GA/AB/3393

FIFTH COMMITTEE CONCLUDES GENERAL DEBATE ON SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS FOR PEACEKEEPING

Financial difficulties of the developing countries did not in any way imply a lack of commitment to peacekeeping, as had been insinuated in the debate on the peacekeeping scale of assessments, the representative of Chile told the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this afternoon, as it concluded its general debate on that scale.

The recent report of the Panel on United Nations Peace Operations (the Brahimi report) indicated that 77 per cent of the troops deployed in peacekeeping operations were from developing countries, and that testified to their dedication, he explained.

Also referring to the Brahimi report, the representative of Cuba said that because of the complexity of that document, it first needed to be reviewed by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, the Fourth Committee and the General Assembly. The financial ramifications should be considered only after those bodies had examined the report.

Several speakers agreed that any serious discussion on the peacekeeping scale should follow the conclusion of negotiations on the regular assessments, when each State would know for certain what its assessment in the regular budget would be.

Drawing the Committee�s attention to what he called an important concern of developing countries, the representative of Indonesia said that efforts to give more financial resources to peacekeeping should not weaken cooperation for development, which constituted an equally central objective of the United Nations. Both peacekeeping and development deserved adequate financial support from Member States.

A number of speakers supported the establishment of several additional groups between current groups B and C to reflect changes in economic realities. They also suggested that the structure of the peacekeeping assessment groups should allow for movement of countries between them, depending on their financial situation and changing economic criteria.

In that connection, the representative of Lithuania said that the new scale should aim at establishing a mechanism which would guarantee a fair division of peacekeeping expenses among all Member States according to their economic

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3393 12th Meeting (PM) 6 October 2000

performance. Such a mechanism should provide sufficient flexibility to allow changes in levels of assessment in response to changes in countries� economic situation.

Taking up requests for exemption under Article 19 of the Charter from Burundi, Comoros, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Moldova, Sao Tome and Principe, and Tajikistan, the Committee continued its debate on those requests. The meeting was suspended twice for informal consultations on a related draft resolution, but no consensus was reached on the text.

The representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kenya, Ecuador, Malaysia, Bhutan, Poland, Uruguay, Colombia (on behalf of the Rio Group), Qatar, Suriname (speaking on behalf of the Caribbean Community), Republic of Moldova, Philippines, Nepal, Thailand, Syria, France (speaking on behalf of the European Union and associated States), Brazil, Canada, C�te d�Ivoire (speaking on behalf of the African Group) and India, along with the Acting Chairperson, Jasminka Dinic (Croatia) and the Rapporteur, Eduardo Manuel de Fonseca Fernandes Ramos (Portugal), also addressed the Committee this afternoon.

The Committee will continue its work at a date to be announced.

Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3393 12th Meeting (PM) 6 October 2000

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee was expected this afternoon to conclude its general debate on the peacekeeping scale of assessments, by which the costs of peacekeeping missions are divided among Member States, mainly according to their level of economic development. According to the peacekeeping scale, adopted as an ad hoc arrangement in 1973, all countries are placed in one of four groups, with certain named developing countries being assessed one tenth of their regular budget rates, and permanent members of the Security Council levied at 100 per cent of their regular budget rates plus whatever costs are left over after States have been assessed.

Statements

MILOS PRICA (Bosnia and Herzegovina) said that his delegation had assessed the proposals and views of Member States on the issue under discussion, which was of utmost importance for preserving peace on Earth. Peacekeeping operations needed a firm financial basis and human resources. His country had benefited from peacekeeping operations, and it had a right to emphasize their crucial role in ending war and restoring peace in cases of conflict. Future peacekeeping operations should be improved and enriched by experience. Modern peacekeepers had more sophisticated roles than their predecessors, and good financial planning would take that into account. With the growing number of conflicts, there was a growing demand for peacekeeping around the world. The scale of assessments prepared in 1973 now seemed to be out of date; perhaps even an obstacle to meeting current needs.

The four groups were rigid and improper, he continued. A more sophisticated range was required, which would take into account the level of economic development of countries. At least three additional groups seemed to be required. The poorest Member States should be required to contribute very little. To better achieve justice, there should be three groups of States between C and B. Reliable data from all Member States should be provided every five years. Economic strength and contributions of countries should be in proportion to each other. The statement by the heads of State of the five permanent members of the Security Council of 7 September and that of the United States � Gulf Cooperation Council from the same date were very important. Those efforts were commitments to establish a new, more just and reliable structure for the present and future peacekeeping operations.

FARES M. KUINDWA (Kenya) said that in the last decade, peacekeeping activities had expanded and become more complex. For the United Nations to meet its peacekeeping obligations effectively, it required the political will of all Member States, particularly the major contributors. Arrears in peacekeeping assessments, which totaled almost $2 billion at the end of March, caused substantial constraints to peacekeeping operations as well as untold hardship to all troop-contributing countries, especially developing countries.

Kenya urged all Member States to fulfil their legal obligations to the United Nations by paying their assessments in full, on time and without conditions, he said. Kenya supported a review of the peacekeeping scale, which had not been updated since 1973. The scale should continue to be based on capacity to pay and the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council.

DENYS TOSCANO (Ecuador) said that it was the unanimous opinion that peace and security were highest objective of the United Nations. Any action taken by the Organization to deal with a conflict deserved support from all Member States. Some countries resisted fully meeting their obligations. The critical financial situation of peacekeeping operations, together with that of the entire United Nations system, did not result from application of the scale or a need to reduce the ceiling, but from lack of payments made on time, in full and without conditions.

Any consideration of a new scale for peacekeeping operations should take account of the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council, and the greater capacity to pay of developed countries and the limited capacity to pay of developing countries, he said. Given the implications of the regular budget on the peacekeeping budget, he believed that any decision on the peacekeeping scale should be taken after the scale for the regular budget was adopted.

YUSOF YACOB (Malaysia) associated Malaysia with the position of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, and said that financing the United Nations was of extreme importance, both for the regular budget and peacekeeping operations. He welcomed the discussions on the matter today and said that they should be fair, transparent and comprehensive, encompassing all aspects of peacekeeping operations. Expert advice would contribute to the deliberations. The work of the Committee should not be delayed due to the link between the regular and peacekeeping scales. However, it would be only fair if Member States had a chance to examine the impact of the new scale of assessment for the regular budget before committing themselves on the peacekeeping budget.

The new scale of assessment for peacekeeping operations should be fair and stable and based on the capacity to pay, he continued. It must reflect the special responsibilities of the permanent members of the Security Council, and also take into account the economic conditions of the less developed countries. In that respect, Malaysia and several other countries of the east Asian region were just emerging from the recent economic and financial crisis. The new scale was a step in the right direction of assuring a stable fiscal mechanism for the Organization. However, it was just a small step. The larger responsibility would rest on the shoulders of Member States, who should settle their arrears and honour their assessed contributions fully, on time and without conditions.

DJAUHARI ORATMANGUN (Indonesia) said that the financial crisis of the United Nations and its peacekeeping operations could be readily resolved if all countries adhered to their Charter obligations by paying their assessed contributions in full and on time. Initiatives to settle the arrears incurred by some major countries should be expedited. Peacekeeping financing was a collective responsibility of all Member States, and a special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council.

Current principles and guidelines for the special scale were fair and rational, he continued. They provided good grounds for discussion in the Fifth Committee. Apportionment of the expenses for peacekeeping operations should be according to States� relative economic strength, with the stronger economies making relatively larger contributions. He welcomed the commitment reiterated by the permanent members of the Security Council in their statement of 7 September. However, it was necessary to find a viable formula acceptable to the permanent Council members and all other Members of the United Nations.

In conclusion, he drew the Committee's attention to an important concern of developing countries. Efforts to give more financial resources to peacekeeping should not weaken cooperation for development, which equally constituted a central objective of the United Nations. Both deserved adequate financial support from Member States. It was necessary to avoid any trade-off between those two critical areas.

TASHI TSERING (Bhutan) said that peacekeeping had emerged at the forefront of United Nations activities in recent years. The impediments to the United Nations in carrying out peacekeeping had been clearly spelled out by the Brahimi report. While it had yet to be considered, it was apparent that accepting the recommendations in the report would result in an increase in peacekeeping expenditures. Many argued that the scale was outdated and did not provide for a sound and sustainable financial basis for the United Nations. While it might be outdated, the principles on which the scale was based remained as valid today as in 1973.

Peacekeeping was a collective responsibility and all Member States must share the costs, he said. The capacity to pay must remain the fundamental criterion for the apportionment of costs for peacekeeping. Less developed countries had limited capacity to contribute and could not be expected to contribute beyond their share. In light of the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council and the privileges they enjoyed, the permanent five should bear a higher burden for financing for peacekeeping operations. Bhutan was prepared to consider all proposals that would lead to a more equitable foundation for financing peacekeeping.

BEATE BARANSKA (Poland) said that the debate on the peacekeeping scale was a vital measure for enhancing the capability of the United Nations to discharge its core Charter obligation of maintaining international peace and security. The scale for financing peacekeeping operations had been designed as an ad hoc, six- month long arrangement. The issue at stake was not principles, but rather their practical and sustainable implementation. Because of its ad hoc nature, no procedure had been established to address natural changes in economic and financial conditions of Member States. The lack of economically justified criteria had, from the beginning, been a source of contention and had led to anomalies which became more acute over time.

Poland was an example of that, she said. In 1973, her country was included in Group B despite its strong reservation that this assignment was not based on objective economic criteria and did not reflect its capacity to contribute to the heavy expenditures of peacekeeping operations. In the years that followed, Poland called for a correction of that anomaly. In 1989, the Assembly moved Poland from Group B to Group C status. Similar decisions to move countries between groups had been taken many times. They were piecemeal ad hoc actions which did not provide a satisfactory overall solution, nor create a rational methodology for the scale. Poland supported moving South Africa from Group B to Group C.

The scale reform should fix economic thresholds for the groups, correct existing anomalies and lessen reliance on a single contributor, she said. Lessons learned from the history of peacekeeping financing taught that reliance on a single contributor should be avoided. It was necessary to secure solid political support which would generate prompt payment of assessed contributions. To put the United Nations on firmer, more sustainable financial ground, Poland was prepared to consider the proposed lowering of the ceiling for the scale of assessments.

GEDIMINAS SERKSNYS (Lithuania) said that peacekeeping was the core function of the Organization. During this session, the Committee would have to examine the Brahimi report, which was a good starting point for discussions on strengthening the Organization�s operational capabilities for peacekeeping. The revision of the peacekeeping scale was one of the most important tasks for the Fifth Committee. The principle of the capacity to pay should be given a central place in the Committee�s considerations. The new scale should aim at establishing a mechanism which would guarantee a fair share of peacekeeping expenses was levied on all Member States according to their economic performance. Such a mechanism would provide flexibility by allowing assessment rates to change with changes in a State�s economic situation.

Turning to the future set-up of the revised peacekeeping scale, he said that it would be practical to take the current scale as a point of departure for consideration of its elements. He also supported the establishment of a number of additional groups between the current groups B and C. The States belonging to those new groups would enjoy an agreed discount, which would be somewhere between the current 80 per cent and zero. Allocation of States to groups would depend on economic performance. Economic criteria should also be the basis for movement between groups. The new scale should retain a surcharge on the permanent members of the Security Council. The level and distribution of such a surcharge between the permanent five should be the subject of careful and profound consideration.

The link between the regular and peacekeeping scales would inevitably emerge, he continued. Use of the same level of threshold for both scales would mean a significant increase in both regular and peacekeeping assessments for States crossing the threshold. He concluded by expressing the hope that it would be possible to reach an agreement on the peacekeeping scale by the end of the year.

FELIPE PAOLILLO (Uruguay) said that Uruguay�s position had been put forward by the Group of 77 and China. It would also be presented by Colombia on behalf of the Rio Group. There were no reasons that justified changes in the current special scale for peacekeeping operations, but he did not oppose examining modifications to the scale to make it more equitable. Uruguay would not accept any changes that would transfer financial responsibilities from more powerful countries to the less developed ones. That would contradict the principles of equity. Developing countries should not bear a greater share because bigger countries just did not want to pay. Every Member State should contribute to the extent of its ability. The financial burden should be distributed in a fair way.

Economic indicators used to assign countries to particular groups did not reflect the real economic situation, he continued, and other factors must be considered, besides those employed now. Longer term economic data should also be used. Short economic periods did not give an accurate picture of the real situation or of trends. For example, at present, his country was experiencing a financial crisis, but it was not reflected in the statistics currently examined for the scale. The idea of creating intermediate categories was interesting, but the consequences of their creation on the developing countries needed to be further studied. Per capita income should not be the only criterion. Also, prospective adverse impacts on particular countries should be mitigated. Certain proposed changes in the peacekeeping scale would result in an increase of 50 to 75 per cent for his country. A grace period should be granted to developing countries which might see a rise in the assessed contribution.

ALFONSO VALDIVIESO (Colombia), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said that current financial situation of the Organization and peacekeeping was due neither to the special scale nor to developing countries. No review of the scale would be effective if Member States, in particular the major contributor, did not fulfil their obligation to pay their contributions in full, on time and without conditions. The United Nations was facing a payments crisis which could not be resolved by placing developed and developing countries on an equal footing. The best contribution developing countries could make to peacekeeping was to concentrate their resources in areas that would help them achieve a better standard of living.

Revision should not mean a relative reduction of the assessments of the permanent members of the Security Council, he said. Any debate to change the system used for apportioning expenses must acknowledge the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Council, and the limited capacity of developing countries to contribute to financing peacekeeping. Any new agreement on methodology must be achieved by consensus. The Rio Group called upon the Secretariat to make all information needed by the Committee available in a timely manner, so that it could conduct negotiations and adopt decisions based on the best available information.

JAMAL NASSIR AL-BADER (Qatar) said that the regular and the peacekeeping scales were the two items that would be the axis of the Committee�s discussion for the current session. He had followed the work of the Committee during its last resumed session and the statements made this week. As was well known, there were many proposals. In the last session there was a recommendation that the Committee on Contributions should study the 12 proposals so that the Fifth Committee could be guided by its expertise in devising the scale.

He called upon all States in arrears to pay their contributions in full and on time. The financial problem the United Nations faced was not linked to an imbalance in the scale, but to a lack of payment on the part of major contributors. He hoped the discussion would result in a solution that would save peacekeeping operations and ensure that Member States paid their contributions to peacekeeping expenses.

JUAN GABRIEL VALDES (Chile) associated himself with the position of the Group of 77 and China, as well as that of the Rio Group. He said that his country, like many others, had requested the inclusion of the item on the agenda for this session. Keenly aware that the allocation of contributions for peacekeeping had been calculated on the basis of an ad hoc agreement since 1973, Chile believed it was time to initiate a broad interchange of ideas regarding the methodology of the scale. However, certain principles contained in the original resolution remained valid and should be considered as the basis for any future arrangements. One of them was that the principal responsibility for financing peacekeeping operations should rest with the permanent members of the Council and the more economically developed countries.

He said that there was also the principle that the least developed countries had a relatively limited capacity to contribute towards peacekeeping operations, and their responsibility for financing those operations should be in accordance with that capacity. It should be noted that the limited capacities of developing countries did not in any way imply a lack of commitment to peacekeeping, as had been insinuated in the debate. The Brahimi report indicated that 77 per cent of the troops deployed in peacekeeping operations were from developing countries.

Chile favoured the introduction of mechanisms for gradual adjustments and grace periods in order to avoid abrupt changes in the level of contributions, he continued. However, it would not be possible to undertake a serious discussion of the peacekeeping scale before negotiations on the regular assessments had been finalized, and before each State knew for certain what its assessment in the regular budget would be.

SUBHAS CHANDRA MUNGRA (Suriname), speaking on behalf of Caribbean Community (CARICOM), aligned himself with the position of the Non-Aligned Movement and the Group of 77 and China and said that during the XIII Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement, its ministers had reiterated their position that the Movement�s members and other developing countries would be classified no higher than Group C. There were anomalies in the financing of peacekeeping which must be addressed before countries could agree that a sound infrastructure for peacekeeping had evolved. However, the main scale elements were already in existence, including the principle of capacity to pay.

Existing anomalies which concerned CARICOM delegations had to do with the fact that, along with the majority of small island developing States, they had become a litmus test of global policies. They were the �canaries� of the global environmental programmes. The question was whether CARICOM countries should also become canaries for the new scale for peacekeeping.

He said that the countries of CARICOM were concerned that, in the final analysis, they were being levied a penalty for their development gains by being called upon to give de facto subsidies to countries with a much greater capacity to pay. That did not mean that they did not take their Charter obligations to the United Nations seriously. Rather, they were calling attention to the fact that peacekeeping was essentially a management challenge. As such, the peacekeeping scale of assessments, while a technical construct, must also be weighted by checks and balances to allow its subscribers not to feel constrained in responding to peacekeeping challenges.

ION BOTNARU (Republic of Moldova) said that growing demands were being made on the world organization in maintaining international peace and security. The destinies of many people were dependent on the efficiency and quality of peacekeeping operations. The role and capacity of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations must be strengthened. The Brahimi report provided a good basis for discussions in that regard. The institutional and financial arrangements for launching new United Nations missions were structurally and operationally inadequate. More than a quarter century had passed since the scale was elaborated. He endorsed revision of the peacekeeping scale, and reform of the entire financial system of the United Nations, to distribute the financial burden more equally among Member States. It was necessary to reform the peacekeeping scale to make it more transparent and less arbitrary.

Moldova supported proposals by many delegations that a ceiling of 25 per cent should be instituted for the peacekeeping scale, and that the ceiling for the regular budget should be lowered to 22 per cent, he said. Substantial responsibility should continue to be levied on the permanent members of the Security Council, and the benefits of that responsibility should flow to economically less-developed countries. Due to circumstances beyond the control of his Government, his country faced problems in paying its contributions on time. Despite difficulties, however, Moldova recently made a payment against its assessed contributions for the regular budget for the current year and also paid its assessed contributions to fourteen United Nations peacekeeping operations.

FELIPE MABILANGAN (Philippines) said that peacekeeping remained a key and indispensable instrument for the international community in the maintenance of international peace and security. The issuance of the Brahimi report was timely and its recommendations deserved in-depth consideration. Peacekeeping had evolved in concept, scope and extent. There had been a tremendous increase in the costs of financing United Nations peacekeeping operations. In light of the increased demands of the international community of peacekeeping operations, their financing should be placed on a solid foundation. Any arrangements to apportion the United Nations peacekeeping expenses among Member States must be fair and equitable, as well as reflect the political and economic realties of the times.

The review of the peacekeeping scale must continue to reflect the time- honoured principles that governed the original peacekeeping scale, including capacity to pay, he said. The economic conditions of the low income developing countries in particular should be taken fully into account in any discussion or revision of the scale. Any review must also take into account the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council. He reaffirmed his country�s willingness to assume a greater proportion of the financing of peacekeeping operations. That gesture, however, should be viewed in the context of the discussion of reform of the peacekeeping scale. As a country that participated in various missions, non-payment was a serious concern to him, as it resulted in late reimbursement of claims from troop-contributing countries.

TAPAS ADHIKARI (Nepal) aligned his country with the position of the Group of 77 and China. He said that only last month world leaders had stressed the importance of international peace and security during the Millennium Summit. It was time to pursue a more secure and reliable mechanism for financing peacekeeping operations. Over recent years, the number of conflicts had increased at an alarming rate. Internal conflicts were continuing to proliferate, and violence was tearing societies apart. The challenges before the international community were daunting, and it was very important to enable the United Nations to carry out peacekeeping operations more effectively. After analysing the recommendations in the Brahimi report, Nepal believed that they should be considered in a fair and transparent manner.

As an active and committed participant in peacekeeping operations around the world, Nepal believed that the entire membership must work together to determine the new scale for their financing, he said. The principles of justice and fairness should guide the work of the Committee. The 27-year old scale should be made to reflect today�s economic realities. The Charter of the United Nations gave special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the permanent members of the Security Council. That responsibility should continue to be recognized when considering the peacekeeping scale. The principle of the capacity to pay should be preserved. Special difficulties of weak and vulnerable countries must be taken into consideration. He hoped that the collective efforts of the membership would lead to a constructive discussion on the subject and allow the Fifth Committee to arrive at a consensus.

RAFAEL DAUSA CESPEDES (Cuba) said that the peacekeeping scale was of utmost importance to Member States. It should be considered in a transparent and realistic way, without any false connections that would distort the essence of the question. He supported the position of the Group of 77 and China and that of the Non-Aligned Movement. The difficult financial situation of United Nations peacekeeping resulted primarily from the failure to pay by the major contributor. As a result of its unilateral decision to reduce its payments, it owed more than $615 million to the Organization. As a result of financial difficulties, the United Nations owed a significant amount to troop and equipment-contributing countries. Human and financial resources should be provided for peacekeeping, and that would be possible only if assessments were paid in full, on time and without conditions, particularly by the main contributor.

The current arrangements had been established in 1973, he continued, and the principles of collective responsibility, special responsibility of permanent members of the Security Council and of recognition of the special needs of developing and least developed countries remained valid today. Several speakers had referred to the Brahimi report on peacekeeping operations. He believed that because of its complexity, that report should first be reviewed by the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, the Fourth Committee and the General Assembly. The financial ramifications should be considered only after those bodies had examined the report. Decisions would be required before the end of the current session, but negotiations on the peacekeeping budget scale should not begin before the talks on the regular budget scale had been concluded.

ASDA JAYANAMA (Thailand) said that the peacekeeping budget had to be modernized. Among the criteria that had already been accepted was the principle of capacity to pay. The determination of capacity to pay should be based on current data. Special responsibility rested with permanent members of the Security Council, and he welcomed the pledge made during the recent high-level Security Council meeting to move expeditiously to ensure the United Nations received the necessary resources to undertake peacekeeping mandates. Another principle was that financing peacekeeping operations was the collective responsibility of all Member States. Those three principles had been accepted by the Assembly in 1963. The present scale was established on an ad hoc basis 10 years later and had not been revised since. The time had come to review the scale in a comprehensive manner, but the criteria remained very much valid, and needed only to be updated.

The growing trend in peacekeeping required massive financial resources, he said. He was awaiting the implementation plan for the Brahimi report, which would make the costs of implementing the recommendations contained in that report more clear. Although he supported the main thrust of that report, the United Nations was not in a position to involve itself in all conflicts. The Organization had limited human and financial resources at its disposable. Peacekeeping operations should not be allowed to become permanent or semi-permanent operations. They should have a set time-frame. A careful exit strategy was needed for both present and future operations. They should not become a growth industry. For peacekeeping operations to be fully funded, Member States had to make their payments in full, on time and without condition.

Requests for Exemption under Article 19 of Charter

EDUARDO MANUEL DA FONSECA FERNANDES RAMOS (Portugal), the Committee Rapporteur, informing the delegations about the outcome of informal consultations, said that some delegations were not prepared to join a consensus and that the draft discussed in informal consultations was thus not yet ready for adoption. He proposed suspending the meeting for a half hour.

ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) said that that particular subject was of great importance. Delegations had shown much flexibility on the issue. Although it had not been announced in the Journal, he had accepted informal consultations on the topic. The unofficial approval of the draft resolution in the consultations had been on the basis of an agreement. Apparently that agreement was not reflected in the text. The Committee should hold consultations on the topic on Monday, 9 October. He doubted the possibility of making any headway on the item today.

The meeting was then suspended.

When the meeting resumed, GUILLAUME GAUBERT (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, thanked the Rapporteur and the interpretation services for the help in the consultations. He expressed disappointment, because this morning it was his impression that an agreement had been reached, but that was now being called into question. He wanted everyone to assess the road already travelled, as it was reflected in the draft circulated to Committee members. He did not see how the text could be difficult to interpret. The Union was prepared to continue working on the draft at any time.

CARLOS ALBERTO MICHAELSEN DEN HARTOG (Brazil) expressed appreciation for the efforts to coordinate informal consultations on the item. However, he also had a problem with interpretation of the text. He supported the idea of continuing work on the draft, maybe on Monday. The draft should be considered in greater detail to avoid any doubts.

GUSTAVO PAREDES (Colombia), speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, said that members of the Rio Group agreed with the suggestion of the Rapporteur to hold informal consultations to dispel any doubts on the important subject.

JOHN ORR (Canada) supported the comments by the representative of France on behalf of the European Union. He thought there was a consensus in the room at the end of the morning session, and he urged all delegations to consider the impact of going against standard Fifth Committee procedure. It was important to accommodate all the views within the Committee, and it was necessary to be clear as to where exactly the objection lay in order to avoid misunderstandings in the future. It was important to understand who objected to what.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that his delegation took into account the sensitivity of the matter. He was prepared to show flexibility and agree to discussion of the topic now.

JASMINKA DINIC (Croatia), Acting Chairperson of the Committee, proposed to suspend the meeting to continue informal consultations.

The meeting was then suspended.

When the meeting resumed, MANLAN AHOUNOU (Cote d�Ivoire), speaking for the African Group, said that two countries from that group were targeted by Article 19 and he regretted that consensus had not materialized. If consensus was reached, the countries exempted could participate in the action on the draft next week.

The Rapporteur, Mr. RAMOS (Portugal), said that it had not been possible to bridge the gap in delegation�s understanding of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the draft resolution. There were three proposals on the table.

Mr. GAUBERT (France) said that the European Union would like clarification on the schedule of work and would like to see if it were possible to meet on Monday morning.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that it would be useful to call on the Committee on Contributions to provide a written explanation of the differences between the countries requesting exemptions.

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON, Ms. DINIC (Croatia), then said that the Committee could meet on Monday, in either a formal or informal session.

A.V.S. RAMESH CHANDRA (India) said that it was unfortunate that after some effort the Committee had reached the current stalemate. He did not see any point in continuing discussions further today, either in a formal or informal meeting. It was obvious that there was a big divide. The Committee should meet on Monday morning in an informal setting.

The ACTING CHAIRPERSON, Ms. DINIC (Croatia), explained that the next formal meeting would be announced in the Journal and adjourned the meeting.

* *** *

United Nations