A/63/PV.79 General Assembly

If there is no proposal under rule 66 of the rules of procedure, I shall take it that the General Assembly decides not to discuss the reports of the Fifth Committee that are before the Assembly today.

Statements will therefore be limited to explanations of vote. The positions of delegations regarding the recommendations of the Fifth Committee have been made clear in the Committee and are reflected in the relevant official records. May I remind members that, under paragraph 7 of decision 34/401, the General Assembly agreed that “When the same draft resolution is considered in a Main Committee and in plenary meeting, a delegation should, as far as possible, explain its vote only once, that is, either in the Committee or in plenary meeting, unless that delegation’s vote in plenary meeting is different from its vote in the Committee.” May I remind delegations that, also in accordance with General Assembly decision 34/401, explanations of vote are limited to 10 minutes and should be made by delegations from their seats. Before we begin to take action on the recommendations contained in the reports of the Fifth Committee, I should like to advise representatives that we are going to proceed to take decisions in the same manner as was done in the Fifth Committee, unless notified otherwise in advance.

Draft resolution II is entitled “Information and communications technology, disaster recovery and business continuity for the United Nations: arrangements for the secondary data centre at Headquarters”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

Draft resolution III is entitled “Capital master plan”. The Fifth Committee adopted it without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do the same?

I now call on the representative of the Syrian Arab Republic, who wishes to speak in explanation of position on the resolution just adopted.

My delegation’s explanation of position concerns section IV of the resolution just adopted, entitled “Special subjects relating to the programme budget for the biennium 2008-2009”. Our delegation would like to reiterate its position regarding the logical framework for the budget of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559 (2004). That framework continues to contain flaws and distortions with regard to the principles of results- based budgeting and the legislative mandate given to the Secretariat by the Council. Because of our country’s sense of responsibility, we have always expressed our opinions to representatives of the Secretariat regarding the formulation of the logical framework. Since the discussion of the framework began in the Fifth Committee in 2006, we have very clearly described to the Secretariat the attempts of the Secretary-General’s Special Envoy to distort and exceed his mandate by adopting a special budget for himself, and we have provided evidence in that regard. Representatives of the Secretariat used to point out that our observations were appropriate and correct, and they tried to match them with a logical framework. However, before the eyes of representatives of the Secretariat, the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General continued to disregard those remarks and to exceed his mandate and the principles of work of the United Nations established by the Charter. That state of affairs continued despite the ongoing affirmations of our delegation, supported by the Charter of the United Nations, that the expected achievements and indications thereof included in the budget of the Special Envoy on the establishment of diplomatic relations between sovereign States was a matter that was not connected to the mandate established in Security Council resolution 1559 (2004) and constituted interference in the internal affairs of States. It was also in violation of Security Council resolution 1680 (2006), which states that the establishment of diplomatic relations between States is by definition a bilateral matter. The Special Envoy of the Secretary-General continued to disregard paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 1559 (2004), which clearly and explicitly calls for the withdrawal of foreign troops from Lebanon. This indicates and establishes that the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General was neither objective nor impartial in formulating the expected achievements and indications while he was preparing his budget. The purpose and objective of that disregard was to distract from the true problem facing the region, which is Israel’s continued occupation of practices in Arab lands. Our delegation would like to emphasize that, when the General Assembly decided to take note of the logical framework of the budget of the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General for the implementation of Security Council resolution 1559 (2004), our country did not approve. The Secretariat needs to take into consideration the concerns of our delegation and must translate the relevant legislative mandates honestly. We would like to point out that our understanding of that resolution is that the Secretariat is not authorized to spend from the budget allocated for Security Council resolution 1559 (2004) because the logical framework was not adopted on the basis of results-based budgeting.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 118.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 123.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 124.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 139.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 146.

The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 149.

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 157.

The Fifth Committee adopted the draft decision, entitled “Questions deferred for future consideration”, without a vote. May I take it that the Assembly wishes to do likewise?

The Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 117. The General Assembly has thus concluded its consideration of all the reports of the Fifth Committee before it.

I now call on those representatives who wish to speak in explanation of position on the resolution just adopted.

I have the honour to deliver this joint statement of the co-facilitators on behalf of the delegations of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. We thank the General Assembly for adopting resolution 63/277 by consensus. Since our recent appointments as co-facilitators to complete the negotiations on modalities and the preparatory process of the United Nations conference on the world financial and economic crisis and its impact on development, we have committed ourselves to upholding the openness, transparency and inclusivity of the process, as mandated in the 23 March 2009 letter of the President of the General Assembly. Paragraph 9 of the resolution further embodies the sentiment. Member States have drawn lessons from previous negotiation processes and have rightly sought to ensure that those lessons help to inform the preparatory process for our June conference. During our involvement as co-facilitators, we have repeatedly stressed our joint assessment that many aspects of behaviour or managerial discretion cannot be legislated or controlled by semantic adjustments to the resolution. We have pledged to facilitate and conduct the preparatory process in full regard for the explicit mandates of paragraphs 9 and 1 (e) that the process be led by Member States and result in an outcome to be agreed by Member States. As Permanent Representatives of Member States of the United Nations, which is an intergovernmental body, we have no difficulty in understanding and upholding the leadership and decision-making role of Member States in the preparatory process. The 23 March letter of the President of the General Assembly cited the membership’s broad agreement that the preparatory process of the conference would benefit from the inclusion of invited non-Member groups and organizations. We agree with the President’s assessment. The negotiation process is driven by Member States. The outcome of the Conference will have to be agreed by Member States and Member States only. The resolution leaves no room for interpretation on that point. We will ensure that participants in the consultations respect each other’s respective and distinct roles and responsibilities. Accordingly, we look forward to assisting the Member States in arriving at an agreed and concise outcome. Our understanding of the phrase “concise outcome” reflects the Member States’ desire to produce an outcome free of extraneous or superfluous verbiage. The content of the outcome will be determined by the scope of the conference, as outlined in the second preambular paragraph of the resolution, and ultimately by the agreement of the Member States themselves. We consider the resolution to be a carefully calibrated and balanced document designed to engender the support of all Member States. No single paragraph should be read in isolation because such an approach will detract from the totality of the good-faith compromises and concessions made by all Member States to date. We view the resolution in this holistic light and pledge to uphold its letter and spirit in such a manner as to achieve a successful June conference.

On behalf of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, allow me to express our gratitude for the excellent work that you, Sir, have been carrying out as President of the General Assembly. We trust in your wise leadership. We are certain that you will continue to work towards a successful United Nations conference on the global financial and economic crisis and its impact on development in June. We would also like to express our gratitude to the Group of 77 and China, and in particular its Chairperson, for their decisive support for this large- scale United Nations conference. We believe that a united G-77 and China is a prerequisite for ensuring that the interests of the peoples of the South will be reflected in the document that the Conference will adopt. The leader of the Bolivarian revolution, President Hugo Chávez Frías, proposed that the United Nations hold a world summit on the global financial and economic crisis. Our delegation to the United Nations went to work and prepared a draft resolution on the subject. It promoted wide-ranging consultations with the countries of the Bolivarian Alternative for the Americas (ALBA) and with all the regional groups represented at the United Nations in order to prepare the draft resolution. On 11 November 2008, Venezuela introduced a draft resolution entitled “The world financial and economic crisis and its consequences” contained in document A/63/L.22. This draft resolution, in its first iteration, was sponsored by 33 countries of this body. On 20 November 2008, the Group of 77 and China adopted it by consensus and, on 21 November of the same year, submitted it to the General Assembly. The G-77 and China went to the Doha Review Conference on Financing for Development, held in late November 2008, with a common draft resolution that called for the holding of a world summit, organized by the President of the General Assembly, during the sixty-third session of that body. The G-77 and China proposed “to examine the underlying causes of the financial crisis and undertake a comprehensive review of the international financial system with a view to advancing efforts to reform the Bretton Woods institutions” (A/63/L.22/Rev.1, para. 1). In the capital of the State of Qatar, we approved the convening of a conference at the highest level on the world financial and economic crisis and its impact on development. We particularly welcome, Sir, the selection of you as President and organizer of that conference and that it will take place during the sixty- third session of the General Assembly. We also welcome the fact that it has been agreed to hold it at the highest level, and we hope that all heads of State and Government of the Member States will participate. Furthermore, we are pleased that it has been agreed to make the outcome document of the conference intergovernmental. We would like to stress the historic nature of the General Assembly’s active participation in the debate on the reform of the global financial and economic system and architecture and of its opportunity to respond to the crisis. We appreciate, Sir, the fact that the facilitators appointed by you, the Permanent Representatives of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and of the Netherlands, have determined — as we heard a few minutes ago — the conditions of participation in the conference of entities other than the Member States, as well as some terms of the outcome document. The Bretton Woods institutions are the main culprits of the current crisis, together with the United States Federal Reserve and the Department of the Treasury of George W. Bush’s Administration. Its consequences are terrible: increasing poverty, unemployment, hunger and social inequality that primarily affect the most vulnerable in developing countries and in developed capitalist countries alike. In response to the crisis, it has been proposed to recapitalize the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in order to consolidate the credit monopoly and maintain conditionality. That is an attempt to strengthen neo-liberal globalization and uphold the historic transfer of capital from the South to the North. Thus, referring to the outcome of the recent G-20 summit, President Hugo Chávez Frías pointed out that “the IMF is being heralded as a saviour and hero when in fact it was the villain that sunk the world”. The Bolivarian Government believes that, in order to achieve true global human development and to address the current crisis, it is necessary to break the credit monopoly of the countries of the North and the Bretton Woods institutions; to abolish the conditionality that the IMF imposes on developing countries; to strengthen regional banks, such as the Bank of the South and the ALBA bank — at the recent summit of South American and Arab countries, Venezuela proposed the establishment of a bank under the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries — and to establish regional monetary agreements and regional currencies. The ALBA countries are moving towards creating a unified regional compensation system. Venezuela proposes establishing the petrodollar as an exchange currency among oil- producing countries. It should be stressed that progress has been made in other geographical areas — such as Chiang Mai in South-East Asia, Africa and Arab countries — that must be taken into account. It is also necessary to regionalize the monetary reserves, including the possibility of issuing regional special drawing rights, to abolish the dollar as a reserve currency and to prevent voracious imperialist interests from continuing to swindle the world by financing its deficit by issuing notes. We must liberate ourselves from the yoke of the dollar. Allow me to conclude by stating that the revolutionary Government over which Hugo Chávez Frías presides believes that the United Nations conference will be an opportunity to discuss the destiny of the world and the challenges facing humankind at this historic time; to denounce the miseries and infeasibility of capitalism; to oppose the economic and financial system that has resulted in such disastrous consequences for the peoples of the world; and to advocate the structural transformation of the current global financial and economic architecture. New alternatives for the development and happiness of the people have been suggested. In that context, the future will see the rise of an alternative twenty-first century humanist socialism that fosters the liberation of humanity and nature.

I would like to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Kaire Mbuende, Permanent Representative of Namibia, together with Mr. Frank Majoor of the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Mr. Camillo Gonsalves of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, who have so ably and patiently conducted the discussions and complex negotiations in the informal consultations to bring them to a successful conclusion. I am sure that Members of the Assembly join me in extending to them our sincere appreciation. I am very pleased that the Member States have agreed on the modalities of the United Nations conference at the highest level on the economic and financial crisis and its impact on development. I congratulate them. In the midst of the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression, we now have the opportunity and the responsibility to search for solutions that take into account the interests of all nations, rich and poor, large and small. That is the mission of the G-192. Among the many international processes searching for solutions, the decisions of the States Members of the United Nations are taken within a legally defined structure that offers inclusiveness and credibility within an established framework of sovereign equality. In sum, the General Assembly is the most universal, comprehensive and legitimate international decision-making body that bases its decisions on the right of all peoples to participate actively in decisions that affect all humankind. In the past weeks and months, trillions of dollars have been spent or committed to restore trust and confidence in financial markets and institutions. However, trust and confidence are obviously about more than money; they are also about values, ethics and justice. There is widespread consensus among world leaders that the current crisis has its roots in ethical failure, in unrestrained greed, in reckless denigration of the common good and in a denial of any sense of social justice or obligation. The result has been a continual concentration of income, wealth and power, increased instability and a genuine risk of catastrophe. As the G-20 leaders said last week, we face a global crisis that requires a global solution. All of us are affected by the breakdown of the financial economic order, and all of us must participate to establish a more just and more sustainable financial and economic system. In agreeing to hold the United Nations conference at the highest level, Member States are recognizing the vital importance of assuring that all nations have an opportunity to participate equally and fully in the common search for solutions that meet the concerns and needs of all countries, large and small. In this effort, we must draw upon technical expertise and practical wisdom from all over the world and from countries at every stage of development, as well as from international organizations, academia, private sector organizations and civil society. Our preparatory work has been ongoing, but now, with the completion of the modalities resolution, we must approach the preparations for the June United Nations conference with a redoubled sense of urgency. With the assistance of the facilitators, I hope to be able to present a programme of work for the Assembly’s consideration next week. In addition, I will be inviting the heads of State and Government of all Member States and observers to attend the meeting. I shall rely on the goodwill and good offices of Members to confirm, as early as possible, the highest level participation of their Governments. We have a historic responsibility to demonstrate that the United Nations system, headed by the General Assembly, has the capacity and the will to respond effectively and with dispatch to threats to our global community. Let us now begin our work together. The General Assembly has thus concluded this stage of its consideration of agenda item 48.