GA/AB/3390

PEACEKEEPING MANDATES -– NOT COSTS -– UNREALISTIC, FIFTH COMMITTEE TOLD

It was disconcerting that the troop-contributing countries were being told that the monies owed to them would only be reimbursed if the richest countries got relief from a peacekeeping scale which was not even a fleabite for them, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was told this morning.

As the Committee continued its general discussion of the peacekeeping scale of assessments, the representative of India said that it was necessary to take another look at the cost of United Nations peacekeeping to see if, indeed, it placed an unfair burden on the major contributors. Assuming that collectively the eight richest developed countries wanted 10 percentage points to be picked up by others, the burden for the major contributors, from which they sought immediate relief, was $300 million, or 0.001 per cent of their 1999 collective gross national product (GNP). Even if the total peacekeeping budget of the United Nations reached $3 billion, the $300 million reduction would be some was 0.006 per cent of their current government expenditure. The scale was not unrealistic, but perhaps the mandates the Security Council set for peacekeeping operations were.

Speakers in the debate this morning stressed that payment of assessments was a financial obligation that had to be honoured by each and every Member State under the Charter. As repeatedly pointed out by delegates, the financial difficulties of the Organization were caused by the large amount of arrears accumulated by a small number of countries, and in particular the major contributor. All Member States should pay their dues in full, on time and without conditions, they said.

Speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, the representative of Nigeria said the principles and guidelines for the apportionment of peacekeeping expenses approved in 1963 and 1973 should constitute a basis for any discussion of the peacekeeping scale. Economically less developed countries had limited capacity to contribute towards peacekeeping operations, and any discussion of the scale must take due account of their economic conditions. The situation of countries suffering from unilateral economic coercive measures and countries with small economies must also not be negatively affected. The peacekeeping scale must continue to take into account the special responsibilities of the five permanent members of the Security Council.

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3390 9th Meeting (AM) 5 October 2000

As a permanent member of the Security Council, China was fully aware of its responsibility with regard to world peace and security, the representative of that country said. It had not only earnestly fulfilled its financial obligations, but had also accepted a surcharge for the peacekeeping assessment. However, any attempt to set a floor for permanent members, or to drastically increase China’s assessment, was totally unacceptable.

Joining others who insisted that the criteria for the system of groupings should be clear and objective, the representative of Ukraine said that the peacekeeping scale should be based on the scale for the regular budget of the Organization, and on the GNP per capita benchmarks. In practical terms, in view of the current upsurge in peacekeeping funding requirements, any unfair distribution of the financial burden could trigger even higher disproportions in assessed contributions, and impair the ability of the Organization to obtain proper funding

The representative of Peru said that the current division of countries into four groups was a tool that would facilitate the similar treatment of States with similar levels of economic development, but special care should be exercised in determining adjustments and thresholds.

Also speaking this morning were the representatives of Egypt, Brazil, Algeria, Belarus, Tunisia, Botswana, Singapore, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Bulgaria, Costa Rica and Bolivia.

The Committee will continue its work at 3 p.m. today, when it is scheduled to conclude its general discussion of the pattern of conferences.

Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3390 9th Meeting (AM) 5 October 2000

Committee Work Programme

As the Fifth Committee met this morning, it was expected to continue its general discussion of the scale of assessments for United Nations peacekeeping operations. The current arrangements for apportioning the costs of United Nations peacekeeping activities, which were adopted in 1973 on an ad hoc basis, involve the placement of Member States in four groups (A to D).

At present, the scale assesses States in fractions of their regular budget rates, mainly according to their level of economic development. Named developing countries are assessed one tenth of their regular budget rates, while at the other end, permanent members of the Security Council are assessed 100 per cent of their regular budget rates plus whatever costs are left over after States have been assessed.

Statements

ARTHUR C.I. MBANEFO (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, said that peacekeeping operations were an important function of the United Nations. Therefore, the Group attached great importance to the provision of adequate resources to all peacekeeping activities. The current difficult financial situation of the United Nations peacekeeping was not linked to the peacekeeping scale of assessments. Those difficulties could be resolved if Member States, in particular the major contributor, took concrete action to settling their arrears and honour their Charter obligations by paying their contributions in full, on time and without conditions.

The principles and guidelines for the apportionment of the expenses of peacekeeping operations approved by the General Assembly in 1963 and 1973 should constitute a basis for any discussion of the peacekeeping scale, he continued. Economically less developed countries had limited capacity to contribute to peacekeeping operations, and any discussion of the scale must take due account of the economic conditions of those countries, as well as countries suffering from unilateral economic coercive measures and small economies, whose current positions must not be negatively affected.

The peacekeeping scale must take into account the special responsibilities of the five permanent members of the Security Council in the financing of peacekeeping operations, he said. No new floor on the assessment of permanent members of the Council should be included, for the inclusion of such an element would be contrary to the principle of capacity to pay for those countries. The Group also emphasized the importance of reaching an agreement on the regular scale before any conclusion to the discussions on the special scale. Discussions should be comprehensive and transparent.

AHMED H. DARWISH (Egypt) said that peacekeeping was one of the effective means available to the United Nations to maintain international peace and security. Egypt attached great importance to peacekeeping and took an active role in that field. He supported the statements made by the representative of Nigeria on behalf of the Group of 77 and of South Africa on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement. The critical situation of the United Nations could be solved if Member States paid their contributions in full, on time and without conditions. Arrears led to delays in compensation to the troop and equipment contributing countries, which had a negative effect on their economies. Egypt was ready to participate in any negotiations to resolve that situation.

Any discussions must be based on the principles adopted in 1963 and 1973, he continued. Developing countries had limited capacities to contribute to peacekeeping operations, and that should be taken into account when deciding on the methodology for the special scale. He also underlined the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council. His delegation wanted to discuss new proposals in depth, and was ready to work towards a scale that would win the acceptance of all Member States.

GELSON FONSECA, JR. (Brazil) said that the capacity of the United Nations to maintain international peace and security was directly related to the sound financing of its peacekeeping operations. The financial crisis affecting peacekeeping operations was a cause of great concern. Brazil had a tradition of support for peacekeeping operations and had been an important troop contributor. The Brahimi Report had presented concrete recommendations which deserved careful examination by Member States. But meaningful implementation of even a few of those recommendations required substantial additional resources. The best way to obtain resources must be identified. Existing problems could not be attributed to a flawed methodology. Brazil recognized that the present scale was outdated and needed to be reformed, but present difficulties were due to the failure on the part of the largest contributor to fulfil its obligations in full, on time and without conditions.

Any modification in the current methodology of the scale must not deviate from the long-established principles governing the financing of United Nations peacekeeping missions, he said. Brazil led the negotiation on the resolution which established those fundamental principles and criteria, which remained as valid today as they were in 1973. The resolution was introduced as an ad hoc arrangement, and Brazil stressed at the time that the formula was established without prejudice to positions of principle of Member States, but Brazil’s position had not changed. He was prepared to consider proposals to update the formula, provided they did not modify the three basic principles of collective responsibility of Member States in sharing the costs of peacekeeping operations, special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council in financing them, and the limited capacity of all economically less developed countries to contribute to such operations.

The decision-making process for the establishment and maintenance of most peacekeeping missions excluded the majority of developing countries, he said. It would be difficult to justify any change in the special scale that would entail either reductions in the relative assessment of the permanent five or a decrease in the assessment of developed countries.

ABDALLAH BAALI (Algeria) recalled that, during the debate at the last resumed session in May, he had said that there was urgent need to consider reform of the ad hoc scale for peacekeeping operations. That belief resulted from the deep conviction that any attempt to maintain the current mechanism for financing peacekeeping operations served neither the cause of world peace nor the interests of Member States. The financing of peacekeeping missions was just as important as the role played by those operations, in a world characterized by conflict, particularly in Africa. It was important to recall the commitment made at the end of the Millennium Summit when world leaders committed to ensuring the Organization received the resources necessary to discharge its mandates. The ad hoc scale was established in 1973 in a context fundamentally different from that of today. The capacity to pay had fundamentally changed since the establishment of the ad hoc scale 27 years ago.

It was time to make the scale an effective means to allow the Organization to meet the challenges confronting it in the area of peacekeeping, he said. Peacekeeping had experienced a considerable upswing, as could be seen in the deployment of new peacekeeping operations. He doubted that the present ad hoc scale could provide for regular and appropriate financing for the increased number of operations. As of 30 December 1999, the United Nations debt to troop contributors amounted to $800 million. The gradual growth in the costs for peacekeeping operations was likely to aggravate those debts to troop-contributing countries. Frank, specific, just and realistic proposals must be submitted by Member States to the Fifth Committee for a scale which would be more equitable and viable. He could not support factitious or partial solutions. He would only support proposals which included the fundamental principles of the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council, the limited capacity of developing countries, and the need for an adjustment, in particular for low income and least developed countries. The structure of the groups should be based on clear parameters, in particular, on per capita income.

SERGEI MARTYNOV, First Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of Belarus, said that it had taken 27 years to start the discussion under way today. Such talks should result in a fair and transparent scale of assessments for peacekeeping activities of the United Nations. Peacekeeping activities had become one of the first priorities of Belarus’ participation in the United Nations. His country was taking part in peacekeeping activities and contributing to various operations. As of January 2000, Belarus had paid all its dues to the regular budget of the United Nations, as well as all the assessed contributions for the financing of peacekeeping operations, which had begun after 1 January 1996. It would continue to carry out all its financial obligations.

He said that today he wanted to draw attention to the complexity of the issue under discussion. The international community would have to pay too high a price for possible errors. Belarus had experienced the price of incorrect decisions in the past. The new scale should be based on criteria such as the capacity to pay on the basis of gross national product (GNP) and per capita income, and the capacity of developing countries to pay. Belarus paid tribute to countries ready to reject the 80 per cent adjustment in paying their peacekeeping dues.

Belarus also supported South Africa in its attempt to move to Group C, he said. Several years before, Belarus had found itself in a similar situation, and an agreement with Portugal had allowed it to move to Group C. On the basis of the analysis of Belarus’ economic situation, it should remain in Group C and its assessment should not increase under the new scale. At present, the Government of Belarus was discussing possibility of making additional contributions to the peacekeeping budget.

RADHIA ACHOURI (Tunisia) said that maintenance of international peace and security made the United Nations unique. Thinking about the future of those activities, the Fifth Committee was aided in its work by the conclusions of the Brahimi Report. To be effective, reform must cover the financial aspects of peacekeeping. In-depth consideration was needed to establish a fair and equitable system of peacekeeping financing.

She associated Tunisia with the statement by Nigeria, which presented the position of the Group of 77, and said that she was dedicated to the principles used in establishing the ad hoc scale, including the special responsibility of permanent members of the Security Council, capacity to pay, and the limited capacity of developing countries. As a result of present discussions, a balance of economic and political considerations must be found. The scale must continue to be based on the regular scale of assessments, which takes into consideration the GNP of countries. Delays in payment to the troop-contributing countries remained a serious problem, which needed to be addressed.

PHOLILE E. LEGWAILA (Botswana) said that the outcome of those discussions meant much to Botswana and to Africans, in general. While she acknowledged that change might not always be welcome, she believed that change for the better should be embraced and acceptable to all. The question was not whether the United Nations should adhere to the traditional ad hoc arrangements, but rather which alternatives offered tangible solutions to practical problems. The expenses of the Organization were the collective responsibility of Member States. Full consideration should be given to the fundamental principle of capacity to pay of each Member State. Botswana fully supported those principles. That the economically more developed countries were in a better position to afford relatively higher payments to peacekeeping operations was a reflection of past and present disparities in the global economic order.

The groupings of Member States decided by the Assembly in 1989 were well thought-out idea and had, for some time, become a permanent guide to determining the division of expenses for peacekeeping activities, she said. That principle, including the system of discounts for those Member States experiencing genuine economic difficulties, must continue to form the basis of any future peacekeeping scale. On the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council, the privileges they enjoyed were not without price. The special responsibility of permanent members remained a valid consideration and should continue to be an element of any future scale, while taking into account each Member’s capacity to pay.

KISHORE MAHBUBANI (Singapore) said that the world was shrinking and had become interconnected. There was no global village police force. When a conflict broke out, a small collective Security Council met to decide what to do. The collective Security Council did not treat all parts of the global village equally. It was the Fifth Committee’s responsibility, as fellow global villagers, to ensure that the eternal five did not shirk their responsibilities. The world had changed since the formula for the special scale was implemented in 1973. While some countries had progressed, others had not. Good cause could be made for a comprehensive review of the existing group system. Singapore would like to see a comprehensive review of the peacekeeping scale that would put the United Nations activities on a sound financial footing for years to come. The goal should be to construct a scale that captured the full complexity of contemporary economic and political realities.

Despite near universal consensus on the principle of capacity to pay, that principle had not always been implemented, he said. There was no simple answer to how capacity to pay should be measured. Some countries were large and endowed with abundant human and natural resources, and aspired to play major international roles. However, because of their large populations, they had very low per capita incomes. Others might be less well endowed, but because they were small countries with small populations, their per capita looked deceptively high and did not accurately reflect their role or place in the international community. It was inevitable that, when a major review of the peacekeeping scale was carried out, some homes in the village might experience sharp increases suddenly. It would be unfair to inflict such pain just to ensure that the richest member of the village paid less immediately. He emphasized the principle of gradualism in implementing increasing burdens. While it might have been a mistake to have retained the existing peacekeeping scale for 27 years, it would be an equally big mistake to change it overnight.

VOLODYMYR YEL’CHENKO (Ukraine) said the reform of the system of apportionment of United Nations peacekeeping expenses undoubtedly lay at the core of efforts to enhance its peacekeeping capabilities, by ensuring that the Organization gained the necessary financial support for the implementation of its peacekeeping mandates. In practical terms, in view of the current upsurge in peacekeeping funding requirements, an unfair distribution of the financial burden could trigger even higher disproportions in assessed contributions and impair the United Nations abilities to obtain proper funding. It seemed indeed paradoxical that, while striving to improve the methodology for the regular budget scale, for 27 years countries had been unable to address the system of the apportionment of the peacekeeping expenses.

The system created as an ad hoc arrangement 27 years ago contained serious anomalies and distortions, he said. Ukraine itself had suffered from heavy over- assessment in the past. The new scale should be based on the principles of the real capacity to pay, collective responsibility of United Nations Member States and the recognition of the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council. It should also take into account the fact that developing countries have relatively limited capacity to contribute. The peacekeeping scale should be based on the regular scale, and retain the system of groupings on the basis of GNP per capita benchmarks.

EZIO VALFRE (Peru) said that developing countries were participating in the present discussion with special interest. Peru participated in peacekeeping activities and believed that institutionalization of the scale of peacekeeping assessments would enable the United Nations to better carry out its peacekeeping mandates. It would also result in greater effectiveness and better security for the United Nations and associated personnel.

The system of assessments for peacekeeping financing must balance, on the one hand, the financial needs of the Organization and considerations related to the participation of the five permanent members of the Security Council in the decision-making process, he continued, and, on the other, the level of economic development of Member States. It must also offer special consideration for the developing countries.

He said that one of the useful parameters was the relative size of national economies, and it was necessary to refer to the regular scale of assessments in that respect. The dividing of countries into four groups represented a tool that would facilitate similar treatment for States with similar levels of economic development, but special care should be exercised in determining adjustments and thresholds. Other elements, such as the gradual application of increase in assessments, could facilitate fulfilment of their obligations by developing countries.

KAMALESH SHARMA (India) said that most peacekeeping operations had been set up in developing countries, and most people who took part in them were from developing countries. Villagers in Africa, Asia or Latin America knew what the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) did, but very few would know much about peacekeeping operations. The common man in developing countries had other pressing preoccupations and concerns, and it was necessary to face that fact. However, governments of developing countries did not share that disinterest.

India had always acknowledged that peacekeeping was important and that it was an international obligation which needed support, he continued. However, peacekeeping -- though important -- could not be paramount. It was necessary to take another look at the cost of United Nations peacekeeping to see if, indeed, it placed an unfair burden on the major contributors. Peacekeeping was expected to again reach a cost plateau of $3 billion. Collectively, the eight richest developed countries wanted 10 percentage points to be picked up by others: immediate relief to the tune of some $300 million.

World Bank statistics showed that $300 million was 0.001 per cent of their collective GNP in 1999. If the eight richest countries were going through an interlude of fiscal austerity, they might not want to divert scarce resources from domestic needs to United Nations peacekeeping. The World Bank also showed, however, that current government expenditure in those eight countries in 1998 was $4,855 billion. Even if the total peacekeeping budget of the United Nations was $3 billion, it would represent no more than 0.06 per cent of their current expenditure. The relief of $300 million that they seemed to be seeking was 0.006 per cent of their government expenditure.

None of the eight richest countries were more than half way towards meeting the agreed target of 0.7 per cent of dross domestic product (GDP) for official development assistance (ODA), he said. That meant that, at their 1999 GDP level, they fell at least $70 billion short of their commitments. He found it disconcerting that the troop-contributing countries who were awaiting reimbursement were being told that the monies owed them would only be reimbursed if the richest countries got relief from a peacekeeping assessment which was not even a fleabite for them.

In some ways, the major contributors were looking at the wrong problem, he said. It was not the scale that was unrealistic, but the mandates that the Security Council set for peacekeeping operations. Based on the Brahimi Report, the Secretariat planned to ask the Committee to urgently sanction new posts for the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Expanding the Department would not help. He agreed that it could do with reinforcement, but so could almost any other department in the Secretariat. If the major contributors insisted that the Department must grow within a zero-nominal growth budget, the swing of resources away from other areas of the United Nations work would be extremely damaging. NANA EFFAH-APENTENG (Ghana) said that it had been universally accepted that one of the purposes of the United Nations was to maintain international peace and security. Despite its limitations, history had proven that the United Nations, with its universal membership, was the organization best suited and capable of promoting global peace and security. While the constraints facing the United Nations in its diverse roles were many, it was clear that the cardinal bottleneck was financial. Despite its limited resources, Ghana had contributed troops and had played an active role in United Nations peacekeeping for about 40 years. While the peacekeeping scale adopted in 1973 for a specific operation may be outdated, the three underlying principles and guidelines for the apportionment of expenses for the peacekeeping scale were still valid and could serve as a basis of the proposed scale.

The financing of peacekeeping operations was the collective responsibility of all Member States, he said. The fact that developing countries had a relatively limited capacity to contribute remained true. Any discussion of the scale must take due account of the economic conditions of the developing countries, in particular, low income developing countries. Also, it must not adversely affect the present positions of States in Groups C and D. The Fifth Committee must also take account of the special responsibility of the five permanent members of the Security Council in the financing of peacekeeping operations, as well as the viable criterion of capacity to pay. It was Ghana’s hope that all Member States would display flexibility and cooperation, in a spirit of international solidarity and collective responsibility, in order to reach agreement at the current session or in the very near future.

WANG YINGFAN (China) said that China fully associated itself with the position of the Group of 77 and China. He could not but note with regret that peacekeeping operations were faced with increasing financial difficulties, which seriously hampered their normal operation. China was not against discussing the issue of peacekeeping scale, but believed that the present scale basically reflected the principle of the capacity to pay. While the peacekeeping scale could be appropriately adjusted in the light of changed circumstances, the principle of capacity to pay had to be preserved. The carrying capacity of developing countries also needed to be fully taken into account, to make sure that they were not burdened.

As a permanent member of the Security Council, China was fully aware of its responsibility with regard to world peace and security, he said. It had not only earnestly fulfilled its financial obligations, but had also accepted the additional surcharge for the peacekeeping assessment in accordance with the relevant resolution. However, any attempts to set a floor for permanent members or to drastically increase China’s assessment was totally unacceptable.

Payment of assessments was a financial obligation that had to be honoured by each and every Member State under the Charter, he said. As repeatedly pointed out by many States, the financial difficulties of the Organization were caused mainly by the large amount of arrears, accumulated over many years, by a small number of countries, and in particular the major contributor. All Member States should pay their dues in full, on time and without conditions.

ELMIRA S. IBRAIMOVA (Kyrgyzstan) said that peacekeeping was one of the tasks for which the United Nations had been formed. Working together, countries could reach a consensus on the special scale of assessments. The number and scope of peacekeeping operations had increased dramatically, and in order to continue maintaining international peace and security, peacekeeping operations needed to be properly financed. The importance of peacekeeping was high not only in terms of money, but also in terms of human lives.

She said that her delegation believed that the Brahimi Report, which had been submitted in August this year, was very important for reaching a decision on the matter under discussion. She supported the proposal of the high-level Panel that the Secretary-General should be given authority, with the approval of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), to commit up to $50 million well in advance of the adoption of a Security Council resolution establishing a new operation, once it became clear that an operation was likely to be established.

Kyrgyzstan was open to constructive collaboration on reform of the scale of peacekeeping assessments, she continued. It was necessary to proceed on the basis of the principle of the capacity to pay. There should be a special responsibility for the permanent members of the Security Council for United Nations peacekeeping operations. The economic criteria applied to the scale should be clear and fair.

VLADIMIR SOTIROV (Bulgaria) said that the financial challenges facing the United Nations today must be tackled and resolved if it was expected to fulfil the lofty goals expressed in the Millennium Summit Declaration. The ambitious peacekeeping reform should be put on a stable and durable financial basis to allow it to succeed. Bulgaria supported the criteria and measures proposed by the European Union for transforming the peacekeeping financial system into a sound and equitable one.

In the context of the efforts made by the international community to secure financial backing for the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Brahimi Report, Bulgaria reiterated its readiness to make additional commitments to the United Nations peacekeeping budget, he said. A clear demonstration of that was the recent decision by his Government to voluntarily relinquish the 80 per cent discount it received, by moving from Group C to Group B of the future reformed scale. In addition, respective arrangements were currently in process to pay off the entire outstanding amount of assessed contributions for peacekeeping operations.

BERND NIEHAUS (Costa Rica) said that the work of the Fifth Committee was essential to assure effective attainment of the principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The work of the Committee should not be the subject of political controversy, but should maintain the highest standards of objectivity and professionalism. The United Nations suffered an acute financial crisis. In that regard, it was essential to create order in the financial situation. It was also necessary to establish a new basis for action for the Organization. The United Nations required a sustainable financial system.

The establishment of the peacekeeping scale should be based on the principle of capacity to pay, with consideration given to the situation of developing countries and also the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council, he said. Nations which had no army or a small military budget contributed more to the maintenance of peace than those with huge military

budgets. Member States without armies deserved additional reductions in their assessments under the scale. Costa Rica was making enormous efforts to comply with its obligations.

ROBERTO JORDAN-PANDO (Bolivia) supported the statements made on behalf of the Group of 77 and the China and the Non-Aligned Movement, as well as that of the Rio Group which would be later presented by Colombia. The United Nations was a multilateral organization uniting 189 States, and every Member State should honour its financial obligations. The financial problems of the Organization resulted not from deficiencies in the scale of assessments, but from the failure of countries, including the largest contributor, to pay their dues.

The criterion of capacity to pay should remain at the core of the scale, he continued, as well as the principle of collective responsibility. The 1973 arrangement which divided countries into four groups was extreme and erratic. The solution was not to create intermediate groups, which would further contribute to the chaos, but rather to establish a truly scientific scale, which would assess all countries on the basis of their economic realities. Thresholds should not distort the principles of the capacity to pay. Capacity to pay was also in direct relation to economic situation of any given country, and different levels of richness or wealth of countries should be taken into account.

Members of the Security Council had a special responsibility in maintaining international peace and security, he said. One more variant might involve taking different approaches to those members who respected the Charter of the United Nations and those who ignored the role of the Security Council. There were examples of where certain actors played a part in generating conflicts and afterwards came to seek approval of the Security Council. A clear-cut policy should be adopted on peacekeeping operations. The Secretary-General must carry out some evaluation of peacekeeping operations, and the Brahimi Report contained some valuable recommendations in that respect. It was important to carefully examine the report.

The developing world needed funds for their development and progress, he said. Financing for development was currently at zero. Some countries had even reduced their ODA. Development was extremely important for the maintenance of peace, and if the United Nations sought only to restore peace, it ran the risk of turning into an international police force. Without financing for development, the world would experience significant setbacks.

* *** *

United Nations