, lessen the United Nations reliance on the contribution of one Member State. To that end, a more realistic ceiling should be instituted for both the peacekeeping scale and the regular budget.

All delegations should rightly acknowledge the need for an uninterrupted flow of funds to the Organization, he continued, and also that, without the assessment of the main contributor in the year 2001, the Organization would no longer be able to carry out its tasks. Any reform of the scale of assessments of the peacekeeping budget should also take into account the special responsibility of the permanent Council members and maintain the adjustment for low per capita income, as well as the minimal assessment level of 0.001 per cent for the least developed States. In conclusion, he expressed Israel�s hope that a comprehensive reform in both scales could be accomplished during the current session of the Assembly. Changes were necessary for the United Nations to continue to have at its disposal the means to carry out its mandate well into the future.

ARNOLDO LISTRE (Argentina) said that peacekeeping operations were among the United Nations special activities and were the collective responsibility of all Member States. The system used to distribute expenses for peacekeeping operations was agreed to in 1973 on an ad hoc basis. Circumstances in 1973 were not the same as at present. The Organization had to confront increasing and more complex challenges in peacekeeping in a political climate that had profoundly changed. The systems of apportionment for financing peacekeeping operations would have to be considered to see whether they were appropriate for the United Nations to respond properly to new responsibilities. On the issue of special responsibility, the permanent five members of the Security Council must absorb the largest proportions of the cost for peacekeeping. Because of the limited capacity of developing countries to contribute, increases in their contributions must be gradual and introduced over time. Also, it was fundamental that grace periods be provided so as not to aggravate serious problems facing developing countries. Argentina believed that the subject must be discussed with prudence and responsibility, and it would oppose extreme criteria that would oblige developing countries to pay a disproportionate increase. He would seek formulas that would take into account the interests of all Member States.

ERNESTO HERRERA (Mexico) said that a group of developing countries had voluntarily stated their readiness to give up or lower the deduction they received in their contribution to peacekeeping. However, when a developing country agreed to an increase, the permanent members of the Security Council paid less, with no change in their power or privilege. On the issue of special responsibility of the Security Council and limited capacity of developing countries to contribute, Mexico felt that the principles of Assembly resolution 1874 should be reaffirmed, and would base its position on the idea that this negotiation was not linked to reform of the Council, since it only related to the financial side of peacekeeping. The special scale was essentially a political agreement. The principle of capacity to pay was essential. He believed that it would be ironic for developing countries to pay more than some of the permanent five. Any arrangement which was reached on the scale for financing peacekeeping should be adopted by consensus, subsequent to the agreement on the scale for the regular budget.

All nations must observe financial discipline, he said. Abrupt increases in the contributions of developing countries must be avoided. Contributions to the special scale must be predictable, and changes in obligations must be gradual. They must be introduced within the framework of a process that ensured a logical sequence. Mexico would present, in due course, a concrete proposal reflecting those elements.

SAFAK GOKTURK (Turkey) said that the high number of proponents for reviewing the current scale of assessments for financing peacekeeping operations testified to the enthusiasm of the membership to overhaul the current system. All wished to see, in concrete terms, how the use of different criteria in one scale would influence the other. Peacekeeping operations had proven to be a core function of the United Nations. The credibility and sustainability of those operations was a matter that extended to the heart of the Organization.

Turkey was becoming an increasingly more visible partner in peacekeeping and peacemaking efforts, within both the United Nations missions and regional undertakings, he said. Therefore, it had a natural interest in seeing those missions placed on firm pillars. A sound financial basis for those operations was one of the most prominent of those foundations. Turkey was ready to assume any financial responsibility, which was the product of a consensus that emerged from the negotiations in the Committee. The negotiations aimed to redraw the scale, taking into account all relevant economic and financial criteria, and reflecting countries� true capacity to pay. Nevertheless, the permanent members of the Security Council should continue to be assessed, bearing in mind their unique status. The categories for country groupings should be rearranged or recreated. The current categories, therefore, were not necessarily the point of departure. HILAIRE SOULAMA (Burkina Faso) supported the statement made by the representative of South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, and noted the importance of the inclusion of that agenda item in the work programme of the Committee. Reform was needed, for the current arrangements were 27 years old. The scale should reflect new realities. Progress had been achieved in various areas of national and international life in the last 55 years. However, the need to reform the United Nations in political areas met with certain reluctance. Those who rejected reforms in one area also opposed them in others.

One of the arguments in favour of reform was that the review of the scale of assessments for peacekeeping operations corresponded to the interests of Africa, because payments would be made and proper financing for peacekeeping operations would, therefore, be provided. However, his delegation remained sceptical, for the simple reason that everyone had become accustomed to the lack of respect for obligations and to the refusal of the largest contributor to pay. He supported caution in consideration of the scale.

ANDR� ERD�S (Hungary) said that Hungary realized the peacekeeping scale contained several anomalies. One related to a number of countries, including his own. The time had come for the heritage of the past to be replaced by a structure that better reflected new economic realities. The scale must focus on capacity to pay. Several countries continued to benefit from a drastic discount. Without revision, the United Nations would not be in a position to respond to emergencies to prevent conflict and maintain peace. Hungary was ready to review its position regarding the peacekeeping scale and to give up the reduction it had been receiving. The situation which applied to countries in a similar position should be corrected within the context of reform. He hoped that agreement on the scale would lead to results during the current session and to implementation of decisions taken. In the context of readjustment of peacekeeping scale, flexibility had to be displayed, taking into account substantial expenditures which had occurred. He noted the recognition by a number of speakers of validity of that position.

PENNY WENSLEY (Australia), speaking also on behalf of the delegations of Canada and New Zealand, said that all Member States had a collective responsibility to maintain international peace and security. She had argued for a number of years that the ad hoc peacekeeping scale needed to be reviewed comprehensively. A revised scale should be more transparent and equitable and less arbitrary. The scale should continue to be based on the scale of assessments for the regular budget, and on the principle of capacity to pay. The permanent members of the Security Council should continue to pay a premium for their special responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security. The benefits of that surcharge should continue to flow to less economically developed countries, in particular, the least developed countries. There should be no predetermined ceiling or floor in the peacekeeping scale.

A review of the peacekeeping scale should establish objective, economic criteria for the group system, to address the current anomalies within and between the groups of Member States, she said. Economic criteria would provide an objective basis for assigning new members to the various groups and would facilitate their movement between groups. Given that there were already well established procedures in place for determining least developed country status, it would seem both just and sensible to reserve the largest discount in any revised group system for a group consisting exclusively of the least developed countries. The review, moreover, should address the overall decline in responsibility for funding peacekeeping by the permanent members of the Council, including modified arrangements for sharing the premium among the permanent members. The scale should also be automatically and periodically reviewed.

Because the scope of the scale review was both comprehensive and overdue, she would encourage others to be equally receptive to considering short-term transitional arrangements for Member States significantly affected to facilitate the implementation of a permanent peacekeeping scale. Also, because the ad hoc peacekeeping scale was based on the regular budget scale, there was an inevitable connection between them. While some might find it difficult to make decisions on a new peacekeeping scale without first knowing what the new regular scale would look like, she would be concerned if that were presented as an argument for delaying the Committee�s work. All delegations with concrete proposals should introduce them formally so that they might be studied by all. An equitable peacekeeping scale was fundamental to the adequate financing of peacekeeping operations.

SORIN DUCARU (Romania) expressed full support for the ideas expressed by France on behalf of the European Union, and said that his country attached great importance to the peacekeeping reform process. As a country with significant experience in peacekeeping operations, Romania considered the analysis and proposals included in the Brahimi Report extremely valuable. It supported the process of consultations aimed at the implementation of those proposals. The reform of the peacekeeping budget and the work of the Committee were essential for the success of the broader peacekeeping reform process.

He highlighted the decision of his country to gradually increase, on a voluntary basis, Romania�s financial contribution to the peacekeeping budget, and to move from category C to category B of contributors to that budget. That decision had been taken when his country was still undergoing a process of economic reform, which testified to the importance Romania awarded to the issue of peacekeeping.

Increased financial support for reform of peacekeeping should not affect the level of resources provided for development, he said. The issues of resources for peacekeeping and for development were not and should not be viewed as a zero-sum game. For that reason, he believed that the increased financing for peacekeeping operations should be accomplished by new commitments of States. Peace and development were both essential elements of international stability. His delegation was ready to actively participate in the negotiations for a new peacekeeping scale of assessments to be based on countries� capacity to pay according to an updated assessment, which he regarded as the central principle of the negotiations.

MERLE PAJULA (Estonia) aligned Estonia with the position of the European Union, and stressed the importance of keeping up the spirit of the just-concluded Millennium Summit, where a significant number of heads of State and government had called for reform of the United Nations financial system and for strengthening United Nations peacekeeping, by implementing the Brahimi Report recommendations. The Summit set an excellent tone for the action that must now follow.

She drew attention to her Government�s important decision concerning Estonia�s contribution to peacekeeping. As Estonia regarded peacekeeping as one of the most crucial assignments in fulfilling the Organization�s mandate for collective security, her Government had decided that the country was ready to give up the 80 per cent discount in its peacekeeping assessment.

VLADIMIR GALUSKA (Czech Republic) said that the time for comprehensive reform had come. He supported retention of the principle of capacity to pay, including the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council, and reform of the current outdated group scheme. The Brahimi Report was a serious step towards meaningful reform of United Nations peacekeeping. Among the recommendations in the Report, the Czech Republic supported strengthened planning capacity, a streamlined and logical structure, the ability to move resources into the field in real time, and more flexible financing. All Security Council members supported a revision of the financial structure of peacekeeping operations, he noted.

While he commended those countries that had announced their preparedness to assume additional financial responsibility by voluntarily moving forward under the peacekeeping scale, that was not a solution to the problem, he said. Existing anomalies must be removed, and a fair new methodology, with an equitable sharing of peacekeeping expenses by all, should be established. Required funds must be apportioned more closely in accordance with the scale adopted for the regular budget. He favoured a mechanism for updating the methodology based on the assignment of States into groups, as well as means for shifting countries between groups based on economic factors. The present methodology for financing peacekeeping was both unfair and inequitable.

PETER TOMKA (Slovakia) said that the United Nations mattered only to the extent that it could make useful contribution to solving problems and accomplishing the tasks required by Member States. The Millenium Summit had acknowledged the indispensability of the United Nations in the maintenance of peace and security. The new scale must build upon the guiding principle of real capacity to pay. There was no fair formula for apportioning the peacekeeping costs that were not based on that principle. The special responsibility of the permanent members of the Council should be preserved. Also, the limited means of the developing world to contribute financially must not be overlooked. Objective elements in the scale must be included to reflect the current difficult realities that faced their economies.

The ability of Slovakia to contribute financially to peacekeeping was defined by the size of its economy, he said. His country had been trying to enhance its involvement by providing personnel and material support to peacekeeping missions on a continuing basis. Strengthening the activities of the United Nations by hammering out a more sound financial structure was a task that must be tackled without delay.

SOTIRIOS ZACKHEOS (Cyprus) aligned himself with the European Union statement and said that the item under consideration deserved the highest attention by Member States. Peacekeeping was a major instrument of the international community in the pursuit of the objectives of the Charter. The dispatch of new peacekeeping missions was inevitable in view of emerging conflicts. The scope and objectives of peacekeeping operations had now moved beyond the traditional functions of peacekeeping. The Department of Peacekeeping Operations was faced with a great challenge in fulfilling its responsibilities with its limited human resources and funding, and he supported the strengthening of that Department. He also stressed the need for greater interaction and fine-tuning between the Peacekeeping Department and the Department of Political Affairs, in order to foresee possible outbreaks of violence so that preventive action could be taken.

It was obvious that there was a need for a revamped personnel policy focusing on continuing training, he said. That applied also to Secretariat personnel dealing with substantive and logistical support. It was the responsibility of governments to ensure that the Secretariat could access, on short notice, the special expertise warranted to respond to emerging needs. In that connection, he argued that use of United Nations volunteers had proven to be cost-effective and sufficiently efficient. A revitalized Department of Peacekeeping Operations would also enhance the safety and security of United Nations peacekeepers in the field. He was also concerned about the unwillingness of the international community to respond to peacekeeping demands about Africa with the same zeal and urgency exhibited about other regions of the world.

Cyprus supported the review of the methodology of the peacekeeping scale of assessments, even though his Government would bear a substantial increase in its contributions. Despite the tremendous economic costs and social consequences resulting from the invasion, small Cyprus had set an example by agreeing to bear voluntarily one third of the budget of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP). In addition, it had also agreed to contribute voluntarily an additional one third over and above its assessed contribution to all United Nations peacekeeping operations. Today, he wanted to reiterate his Government�s decision to give up its discount under the present system, as yet another contribution to peacekeeping.

Continuing, he agreed with the European Union that the system of financing peacekeeping operations must be based on the capacity to pay and on the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council. It should be reviewed periodically to take stock of changes in the economic capability of individual States. Needless to say, the system should take due consideration of the special needs of small States, as well as those of least developed countries.

ERNEST PETRIC (Slovenia) associated himself with the position of the European Union and said that negotiations on the scale of assessments for peacekeeping operations should result in peacekeeping operations having a sound financial basis. The future scale should reflect changes within the international community and should be based primarily on capacity to pay. That was the basic principle for Slovenia. The 27-year old scale was inadequate and required serious reconsideration. The world had changed, and the position and wealth of many Member States of the United Nations was different now.

Some countries, like Slovenia, did not exist 27 years ago, he continued, and some, like its predecessor State, had ceased to exist. In that connection, he emphasized that there was no basis for assessment of a Member State that had ceased to exist, namely, the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, nor of a State that had not yet applied for membership, namely, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). He was hopeful that this anomaly would be resolved soon through an application from the new democratic Government in Belgrade to join the United Nations, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Charter.

Some of the anomalies in the current scale might be easy to correct, while others would need more time and negotiations, he said. Nevertheless, transparent deliberations, exchanges of views and fair negotiations should lead to a consensus. The original intent of the drafters of the Charter had been to establish an assessment system based on relative capacity to pay, modified by a necessary ceiling to reduce the influence and dependency on a single Member State or a group of States. It was further modified by a gradient that would modify the impact on developing countries and a floor that would protect those who did not have the capacity to pay. Now it was time to update those principles to new international realities. The United Nations should have all means necessary to effectively perform peacekeeping operations. On its part, beginning next year, Slovenia would contribute its full share to the cost of peacekeeping operations.

ALI KHALIFA EL-MAGHTUF (Libya) said that the complexity and delicate nature of the items on the Committee�s agenda required a display of patience and that all be given the opportunity to express their views and interests, so that consensus could be achieved as soon as possible. He expressed his thanks to Ambassador Wensley for her work during the last session of the Committee. He also supported the statements made by South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. Libya reaffirmed its support for peacekeeping operations and international security. It had paid most of its financial obligations to peacekeeping operations. At the outset, he noted that while discussing the item he had not seen any specific proposals or technical report by the Secretariat, or any other technical body, that make the discussions easier.

He said that Libya hoped that negotiations would be taken seriously and that consensus could be achieved on a scale that would be transparent, equitable and fair to all countries, both small and large. Negotiations required a technical study to be undertaken by a working group that should be open-ended. That would allow them to adopt a decision by consensus. Capacity to pay must be discussed in a comprehensive manner that took into account per capita income and gross national product.

On the subject of justice and fairness, justice could not be exercised in part, on an ad hoc basis, or with double standards, he said. The expenses for peacekeeping operations in the Middle East should be borne by the aggressor. There should be a fair distribution of posts in peacekeeping operations. Posts should not be the purview of one country, under the pretext that it had specialized experience. All peacekeeping operations must be dealt with on an equal footing. He looked forward to discussing studies on peacekeeping operations, salaries for peacekeeping personnel, control, command, training, qualifications, safety, and compensation in case of death or disability as a result of service in a peacekeeping operation.

Any adjustments to the current scale must be transparent, fair and flexible, he said. They must reflect real capacity to pay, so that they would be in consonance with the economic circumstances faced by developing countries, in particular those facing hardships such as natural disasters, aggression, and blockades. The countries affected economically by the most recent world war should be given special treatment. Libya was still being affected negatively by that war. Millions of mines had been planted in the country. That war had been brought to Libya, and it could not use most of its agricultural land, or underground water in about one third of the country, which had greatly obstructed economic growth. He reaffirmed his desire to cooperate with all delegations to achieve a new scale that was fair, transparent and objective.

* *** *

United Nations