CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic) Welcome again in this meeting, which we hope will be the last in the deliberations of this Commission.
As you will recall, yesterday evening we were discussing document C 79/1/REP/1-Sup. l. We had commenced a debate on paragraph 20·This is the paragraph which immediately follows the draft resolution, a draft which we approved. you will also remember that there was some difference of opinion concerning the last sentence. We were obliged to close our deliberations because of a shortage of time. At that time there was a proposal concerning the last sentence of paragraph 20. There was a proposal that the sentence should read as follows:"These members stated that in considering the above resolution, these interpretative statements should be noted. "This wording would replace the last phrase, "taken into account". We will now begin discussion on this question once more.
Ρ . GRIFFIN (Ireland):You will recall that the amendment to which you have just referred was not in fact the only amendment which was suggested. There was also another one, which I will refer to in a moment. However, I would like first to say that paragraph 20 refers to interpretative statements which are recorded in the verbatim records of the Conference. We are dealing with the report of the Commission and we are dealing with the statements made by the delegations to the Commission. It is normal that a reference be made, even if abbreviated, to statements which delegations have actually made. This is a report and it is an abbreviated record of statements made. Therefore we feel that whatever individual views may be about statements that any specific delegation made, if a delegation said something it is normal to record that. So we felt that it would be legitimate to have a full interpretative statement recorded. But we have, as I mentioned yestorday, in an effort to cooperate to the fullest possible extent, agreed to the suggestion whioh you originally made, which is to abridge our interpretative statement in the report. This has been done. The sentence in paragraph 20 simply says that these interpretative statements should be taken into account. It is arguable what is the value of this sentence. But if it has no value it does no harm; if it does have a value it is a matter of opinion which every delegation has the right to exercise.
The Community feels that this sentence would be helpful. We feel it is a pity in a way that our particular judgments on the value of the sentence-which is rather innocuous, which I think most delegations would agree-should be questioned. This sentence has passed through the Drafting Committee and was approved by the Chairman and members of the Drafting Committee. We feel that it certainly is not tendentious in any way.
Having said that, the Community is prepared to go one step further and revert to another amendment which was suggested yesterday. If the sentence is not acceptable we would be prepared, if necessary, to delete the words-if anybody feels it will help them-"in considering the above resolution". I believe it was the delegate of Yugoslavia who suggested this. But then we would expect that the rest of the sentence would remain unaltered.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): If I understood you correctly, you are suggesting that in the last line but one, which starts "stated that", we delete "in considering the above resolution" and say "stated that these interpretative statements should be taken into account".
After listening to the delegate of Ireland, and in our last meeting you also heard the delegate of Yugoslavia, you have two new amendments. I would like to elicit your views thereon.
D. VUJICIC (Yugoslavia):We are ready to reciprocate towards the delegate of Ireland on the matter and we are ready to accept the deletion of the words "in considering the above resolution" but we would like to keep the replacement of the words "taken into account" by "noted". The delegate of Ireland said that some statements could be helpful for somebody, but we must also consider that if it does concern very important problems on which different positions exist, which in some cases, as in this one, may be totally contrary positions of two parties concerned, then it could he harmful for the other side if somebody is helpful to the One.
So we would accept the text which would read "These members stated that these interpretative statements should be noted. "
S. M. CHOUDHURY (Bangladesh): My delegation fully welcomes the deletion offered by Ireland and at the same time expresses that the change that was read out by the Secretariat, that is, to replace "taken into account" with the word "noted" should also be stressed in the sentence itself.
In other words, as stated by Yugoslavia, the sentence may read, "These members stated that"--and here we come to the deletion offered by Ireland-- "in considering the above resolution", and then we say, "these interpretative statements should be noted", whioh was our suggestion.
A. I. MENENDEZ (Mexico): Venimos siguiendo desde hace varias semanas, y ahora con mayor interés en los últimos días y en las ultimas horas, el desarrollo de estas interesantes negociaciones. El plantea-miento que se había hecho el día de ayer, en el cual intervenimos, fue si se mantenía la frase o si se eliminaba la frase. Vemos ahora que hay concesión por parte de la Comunidad en cambiar el final de la frase y que la delegación yugoslava se ha adherido a esta nueva fórmula.
Nosotros quisiéramos presentar una ligerísima modificación a lo presentado en el sentido que la frase dijera: "Estos Miembros declararon que estas declaraciones interpretativas deberían notarse", si esto es aceptable para la Comisión.
P. ROSENEGGER (Austria) (interpretation from German): I could not quite follow. I did get, I believe, Ireland's suggestion that we drop "in considering the above resolution", but I thought that he meant we should keep "should be taken into account" at the end of the sentence, and this is something our delegation could accept.
What I do not understand is where the reciprocity business comes in, as suggested by Yugoslavia. When he said, "in considering the above resolution is noted, " he put "should be noted". Where does the reciprocity suddenly surface? Perhaps Yugoslavia could enlighten us.
C. BATAULT (France): Comme l'a fort bien souligne le délégué du Mexique, le texte auquel nous étions arrivés après un débat en commission, puis en comité de rédaction, représentait un compromis élaboré péniblement et qui tenait compte des intérêts des uns et des autres.
Je tiens à dire qu'ici je parle en mon nom propre et au nom de la France et non au nom de qui que ce soit d'autre, mais je crois que mon opinion dans cette affaire a tout de même une certaine valeur, parce qu'il y a des années que je participe à des conférences internationales des Nations Unies, et je n'ai jamais vu de cas où une des parties refuse de tenir compte de l'opinion des autres, alors qu'il s'agit des "contributeurs" les plus importants au travail d'une Organisation. Je n'ai jamais vu cela nulle part. Je ne comprends pas très bien quel but poursuit le délégué de la Yougoslavie qui est venu détruire un compromis que nous avons péniblement mis au point, et qui va rouvrir la discussion. Je ne vois absolument pas en quoi cela le gêne. S'il ne veut absolument pas "tenir compte", cela veut dire que tout ce que nous disons, nous, les principaux contributeurs de la FAO, ne vaut rien, que cela ne vaut pas la peine d'en tenir compte. Mais nos gouvernements seront obligés de tenir compte de cette attitude, et je le déplorerai profondément parce que j'admire beaucoup le travail fait par la FAO, le Directeur général et ses principaux collaborateurs, en vue d'arriver à apporter une solution au problème de la faim dans le monde. Mais nous sommes tout prêts à y participer, à condition qu'on nous accorme de un minimum de considération. Je ne peux accepter, en tant que délégué de la France, ni cet amendement yougoslave, ni la manière dont il a été présenté.
P. A. MORALES CARBALLO (Cuba): Nosotros, Sr. Presidente, hemos tomado nota de tres enmiendas propuestas al párrafo 20, Una que nos ha hecho el colega de Yugoslavia, y otras dos de los colegas de Bangladesh y de Mexico.
Yo he estado reflexionando sobre las tres propuestas, y me parece que la hecha por Bangladesh pudiera incluir las propuestas tanto de Yugoslavia como de Mexico en el sentido de decir: "Estos miembros declararon que debiera tomarse nota de estas declaraciones interpretativas".
Estimamos, pues, que la propuesta de Bangladesh resume de una manera exacta el sentido -al menos yo así lo interpreto- de las propuestas de los colegas de México y de Yugoslavia.
Por consiguiente, la propuesta de Bangladesh podría dar la explicación que nosotros damos a este párrafo.
Ρ· GRIFFIN (Ireland): Speaking on behalf of the Community, I would like to say that this sentence begins "These members stated" · We are talking about the statements of participants in the Commission. I do not claim to be a legal expert on these matters, but I have participated in many meetings of FAO and other organizations, very many, and at the moment I certainly do not recall any case where a statement of opinion of a member of a Commission was changed as a result of insistence by other delegates.
We are not saying the Conference said these interprétative statements should be taken into account, we are stating that the members who made these statements said they should be taken intoaccount. Well, they either said this or they did not, and we are saying this: we are saying that we feel that these interpretative statements should be taken into account. How is it possible for another delegation to say that we are not saying that? This is what I do not understand. And also I would be interested to know what do you do with interpretative statements if you do not take them into account? Why are interpretative statements made? What do you do with them if you do not take them into account? If there is no difference, leave the words as they are. If there is a difference, perhaps this can be explained in detail by the delegate of Yugoslavia and the other delegates who support it.
This is our view, Mr. Chairman, and I would be very interested to have a reasonable and rational explanation on this point, because I am speaking on behalf of the Community, but I am also speaking with a great deal of personal interest in this matter simply for my own information, as a participant in so many international meetings, how it should come about that delegations should have an interest in changing what other delegations have said.
M. THKUJA (Yugoslavia): What I could not do is to promise anybody to give a rational or reasonable explanation I could only promise I will do my best to explain what we feel about all this.
But I think, Mr. Chairman, if you would certainly recall, yesterday we asked the question. We wanted to be enlightened, so to say, about the meaning of the sen t eno e · Our feeling yesterday was that if there were no, to repeat, to use the same words, reasonable or rational reasons behind it, we felt that it would have been very superfluous, so our question still remains unanswered.
Certainly, we could not claim very long international experience, but certainly with our humble experience we only wanted to ask the question, and I do not know whose turn it is now to answer the question. To our feeling, in all seriousness, the crux of the matter is "take into account". Nobody, of course, wants to change any single word of the country's interpretative notes. For example, the notes of the Community as reflected in paragraph 21 will remain totally unchanged, and it is not our wish whatsoever to enter into any kind of debate vis-a-vis their own statements, but here my delegation is also covered by the statements of the Group of 77, so it is not true simply, as I realize, at least, with due respect to my Irish colleague, it simply is not true that we are changing the position or statements of some of the delegations. It is simply not true. It is our own concern also; we are reflecting our own concern on this, so my question is still open, and I would be glad to hear any rational and reasonable expla-nation.
CHAIRMAN:(interpretation from Arabic): Now, distinguished delegates, you will recall that during the past two weeks during this lengthy period of time we were able to overcome many difficulties, and as I reiterated on many occasions, I have always appreciated, and all delegates have appreciated, our attempt to tackle questions in a rational and objective manner. All I request at this moment before giving the floor to other speakers is that we deal with this matter in a rational manner and without a heated discussion, because I am convinced at the end of all of this we will arrive at a solution as we have done in the past. We have succeeded in dealing with more tricky issues, so I hope we can keep our debate within the spirit of mutual understanding and constructiveness.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland):I assure you, Mr. Chairman, I welcome what you have said, and that as far as the Community is concerned this debate will be kept on a rational level.
I also welcome the remarks of Yugoslavia who said his initial intervention was simply a request to know what, in fact, the sentence meant. He also said that as the statements include one on behalf of the Group of 77 this is a matter of interest to him. All right. First of all, I would say that the Group of 77 statement was included with the others, and this text was submitted to the Drafting Committee at which representatives of all parties were present, and it was agreed by the Drafting Committee. That is point No. 1.
Point No. 2 is, what does this mean? I will say that the Community would like to leave it in. There may be different opinions about this but this is our view. It was found by the Community that they wanted these interpretative statements recorded so that they would be taken into account, as obviously an interpretative statement represents the view of the people making it of the meaning of certain clauses in the Resolution, and how they understand it. They have made an interpretative statement showing how they understand certain clauses and how they should be taken into account; it is simply a statement of how they feel interpretative statements should be worded in regard to a resolution. I believe, myself, if you make an interpretative statement it should be taken into account, as otherwise you would not bother making it.
It is possible that the delegate for Yugoslavia may say "Why not, it is on this statement". All right, that is a reasonable point, but in fact it is a sentence that we feel is a logical outcome to the making of an interpretative statement, that if you make a statement it should be taken into account. It is superfluous, all right, is it 'worth taking up the time of the Commission in order to release something which is superfluous? A statement, as you know is or is not significant. I do not think it is. I am not going to discuss the merits of it or otherwise, this is arguable. The delegate of Yugoslavia can say this is not necessary, they are entitled to their view, and I will not take issue with them and they are entitled to that feeling.
If the Committee consider it is desirable it could be taken into account, as far as we are concerned our interpretative statements should be taken into account, and no doubt they will be anyway. But we would still like the sentence in, and again say why anyone have any interest in deleting it? The delegate of Yugoslavia has simply recorded the point that he wants an answer to the question, and I hope this is the answer he wants.
If we are talking about statements made by individual delegations, then I hope the statements of these delegations will not be changed by other delegations.
C. BATAULT (Prance): Le Président de la Communauté européenne a parlé avec une logique qui me paratt tout â fait irréfutable. La question est uniquement de savoir si on dit aux gens: vous faites une déclaration mais nous n'en tenons aucun compte, ou si l'on dit: vous faites une déclaration et nous en tenons compte, ce qui est le minimum de la courtoisie qui doit régir les rapports entre les pays. Si- cela n'est pas l'avis du délégué yougoslave ou de certains autres délégués, si on considère que les déclarations qui peuvent être faites par un pays ou par un groupe de pays ne valent pas la peine qu'on les prenne en considération, je me réserve le droit de reprendre la parole.
L. COMANESCU (Romania): I have just heard the delegate of Ireland speak a few minutes ago and say that it is understandable if we see here in paragraph 20 that while adopting the above Resolution the de-legates of some countries made some interpretative statements. He should at least let me say if we put in this report the words that they made interpretative statements, it seems to me that everybody who is going to read this report is going to take that into consideration.
I feel the answer asked for by the delegate of Yugoslavia is still not yet answered.
S. M. CHOUDHURYT (Bangladesh): Mydelegation in no way doubts that certain countries made interpretative statements, which I am sure you will see have been mentioned in detail in paragraph 21 onwards, and they also asked that these interpretative statements should be taken into account.
Our suggestion is we should note these interpretative statements, and the very fact that all the interpretative statements have been mentioned in the paragraph in a summary form will obviously be taken into account. There is no doubt about that. Their request or their urging that they should be taken into account does not necessarily mean this should be reflected here also.
Also we understand and agree that this Resolution and the interpretative statement were discussed at length in the Contact Group and the Drafting Committee, but I suppose that does not prevent us from discussing their merits here in this meeting.
That is all I have to say at this moment.
P. MASUD (Pakistan) : An argument is being made repeatedly that certain delegations said certain things and this should be reflected, but if you read the sentence it says: "While adopting the above Resolution, the delegates of Austria, Canada, United States, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland, of the nine member states of the ESC, and of India on behalf of the Group of 77"-and these last words: "and India on behalf of the Group of 77" cover a large number of countries. What follows is not attributed only to the first group of countries, but also to the Group of 77· We have the right to say something on what follows.
It is not only a statement nade by the EEC or the delegates from Austria, Canada, United States, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Switserland, it is aleo a statement made by the Group of 77, and that Group has also a right to a say in what manner that should be reflected. We are trying to find a compromise, to find a suitable and rational solution for both the first and second Group.
I hope, Mr. Chairman, I have your attention; I suppose you must be very busy but I hope I have your attention that tide is not a statement by one Group of countries; it is a statement by both Groups, and therefore both should be reflected.
CHAIRMAN: (interpretation from Arabic): Before giving the floor to the next speaker, I would like to clarify a point: that we have heard many times during the debate that there has been an attempt on many occasions to prevent the reflection of the views of some delegations in this report, especially in regard to interpretative statements. Of course, since the outset I was always keen on giving everyone his due rigit and that we should honestly reflect all the opinions in this report. I have tried as far as possible to be as fair as I could possibly be with a view to reaching a mutually acceptable solution.
When we spoke about the question of interpretative statements we had the two basic elements in mind -one was that we said we would mention all the countries who have tabled interpretative statements, and would name them. The second point was, we said we would reflect in the report, after lengthy discussions and concessions from each side, from various delegations, very honestly and in an acceptable manner to all, what appeared in these interpretative statements. I believe that we did indeed manage to reflect both elements.
Nevertheless, the controversial issue now is that we are not discussing the contents of interpretative statements, nor are we discussing the right of each country to have its name mentioned. But it appears we are now discussing what to do with these interpretative statements. That is the difficulty here, and I am going to quote a sentence from the statement of Ireland: "How should these statements be treated?". I believe this is indeed the orux of the matter. Some people say they should be taken into account, others would like the words "should be noted".
I therefore find myself in a delicate position about how to reconcile the various points of view. We have fulfilled the rights of everyone by mentioning the names of the countries. We have given each one his right by reflecting the interpretative statements in a manner acceptable to them. Now we are facing some difficulty about specifying them and about what to do with these interpretative statements.
Of course, when I re-read the statement formally presented to me, I find there is nothing therein that indicates that they should be taken into account or even to be noted. All that was said to me in these documents is: we would like the statements to be duly registered. Perhaps some of you, while introdu-
cing these interpretative statements, may have mentioned that they should be taken into account or that they should only be noticed. Nevertheless, however long we dwell on this this afternoon, just like ye-sterday, we may find ourselves in a deadlock because this group which is mentioned includes a number of countries, a group of countries, and yet another group of countries, that is, the Group of 77; and all these parties will find difficulties,
P GRIFFIN (Ireland): First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my full agreement with what you have said. I must say, speaking now for a moment for myself, that I have certainly found at the Contact Group and at the discussions of the Commission, that you have been very fair and helpful and cooperative; and certainly I would say that I have no complaints whatever, nothing but appreciation for the way in Which you have handled the very difficult subject that we have had to discuss.
The next thing I have to say may, I think, help the delegations who have a difficulty. tie have pointed out that at the beginning of paragraph 20, reference is made to the delegates of Austria, Canada, the United States, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Switzerland, the nine Member states of EEC, and of India on behalf of the Group of 77· All right, each one of those delegations has its own point of view, presumably. As far as we are concerned -I am speaking now for the Community-we can accept that the sentence at the end of paragraph 20 does, of course, refer to all of those delegations; and if this is not acceptable, then we can insert our sentence at the end of paragraph 21. Then we are clearly referring to the Community's view; and I am not aware of any precedent in the history of any international negotiations where a request made by an individual delegation was altered or deleted by other delegations.
If this will help the situation, we can transfer the last sentence of paragraph 20 to the end of paragraph 21·
M. TBKUUA (Yugoslavia): I also want again to agree with Mr. Griffin that we are very appreciative indeed of your ruling, Mr. Chairman. You have been even too patient with us and perhaps this is one of the reasons why we have so far not been able to agree.
Secondly, before I agree definitely with Mr. Griffin who was now speaking for the Community, he has now suggested-and there is not any idea in our minds whatsoever in going into a debate about the views expressed by the Community, if we make sure that these views are the Community's views-I must still try to explain the reasons why we insisted and were anxious to be given a kind of explanation.
If you look, for example, at paragraph 4 or paragraph 8, preambular, which is reflected in the statement of the Community, you will see, for example, that paragraph 4 speaks of "Considering that the protectionist pol i oies" etc and paragraph 8, which is much more important, to our minds at least: "Stressing the need for agricultural adjustment in all countries, particularly those countries which have high support prices and/or barriers", etc.
I am not going to discuss this, I merely want to illustrate. I am not questioning the views as stated on behalf of the Community. We read, for example, in paragraph 21, that with regard to these two paragraphs to which I have just referred, the Community says: "The fourth and the eighth preambular paragraphs did not and could not mean or imply an invitation to them to change or modify" etc.
CHAIRMAN: (interpretation from Arabic) Could I start learning how to be impatient ? I will start with you because you told me that perhaps I am too patient.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I have already illustrated my point, I merely wanted to Bay that we are star-ting something which is, to say the least, very strange.
CHAIRMAN: (interpretation from Arabic) I do not know whether I have understood the amendment suggested by the delegate of Ireland that we can put this sentence, this statement, at the end of paragraph 21; is that correct?
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. It would simply need to be adapted. We would simply say-the paragraph begins: "The nine member states of the EEC made the following interpretation" and then it gives the interpretation. We would then put as a final sentence: "They stated that in considering the above resolution, their interpretative statements should be taken into account. " They were speaking only about the Community, and it would seem to me nobody else need have any worry on that score.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I just want to be sure that the delegates of Austria, Canada, United States, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland would not come and say that they want to insert a similar statement after their paragraphs. I could start talking about this if I could get the assurance.
I· TAKT (Japan): If the modification proposed by the distinguished delegate of Yugoslavia was recognized, of course, naturally we would like to insert the same phrase in our statement.
H. S. BAR SHAI (Israel): May I suggest what I wanted to say before -- I do not know whether it is acceptable -- that at the end of paragraph 20, instead of the words "These members stated" it should be written "Some members stated". Then some can take it as their own statement and others can think it is not their interpretation of the matter.
C. BATAULT (France): Je suis tout à fait d'accord, Monsieur le Président, avec ce que vous avez dit, et la France étant censée être le pays de la logique, je vais essayer de mettre un peu de logique dans ce débat. En effet, je ne vois pas très bien à quoi on en arrive. Si jvai bien compris, mais peut-être n'est ce pas le cas parce que j'ai l'esprit trop logique, dans la première phrase, qui vise le Groupe des 77, le délégué de la Yougoslavie, si on interprète littéralement ce qu'il a dit, trouve qu'il ne faut pas tenir compte 4e l'interprétation du Groupe des 77 puisqu'il fait partie de la liste. Ainsi, il me paraît extrêmement simple-n'étant pas eembre, contrairement à la Yougoslavie, du Groupe des 77-de remettre, après le paragraphe 21, la phrase en question. Ainsi, on saurait exactement qui appartient à qui. Cela me paraît d'une logique irréfutable. Mais rien n'empêche, et cela ne donnerait pas trop de travail au Secrétariat, d'ajouter cette phrase, comme vous l'avez suggéré, après les déclarations de chacun des pays ou des groupes de pavs qui le souhaitent, y compris le Groupe des 77· Cela me semble susceptible de résoudre le problème àla satisfaction générale.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabie): Well, gentlemen, as a last appeal maybe to get to a paragraph or a statement which is acceptable to all of us with the same degree of enthusiasm-probably it is impossible-I want to really again consider the original proposal, I want you to look at this sentence where it says "These members stated that in considering the above resolution, these interpretative statements should be noted". I think we almost got somewhere there, so can we still consider this, or is it out of question and we look for another formula?
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): I made a proposal a few moments ago. The delegate of Yugoslavia agreed to it. I did not hear anybody dissent from it.
True, you asked whether other delegations wished to move a similar proposal and Japan said they would, but that seems to be all that has been said in relation to that proposal. The proposal I made was accepted, in fact, by the delegation which initiated discussion. As far as the Community is concerned, then, we are satisfied to do this. We have made several concessions in this matter. We wish to be as flexible as possible.
I did make an earlier suggestion to meet the wishes of those delegations who did not agree with paragraph 20 when I said we would transfer it simply to the end of paragraph 21. We seem to be the only ones that are requesting this-at the end of paragraph 21 where it refers only to the EEC Yugoslavia has accepted this so I really do not feel we can go any further than this. I do not think it is a problem any longer.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): You have heard the last proposal of the representative of Ireland, that is to place this sentence, as it originally reads, in this document but this should figure at the end of paragraph 21 and as far as I understand from the representative of Japan he would like to have the same sentence after "he phrase relevant to Japan's position.
I still have not heard the opinion of the other members, if they wish to have the same treatment. I therefore put to you the idea that was just proposed by Ireland.
RANADHAR (India) : Mr. Griffin has just now talked about concessions. If we recall we fully know as to who has made what concessions and we had put up a resolution in the CCP which was completely different from the resolution that we are discussing now. Then the Chairman of the CCP, through his good offices, arrived at a concensus draft and the group of 77 was under the impression all through, and there was an understanding, that there would be no reservations to that concensus draft. Now what is being sought to be done, we have heard the EEC, we have heard Japan, they want to put the same thing, and now after some talk we will have some other country who will also like to have the same sort of formulation at the end of their interpretative statement. What is being sought to be done is that we are putting these interpretative statements as part of the resolution if we say that while considering the resolution they must be taken into account. I am firmly of the view that what we are trying to do is to put them as part of the resolution and the resolution loses complete impact and effect therefore. I find it very difficult if we have this sort of chain reaction and we have one country after another trying to have the same solution.
S. DE MARE (Sweden): As the representative of India so rightly pointed out I think other countries also would like to have the same treatment and that is tke case for the Nordic countries, or at least Sweden, Finland and Norway; we would like to have a sentence like the last one in para. 20 reflecting the views of the Nordic countries too.
P. ROSENEGGER (Austria) (interpretation from German): I do not want to make things more complicated and I was very reluctant to ask to speak but the way matters stand now, all they can do, all that is left is also to ask for the sarre sentence, for that to be taken into account. This gives you the impression that if this sentence is not incuded the whole thing vail not be taken into account and we are compelled to ask, therefore, that in para. 25 a similar sentence be added at the end of the sentence, just to make sure that this paragraph will really be taken seriously.
P. HASUD (Pakistan): I just wanted to agree with my colleague from India and exactly as he has predicted you are getting a chain reaction and you are getting all the countries asking themselves for some resolution or the other. I would go back to what you propose and unofficially I may assure you that some of the components of the European Economic Community, although it has a common agricultural policy, did mention to me that they would be going along with the wording that you had proposed but apparently there has been a rethinking on the subject and now positions are hardening and in this context I would like to remind the European Economic Community, if they were to refer to the original resolution moved in the CCP and then have a look at the present text and then see who has made which concessions, I think it would be a very salutory exercise.
S. K. CHOUDHURY (Bangladesh) : We have heard the delegate of India and the delegate of India as stated here in the paragraph also has spoken on behalf of the Group of 77 and. that should put any doubts in the mind of the delegate of France to rest, taking concessions has not, I repeat, not been the act of a particular group alone, I think it has been reciprocal and all have tried to be acoomodative as much as possible and as you have seen the chain reaction has started and, on behalf of my delegation I would like to accept the alternative that you had proposed some time back in which the sentence would read "These members stated that these interpretative statements should be noted. "
C. BATAULT (France): Si je comprends bien, nous sommes en train de tourner en rond, et cela sans aucune raison. Commel?a indiqué le delegué du Pakistan, qui a été un excellent président du Comité de rédaction, c'est grâce à lui que nous sommes arrivés à un texte satisfaisant, nous n'avons qu'à revenir à la rédaction originale qui, au fond, à quelques nuances près, satisfait tout le monde. Puisqu'on n'est pas d'accord sur ces nuances, pourquoi ne pas adopter le paragraphe 20 tel qu'il a été mis sur pied après beaucoup d'efforts par le Comité de rédaction et n'en plus parler? Ainsi le débat serait clos. On maintient le paragraphe 20 tel qu'il est et on oublie le débat pour le présent comme pour l'avenir; ainsi tout le monde sera satisfait.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): I would very much hope that we already have solved the problem of the last sentence in 20. As I have indicated already individual statements are, for my delegation at least, a forbidden area and I am not prepared to discuss the content. On behalf of my delegation I could say that we are not happy at all. We regret very much what is going on.
Just to put two things in proper perspective, I am thinking that the suggestion of the group of 77, that we perhaps should consider a last paragraph in our portion to say that the group wants their views not to be taken into account at all, since what in effect the others stated means the same, that the wishes and the resolution and whatever is contained in the resolution should not be taken into account. So perhaps we had better ask the others not to take into account our views. It would be, I think, the final balance of our work.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I propose that we suspend the Meeting for ten minutes.
The Meeting was suspended from 16. 10 to 16. 25 hours
La seance est suspendue de 16 h 10 a 16h 25
Se suspende la sesión de las 16. 10 a 16. 25 horas
CHAIRMAN (interpretation f rom Arabie): Following a f if teen-minut e suspension, it seems that there has been a breakthrough in arriving at a new drafting of the last sentence. We have before us a suggestion to the effect that the last sentence of paragraph 20 should be substituted by the following sentence, which I will read in English: "These members stated that their interpretative statements should be considered in conjunction with the resolution''. Unless there is a strong opposition to this final alternative I take it that this last sentence is acceptable. I wish to thank all those who contributed to the drafting of this sentence in helping us to arrive at an agreement. With this, paragraph 20 is adop ted·
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): Unusually, I wish to make a very small suggestion in relation to the English text. This is the addition of the letter "s" to the word "ground". Strictly speaking I think it should be in the plural, but if anybody has a problem with it I will leave it out. This is the fifth line of paragraph 21.
D. VUJIClC (Yugoslavia): I would like just to state that my delegation could not be a party to this solution, and this is not to make any reservation or so but just for the record, because we consider that the present text is even worse than if we say "taken into account".
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): This statement will be put on record.
We now revert back to paragraph 21 in connection with the slight amendment proposed by Ireland suggesting that "ground" should read "grounds" in line 5 of the paragraph.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sobre la frase final del párrafo 20, Colombia desea sumarse a lo manifestado por Yugoslavia, a fin de no entorpecer sus propósitos de acuerdo.
Nos limitaremos, por lo tanto, nosotros a dejar constancia de nuestra actitud en las actas, Considera-mos que de esta forma se debilita aún más el texto de la resolución.
Y como ya estoy en el uso de la palabra, quiero hacer referencia al párrafo 21. Después de que la Comisión ha asentado la frase- final del párrafo 20, es obvio que la delegación de Colombia no puede oponerse al párrafo 21, que contiene la reserva de los nueve miembros de la Comunidad Económica Europea.
Quisiéramos, sólo por curiosidad, hacer una pregunta al portavoz de la Comunidad o al país que quiera o desee responder.
En la primera frase del párrafo 21 se dice: "Los nueve Estados Miembros de la CEE". . . y más adelante se agrega que ellos piensan que no es una invitación dirigida a esos países, porque se trata de algo "que es de competencia exclusiva de la Comunidad". Esto dice la primera frase del párrafo 21.
Quisiéramos preguntarles a los distinguidos representantes de la CEE si ellos se dan cuenta de que esta primera frase del párrafo 21 resulta paradójica.
Si ellos son, como dicen, nueve Estados Miembros de la CEE y luego afirman que es competencia exclusiva de la Comunidad, cabe preguntar: ¿quiénes constituyen la Comunidad? ¿Quiénes son la Comunidad? ¿Esos nueve países o nueve Estados latinoamericanos o africanos?
Desearía que se me diera una respuesta a esto.
A. ECHEVERRÍA ZUNO (México) : Es propósito de nuestra delegación intervenir con su venia en este momen-to, Sr. Presidente, en torno al párrafo 20 y particularmente a la ultima frase que el propio Sr, Presi-dente leyó; frase que entendemos que después de dar el martillazo ha quedado aprobada por esta Comisión.
Lamentamos decirle, Sr, Presidente, que México por ningún concepto puede acompañar con su aquiescencia esta decisión. Nosotros nos sumamos a lo expresado por Yugoslavia y por Colombia, y lo hacemos no solamente por su letra, sino por el espíritu que conlleva.
No significa para nosotros otra cosa que olvidar definitivamente el espíritu de conciliación que ha prevalecido en muchas sesiones ya de trabajo, y el contenido, el espíritu y la trascendencia de una resolución que muy responsablemente hicieron muchos delegados y muchos países.
Estaríamos nosotros en posibilidad de dar nuestro apoyo a esa ultima frase si en la parte correspondiente dijese qye "tales declaraciones interpretativas deberán ser recordadas paralelamente a la resolución a que estamos haciendo referencia"0
S. M. CHOUDHURY (Bangladesh): My delegation would also like to go on record as not being a part of the solution that has been reached as far as paragraph 20 is concerned.
Regarding paragraph 21, the first sentence in the first line yesterday, I believe there was a decision that the word "interpretation" would be replaced by the words "interpretative statement". I remember today that Ireland while making reference to that said it should be, followed by "interpretation". I would like a clarification on that, Mr. Chairman.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): As far as the Community is concerned, the "interpretative statement" is just fine o I believe that was mentioned yesterday. I do not think it makes very much difference. If there was a suggestion, I did not think we had reached paragraph 21 yesterday, but if everybody prefers "interpretative statement" it is in fact an improvement, yes, "interpretative statement", yes, if everybody is happier with that.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Speaking of paragraph 21, as amended, "interpretative statement" instead of "interpretation", is that acceptable to the Commission? I find no objection to paragraph 21 so this paragraph has been adopted.
D. VUJICIC (Yugoslavia): I would just propose that paragraphs 25 and 26 change places so as to be put in a logical manner, because paragraph 26 has the intention of responding to paragraphs 21 to 24, so that I believe it is just logical to put paragraph 26 to be 25 and 25 to be 26.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): You have just heard the proposal of Yugoslavia requesting a rearrangement in the order of paragraphs 25 and 26, in the sense that paragraph 26 now becomes 25 and 25 becomes 26,
First of all, is paragraph 25 acceptable in substance and as it is? Should there be no objection, then we consider the paragraph approved.
Now paragraph 26: I find no objection to paragraph 26, and it is approved.
Now we take up the order of these two paragraphs. Is there any objection to the rearrangement of the order of these two paragraphs? There seems to be no objection, therefore, the Secretariat will take care of rearranging the order of these two paragraphs
Paragraph 27: there seems to be no objection to paragraph 27 and it is hereby approved
R. IBARGUREN (Argentina): Únicamente era para, antes de pasar al Rep. 3, pedirle que figure en el acta la oposición de Argentina, apoyando el criterio de Bangladesh y de los demás pafses con respecto al párrafo 20.
A. ACUÑA (Panamá): Es para adherirme a la oposición citada por los países de México, Colombia, Yugoslavia, Bangladesh y, ahora, Argentina en el sentido de no aceptar el párrafo 20 tal como fue aprobado.
J. IÑURRIETA RIGORES (Cuba): Perdone que volvamos un poco atrás Nuestra delegación se quiere sumar a la oposición planteada por las delegaciones de Yugoslavia, Colombia, México, Argentina y otros, respecto al párrafo 20. .
J. MODO GARCIA (El Salvador): Nuestra delegación también quiere unirse a las delegaciones que anterior-mente se han referido al párrafo 20, tal como lo anunció el delegado de Cuba
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): We spent a long time on paragraph 20, as you know. We made a number of changes; I will not use the word concessions as we are talking about paragraph 20 and I do not want to bring down wrath on my head. I am talking about the discussions of today.
We made two or three suggestions we would have been prepared to agree to, in order to meet the wishes of the delegations who found it impossible to agree to the wording of the solution as it is.
Finally we reached a solution which we understood had the agreement of all parties, and on that basis we agreed to it. But now we have more reservations expressed than there were agreements to it, and I feel if those delegations are not prepared to withdraw their reservations we will have to go back to the original sentence, as we will have more reservations than agreements to the new one.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Listening to the delegates who have taken the floor, they have not mentioned any reservations. They did not say they had any reservations but simply expressed their views on this proposal. I do not believe that these statements are of the same nature or degree of reservation. That is, unless I have misunderstood the whole situation.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland) : I am not sure, I thought they were making reservations. If they were not making reservations, I am not clear what they were making, as a number of delegations had made their views known on the Resolution up to the time it was adopted. Surely there was time to make them before, instead of after it was adopted, on the other hand, if there are no reservations on it I would not interfere with the right of delegations to have their views recorded, provided there are no reservations. If there are reservations I feel we have to reopen the whole matter.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En cuanto a mí, yo hablo en nombre de la delegación de Colombia. El delegado de Irlanda, tiene toda la razón. Nosotros no podemos aceptar la frase final del párrafo 20 tal como fue propuesta. Dijimos que, como reconocimiento a sus esfuerzos de reconciliación anteriores, dejar esta constancia en acta, pero la nuestra es una reserva a ese texto del párrafo 20 que debilita más la resolución.
Tal vez conviene hace una explicación de nuestra actitud, que contrasta con la de otras delegaciones.
Se nos propuso esa frase. Solamente expresamos nuestra reserva, pero fue una reserva al texto del párrafo 20, con el cual no estábamos de acuerdo. Nos parece más contradictoria la actitud de otras delegaciones, que nos hacen gastar enorme cantidad de tiempo y que luego hacen aquí, en reunión, reservas sobre un texto que ya aprobaron en el grupo de contacto.
P. VUJICIC (Yugoslavia) : I think my statement at the beginning was very clear. I stated only that my delegation, for the record which will appear only in a PV, could not be party to paragraph 20 as proposed and agreed, because in the same paragraph it has said that India on behalf of the Group of 77 had certain statements. Then it could mean that we, as one of the members of the Group of 77, agreed to such a formulation. We cannot agree, and we just want to put it on record. This is not a reservation, but our request should be in the report.
A. ECHEVERRÍA ZUNO (Mexico): Para impedir que alguien tenga dudas, queremos expresar claramente que la posición de nuestra delegación es una reserva. Seguramente el texto de la misma se lo daremos seguidamente a la Secretaria. Dijimos también que por nuestro concepto podemos acompañar la última frase porque desconoce un esfuerzo responsable que se hizo con anterioridad.
Ya que estoy en el uso de la palabra, señor Presidente, por su amable conducto quisiéramos pedir al delegado de Irlanda que nos haga conocer su reserva, ya que nos dijo que si había reserva a esta parte él también sugeriría la suya.
P. GRIFFIN(Ireland): We would like to again explain the position of the European Communities on this matter. I have done it for several hours on Friday and for a couple of hours today, and it is very clear from the verbatim record what our views are. We have agreed progressively to two different texts. If the reservations are to continue I am afraid we will have to go back to one of those texts which the Community has agreed to, previous to this last one.
As a matter of fact, I should say that one of the factors which motivated us to agree to the formula which I thought had been adopted was the fact that we had been informed that the delegation of Yugoslavia had agreed, and I spoke personally to the delegate of Yugoslavia-who is not the delegate who is here now-who said he would not oppose it.
I am just explaining the situation in which the Community agreed to the formula which was adopted. If that formula can be maintained without reservations we have no problems, but if there are reservations on it then we are back to where we started and have to go back to the previous text we agreed to. I cannot recall it, but will look it up if you wish.
I regret this has been opened up again as we have made no progress. You gave quite a lot of time -perhaps not a lot, but it had been debated for one and a half hours-and you said "Here is a new text, " and you read it out and said "rlere is the new clause and I will consider it debated", and no one did, and you declared it debated. That is the simple position of the Community.
C. O KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Simplemente por una cuestión de procedimiento, en los años que llevo en la FAO no conozco el procedimiento de la formulación de reservas sobre el informe. Yo quiero saber si procesualmente corresponde que un país establezca reservas sobre un informe. Entonces, si eso es correcto, naturalmente, el delegado de México y los otros delegados que se pronunciaron por la reserva, incluso Irlanda, tienen razón.
Pero, de acuerdo con la práctica que hemos usado en otros comités, no recuerdo que se hayan comunicado reservas al informe. Cuando hay un instrumento que obliga a un país, para desprenderse de esa obliga-ción se formulan reservas; por eso quiero saber si procesualmente corresponden o no a unas reservas.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Thank you. I do not know who can answer this question. At any rate, I was under the impression that there would be no opposition to this sentence as read by me twice before declaring its acceptance by the Committee. Then after I had read it, and it was adopted, some of the countries expressed their views to the effect that they have not been party to the agreement of this paragraph.
I considered this as an interpretative statement, or the kind of an interpretative statement to be included in the verbatim record, but I was under no impression at all that these were reservations. At any rate, now that we know they do constitute reservations we must reply to the question, namely, could the reservations be made on the report or on a part thereof or not? Very frankly, I do not believe I have the prerogative to reply, and if you so desire we shall ask the Legal Counsel to come and reply to this point.
We shall wait for Legal Counsel and find out his opinion on this. Does this satisfy the question of Argentina?
CO. KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Sí, señor Presidente, porque en realidad la metodología de la redacción de los trabajos involucra todas las opiniones que se formularon. Responsable era el comité de redacción que lo sometía a la Comisión o a la Plenaria, lo que decidió si reflejaba lo que había sucedido o nooSi no lo reflejaba era enmendado en el curso de la discusión hasta obtener un texto satisfactorio a todos los deseos de las delegaciones de manera amplia; pero no recuerdo
Quiero saber con precisión si corresponde que en un informe puedan existir unas reservas; porque lo que puede recoger un informe es una opinión de una delegación o de un grupo de países, pero tengo la duda si puede producirse una reserva.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I am personally under that same impression. At any rate, we are waiting for Legal Counsel and I wish to affirm once more that I have read to you the new sentence as originally drafted and then read it again and repeated again my question as to whether there were any objections; and since there were no objections, I said: considering that there were none, then I considered paragraph 20 adopted as amended. It was only then that I started to hear what seemed to me as putting on record certain attitudes or kinds of interpretative statements.
P. MASUU (Chairman, Drafting Committee): Your perception of the debate, Sir, is also my perception: that you did ask the question and there was a certain degree of agreement. I should like to know whether those who have serious problems with the new version as read out by you would be happier with the older version. I just. ask this question, because there is a degree of unhappiness: which degree would be lesser unhappiness, the older version or the new version? That is the question I would like to ask, and I would be grateful, Sir, if you could help me in relation to drafting and perhaps we could work out something.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Señor Presidente, lamento tener que intervenir de nuevo, sobre todo porque reconozco los esfuerzos que usted y el señor Presidente del Comité de Redacción están haciendo para llegar a un acuerdo, pero, como demostración de que nuestra actitud no es intransigente, estaríamos aún dispuestos a aceptar la frase final del párrafo 20, reduciendo mucho lo que nosotros pensamos sobre este punto, pero no podemos aceptar la redacción propuesta porque nuestra opinión debilita muchísimo el alcance de la resolución.
D. VUJICIC (Yugoslavia): I would like to try to answer two questions. The first was put by the delegate of Ireland on the position of Yugoslavia on the matter. The position of Yugoslavia is stated here and is in the verbatim.
Concerning the participation in consultations on the text, I can inform you that the other delegate whom you mentioned did not participate in consultations and has not even seen the text before, but I participated and I disagreed with such a text in consultation.
We did not wish to obstruct the work of the Committee and so we gave up, because there were a number of delegations who could agree on it and that is why we did not oppose it, when you asked-just for the sake of consensus of others-because we thought that perhaps all others were consulted and they agreed. That proved not to be the case.
The other question is of my very good-I must say the best-friend here, Masud, about would we be happier with the original or with this one? I can tell you that we are equally unhappy wiht both these texts because both of them are diluting totally the sense and the contents of the resolution approved.
P. MASUD(Chairman, Drafting Committee): In response to what the delegate of Yugoslavia has just said, I never said there was any degree of happiness. I said: which would you prefer, which would make you less unhappy? I never said 'happy' so I hope he will take that into consideration and then respond to this question.
D. R. SHARMA (Nepal): The sentence was repeated to us and then, if I heard correctly, the new version was adopted. So I do not understand now why we are discussing this issue again. If the issue is being taken and if the sentence is being corrected again and I think the delegate of Ireland rightly pointed out that many member countries have some reservations on the last sentence of paragraph 20 of the resolution and my delegation feels that if the issue is to be opened again and, as suggested by the delegate of Ireland, we come out with an alternative draft.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Ladies and gentlemen, we shall pursue our deliberations and upon the request of the representative of Argentina we have invited the Legal Counsel so as to provide us with his opinion on the point that we raised about whether one can lodge reservations on the Report.
A. ROCHE (Office of the Legal Counsel): If I understand the problem which has arisen, correctly, the question is whether on this particular sentence in the Report a delegation may express a divergent opinion on the wording. Now the place where their opinions will appear fullest and with the greatest clarity is, of course, in the verbatim records where the precise views of individual governments actually appear in their entirety. That is certainly the most convenient solution for all concerned. Exactly what each government wishes to say on any particular paragraph or word would be expressed in full.
The second alternative would be that a footnote follow the passage which has not met with the full consensus of all the governments. In it the divergent view would be expressed, in greater or lesser detail. Normally, in the very few cases which we have ever had where footnotes reserving positions have been inserted in a Conference Report; they express very concisely that a certain government could net agree to a particular paragraph or a particular concept. Those are the two main courses of action which are open to the Conference at this stage.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Creo que fue muy pertinente la aclaración solicitada por nuestro colega de Argentina y encuentro acertada la respuesta del representante de la Oficina Jurídica; pero a fin de no recargar el informe con notas al pie de la página, que sería la segunda alternativa que preferiría la delegación de Colombia, tal vez podemos apoyar lo que propuso tímidamente el Sr. Masud, nuestro Presidente de Comité de Redacción en el sentido de que para evitar estas reservas, al menos en el caso de Colombia, adoptemos la frase que originariamente aparece al final del actual párrafo 20.
Mi distinguido amigo el Sr. Embajador de Francia había dicho que estaba dispuesto a aceptarla, y el representante de Irlanda también entiendo que ha manifestado lo mismo. ¿Por qué, entonces, no volver a esta frase original que tal vez hace descontentos a menos delegados?
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): First of all, to take the statement of the delegate of Colombia, the sentence which appears at the end of paragraph 20 was entirely acceptable to the community right from the start as you know. It was the sentence which we most favoured. That is Item 1.
Item 2, due to the difficulties expressed by a number of delegations with that sentence we agreed to a number of modifications, in turn of that sentence. Finally, we agreed to the one which had been adopted and here I would just like to refer momentarily to the intervention of the delegate of Yugoslavia. Of course, I was not in any way attributing bad faith to him. What I did say was that I consulted the delegate of Yugoslavia, his colleague, I personally spoke to him and he assured me that he proposed to make no further interventions on this matter. Whether he saw that text or not I do not know but he said he was now withdrawing from this debate. Of course, he did not say that he would be replaced by his colleague who would again intervene in it and it might seem that there was no adequate consultation between them, but in any event I just wish to make that clear because this in fact is what happened.
Now the third point I would like to make is that if we are to have a string of reservations to the paragraph, which was adopted, we must go back to the original sentence as suggested by the delegate of Colombia. The Community would insist in going back to that original sentence.
The final thing I would like to say is that I understood the paragraph was adopted. You gave time for delegations to express their difficulties. No one expressed a difficulty and I would like to ask you whether in fact you are allowing a complete further debate on this subject, which had been closed.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Does anyone wish to contribute his wisdom to these final moments of our proceedings ? I will go back to the procedure from the legal standpoint. Can we go back into something we already adopted, but you heard the delegate of Colombia suggesting that he has no problem with the original text that was in the document originally and I was just wondering how the Houses feels about this statement and as the Chairman of the Drafting Committee suggested that if you find one text is less harmful than the others, so let us accept the least harmful one. So what do you think of the suggestion of the delegate of Colombia ?
C. O KELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Creo que tenemos que ser realistas, Sr. Presidente y, como dijo el Presidente del Comité de Redacción, encontrar un texto que sea menos insatisfactorio para todos. Y si ese texto satisface a Colombia, también satisfará a la Argentina.
S. M. CHOUDHURY (Bangladesh): If the choice is between choosing the lesser of the two evils my delegation would choose the original sentence as it was in the paragraph.
P. ROSENEGGER (Austria)(interpretation from German):I too believe that I can state on behalf of my delegation, seeing how things have developed, that the best way out is that we take the original text as it was proposed by the drafting committee and my delegation could certainly fully agree to that solution.
A. ECHEVERRÍA ZUNO (México): Esta delegación quiere subrayar su agradecimiento al Sr. Presidente, no solamente por los esfuerzos que ha desarrollado en ese caso, sino por la excelente Presidencia que ha estado bajo su responsabilidad.
Quisiéramos también expresar cuál es nuestro parecer respecto de la pregunta que nos hace nuestro excelente amigo el Sr. Masud.
Consideramos, Sr. Presidente, que durante muchas intervenciones quedo claro que el texto original de la última frase no satisfacía, como no satisfizo el último texto que parece se aprobó.
El Sr. Presidente del Comité de Redacción nos formula una pregunta. La posición de México es la misma que cuando se debatía el texto original: ni una ni otra redacción nos satisface desde luego.
J. M. D. GARCIA (El Salvador): En aras de un entendimiento, nuestra delegación acepta el texto original tal como ha sido planteado.
A. ACUÑA (Panamá): En relación con la oración última del párrafo 20, nosotros estaríamos dispuestos a aceptarla, sea en la versión original o sea en la última versión, siempre y cuando en la propuesta del distinguido delegado de México se contemplara en el sentido de que se cambiase la palabra "consideraran" por "recordaran".
CHAIRMAN:(interpretation from Arabic) Are there more proposals?
P. MASUD (Chairman of the Drafting Committee): It makes me very unhappy to see my colleagues unhappy over a draft which had been prepared in a drafting committee which I had the honour of chairing.
I have heard the Ambassador of Mexico; I have great regard for his views. I agreed with him that there could be no total satisfaction, there is always a certain degree of unsatisfaction with whatever you do. Perfection is something which one always seeks but seldom attains. So in that context would he mind reconsidering his delegation's position as he has just stated. We could also-and this is for the benefit of the delegate of Ireland-we could also consider another formulation. Could we consider saying "These members stated that these interpretative tatement should be borne in mind" or "kept in view"-either of the two? This is just a suggestion. I would like it to be considered.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): I thank the Chairman of the Drafting Committee for his constructive efforts to achieve a consensus in these last minutes.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland):The delegation of Colombia proposed that we should revert to the original sentence of this draft and this has had considerable support. This proposal has had more support than any other version which we have heard except the one which was in fact universally adopted when you put it to the meeting. The compromise solution to which the Community agreed, which was the third or fourth to which the Community did agree, was agreed by us on the understanding that it was generally acceptable when you put it to the meeting and it was accepted by us in that context. We had debated this matter since Friday evening going from amendment to amendment. As the compromise on which we finally agreed on the understanding that it was generally acceptable has not been accepted, all I am empowered to do now is to go back to the original sentence as it stood, without amendment.
A. ECHEVERRÍA ZUNO (México): Esta delegación se quiere diferenciar sustancialmente y expresar, en aras de un espíritu de colaboración y con el fin de que ya demos por terminado este tema, que, aunque con ciertas dificultades, aceptamos la última versión propuesta por el Sr. Presidente del Comité de Redacción.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Could the Chairman of the Drafting Committee enlighten us as to the last version ?
P. MASUD(Chairman, Drafting Committee): It reads: "These members stated that these interpretative statements should be borne in mind".
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia) : Para demostrar la amplitud de nuestro punto de vista y el afán de colabora-ción, apoyamos la última versión del Sr. Presidente del Comité de Redacción.
J. IÑURRIETA RIGORES (Cuba): Solamente decir que queremos unirnos a la voz de Colombia para apoyar la magnífica propuesta que nos ha hecho el Presidente del Comité de Redacción.
CHAIRMAN: interprétation from Arabic): Are there any other views on the suggestion by the Chairman of theDrafting Committee?
A. ACUÑA (Panama): También nosotros aceptamos la ultima propuesta hecha por el Sr. Presidente del
Comité de Redacción.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): We are running short of time, ladies and gentlemen, and we have to arrive at a conclusion. My final appeal is that wisdom will and should triumph.
P. ROSENEGGER (Austria)(interpretation from German): As far as I can see we have already adopted one text. That was:"should be considered in conjunction with the resolution". Now there is a totally new proposal, which means that the actual compromise proposal was really the original text:the original text was the compromise solution.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland):I agree with the delegate of Austria. I am still not clear about the situation in regard to the paragraph of the report, which has been adopted after being duly put to the Commission. The last thing I wish to do is to delay the proceedings any further. I feel that we have spent sufficient time on this paragraph and on this simple sentence-and it is arguable how much it means, if it means anything or nothing, anybody can take his own view about that. But one view that can hardly be taken is that it is damaging to anybody. However, I do not want to delay the proceedings. But we have had compromise after compromise, amendment after amendment. They have all broken down, even the one which was agreed by the Commission. I am asking, was the agreement of the Commission not valid? If it was not and if we have to consider it again, after we have agreed to so many other changes at the instance of other delegations, at this stage the only text that we can agree to is either the first text or the last text. We are not prepared to go on deleting and adding bits of sentences. There is no assurance that when you put this one to the Commission it will be accepted either. I feel that at this stage we have to be firm. If necessary we will have to enter a reservation, but we have been as cooperaative as possible. I am not opening up the whole resolution, just this simple sentence. We have agreed to change it three or four times and then there was always someone who could not agree. Even after it was put to the Commission as a whole, they still could not agree. All right, changes are finished:it is either the last text or the first text.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia está muy de acuerdo con nuestro distinguido colega de Irlanda en el sentido de que es hora ya de que terminemos este debate y concluyamos los trabajos de esta Comisión.
La flexibilidad que ha caracterizado nuestra posición pensamos que nos da autoridad moral para rogarles a los colegas de Austria y de Irlanda-que entiendo son los dos únicos que han hecho observaciones a la redacción final propuesta por el Presidente del Comité de Redacción-que acepten la redacción propuesta por el Presidente del Comité de Redacción.
Las reservas que ya aparecen en el texto mismo del informe, en la parte del párrafo 21, dan amplia satisfacción a aquellos países que, después de haber participado en un grupo de contacto, ahora en plenario quieran debilitar aun más el contenido de lo expresado en el preámbulo.
Quiero pedir a estos dos delegados y al resto de la Comisión que aceptemos la ultima invitación del Comité de Resoluciones y que adoptemos la frase que ha propuesto, en la seguridad de que las reservas que aparecen a continuación dan ya satisfacción a ambos países. Y claro es que estamos de acuerdo con Irlanda en que hay que terminar este debate cuanto antes.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland):I appreciate the appeal of the delegate of Colombia but I would like to say that I am agreeing to the proposal which he made first, which was that as he had reservations to the last text that was agreed by everybody before people started raising their flags after the gavel descended, he suggested we go back to the first sentence, and this is what I am doing. I believe this is the only tenable situation now as far the Community is concerned because we have changed, omitted and added words. At the beginning this was the sentence which came under attack. Now it seems that a
number of delegations could have accepted this sentence without amendment. But now a few further amendments have been made by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, but we do not feel that at this stage we can start renegotiating the sentence. We could accept it as it originally stood. We could have accepted three or four subsequent versions which we believed would have met the difficulties which were raised. But we cannot go on accepting version after version after version. So let us have the last sentence of paragraph 20 as it stands. I guarantee that the Community will accept it when you put it to the Commission.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): Are you talking now about the original version ?
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): The original version, yes.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic):The guarantee is there, because you have already accepted it here. So there will be no trouble from this side, but we are not anticipating trouble form your side.
Ladies and gentlemen, all my attempts so as to arrive at a consensus have not yet succeeded in obtaining the desired result. It is natural that a difference or the adoption of something and then a reconsideration of what has been adopted is not a novel event, it happens in the best of Commissions, so to speak, and therefore I believe we have two parts before us, and I would like you to kindly lend me your attention.
I have basically tried to avoid any reopening of the question in the Plenary sessions, but now I can say that we did arrive at an agreement on the paragraph as I read it or as amended-I read it out, I came down with the gavel and therefore concluded the matter, and anyone who wishes to register reservations can do so, but nevertheless, in my opinion I believe this is the easy way out, one that could raise the question anew in the Plenary session and I am still trying to arrive at an agreement during this meeting of ours.
Today it appears we do not have any constraints of time on the availability of interpretation. Therefore, I would wish to put to you the following: either we refer a text to the Plenary with brackets and say that the Commission was able to accept and agree to all the difficult issues but nevertheless failed at the end, perhaps as a result of fatigue, to arrive at a consensus and therefore we refer the matter to the wisdom of the Plenary.
The second possibility is that since we still have some time during which we could make use of the services of the interpreters and make a final bid at reaching a consensus, if you agree to this we could suspend the session, for say, fifteen minutes or half an hour so as to come to a decision, not only a new text-if we can do so, well and good-but at least to agree amongst ourselves in an informal manner that is, during this pause at what would be the best procedure to follow in this Commission.
I hope you will understand this attempt of mine as one final goat arriving to a conclusion of this great effort so that we can go to the Plenary with an agreement and avoid any possibility of reopening the debate in the Plenary. This is my last attempt, and you have both proposals, and as I have said, I have served this Commission throughout this period and I still have some more energy left, I still can continue until the end of our session.
G. BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Muestra delegación está dispuesta a aceptar cualquiera de esas propuestas. Sin embargo, deseamos hacer un esfuerzo sobre la ultima frase actual del párrafo 20. Lo que preocupa a las delegaciones que originalmente no estaban de acuerdo con esa última frase, es el hecho de que la redacción actual involucra también a los miembros del Grupo de los 77, en la frase final del párrafo 20.
Por eso desearía proponer la siguiente redacción para la última frase del párrafo 20. Podríamos decir: "Se tomó nota de que estas declaraciones interpretativas . . . . ". Esta forma neutra a lo mejor podía satisfacer a los miembros de la Comisión. Es cuestión solamente de buena voluntad.
A. NIKKOLA (Finland): I have one proposal more, because it seems that more proposals are coming out. It seems to me that when we look at these countries which are included in paragraph 20, there are two different groups of countries there which have a different attitude to this last sentence. The first group consists of Austria, Canada, United States, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Switzerland and the EEC, and then we have the Group of 77.
Could we reformulate this whole paragraph in such a way that we might distinguish between these two groups and the present last sentence of the paragraph would refer only to the first group, because I think that countries within the first group I mentioned could have an agreement about this last sentence, and then we would have another sentence corresponding to the present last sentence which could be agreed among the Group of 77, so I think that might be one way out of this problem.
A. ECHEVERRÍA ZUNO (Mexico): Nosotros quisiéramos expresar de conformidad con usted, que vale la pena que hagamos un esfuerzo más y evitar hasta donde sea posible que algún texto vaya con corchetes a la Plenaria, donde quizás las dificultades sean mayores para concluir.
Nosotros tomamos nota con atención de la propuesta formulada por el Delegado de Colombia, así como por el serio reajuste propuesto por Finlandia. Ya que estamos en propuestas, señor Presidente, yo tengo tres muy pequeñas que para mi delegación serían de gran satisfacción.
La primera, es muy sencilla; diría yo excesivamente sencilla. Nosotros podemos aceptar la versión original tal y como está impresa al final del párrafo 20, si en vez de que dijese "declaraciones interpretativas que siguen deberán tenerse en cuenta. . . , ", se dijese ". . . . declaraciones interpretativas que siguen deberían tenerse en cuenta. . . . ". El cambio es de "deberán" a "deberían". La modificación es una letra nada más, señor Presidente, y esto es para la versión original del párrafo 20.
Por cuanto corresponde a la versión que usted nos sugirió después de la suspensión, tenemos dos opciones, que tampoco tendremos problemas para aceptar. Donde dice que estas declaraciones interpretati-vas deberán ser consideradas conjuntamente; una alternativa sería-para la que estaríamos de acuerdo-que dijese ". . . . declaraciones interpretativas deberán ser recordadas conjuntamente"; o la segunda alternativa, señor Presidente, "declaraciones interpretativas deberán ser consideradas paralelamente". Son tres opciones. Cualquiera que fuera aceptada, no tendríamos problemas por nuestra parte.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): Coming down to a question of translation, as I understood Mexico, he could accept the last sentence of paragraph 20 if the word "deberán" was changed to "deberían", which means, in other words, if the words "will be"; which it means in Spanish, were changed to "should be"-but of course, in the English version it already is "should be". This is the version we proposed all along and which we were at any time happy to accept, and I repeat, are still happy to accept.
I do not know if you would like to put that to the Commission now and see if everybody will accept it, that is fine by us.
The alternative proposed by Finland would also be acceptable to us because it leaves that sentence stand in relation to the delegations that he cited, and a separate paragraph then would be put in by those delegations who do not want that sentence on the end, that is to say, India on behalf of the Group of 77 would have their own interpretative statement referred to and without that sentence; that would be perfectly acceptable to us.
M. TRKULJA (Yugoslavia): This is certainly our last effort, we will never speak again, we will simply say yes or no, but we fully share the proposal made by Finland. I think we might divide the difficulties. Of course, if these countries are all happy to have this sentence retained, let them have it. Now, I think the Group of 77 should be deleted from paragraph 20 and would you please consider giving us five minutes, Mr. Chairman. I think that in the light of what happened in all these long hours here and in the small Contact Group, perhaps I would then wish to have a word with friends from the Group of 77. I feel that if it is now left as it is, as proposed by Finland, they may wish to express their feeling about all this business that we have done so far, starting back from the CCP.
C. OKELLER SARMIENTO (Argentina): Yo creo que ahora tenemos ya un acuerdo; yo acabo de escuchar con mucha atención la diferencia que existía entre el texto inglés y español y tenemos un texto acor-
dado por todos, de modo que me parece que suspender la reunion e ir a buscar otro texto es contraproducente para las tareas de esta Comisión. Tenemos un texto, ha habido acuerdo, el delegado de México lo ha propuesto y yo sugeriría que aprobemos ese texto y sigamos adelante.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): In the light of what was said in the last statements, this makes me optimistic as far as a final consensus is concerned. I will adjourn the meeting for just five minutes and I would like to ask those delegates who have submitted proposals to please come here around me so that we can try to find a solution together.
The meeting was suspended from 18. 00 to 18. 50 hours.
La séance est suspendue de 18 h 00 à 18 h 50.
Se suspende la sesión de las 18. 00 a 18. 50 horas.
CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, after this lengthy break there seems to be an agreement from all sides that the last sentence of paragraph 20 should read as follows; "These members stated that in considering the above resolution, these interpretative statements should be duly noted". I see no objections. Do I really see no objections?
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland): You really see no objections, but this is on the understanding that this matter is now closed as far as this Commission is concerned.
CHAIRMAN: If I see no objection it is really and truly and finally closed as far as I am concerned.
Paragraphs 20 to 28, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 20 à 28, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 20 a 28, así enmendados, son aprobados
Draft Report of Commission I-Part 1, as amended, was adopted
Le Projet de rapport de la CommissionI-Partie 1, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión I. -Parte 1, así enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION I-PART 3 (continued)
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION I-PARTIE 3 (suite)
PROYECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISIÓN I-PARTE 3 (continuación)
PARAGRAPHS 13 and 14
PARAGRAPHES 13 et 14
PARRAFOS 13 y 14
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic): We have not got through C 79/I/REP/3-Sup. 1 . There is one small correction, which is to the footnote attached to the resolution on World Food Security. The footnote should read as follows:"The delegate of the United States reserved the position of his government on the reference in operative paragraph 4 concerning special regional accounts. "So the words "to the creation of" come out. That is the correction. This resolution was adopted by you. There is only one small paragrapn left at the end, which is paragraph 14. If there are no objections to paragraph 14 we consider it adopted.
With this all our report has been adopted by you. I take this chance to thank cur friend the Legal Adviser for the services he rendered to us at this late hour.
Paragraph 13, including draft resolution, as amended, approved
Le paragraphe 13, y compris le projet de résolution ainsi amendé, est approuvé
El párrafo 13, incluido el proyecto de resolución así enmendado, es aprobado
Paragraph 14 approved
Le paragraphe 14 est approuvé
El párrafo 14 es aprobado
Draft Report of Commission I-Part 3, as amended, was adopted
Le Projet de rapport de la Commission I-Partie 3, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El proyecto de informe de la Comisión I-Parte 3, así enmendado, es aprobado
A. ECHEVERRÍA ZUNO (México):Intervenimos a estas alturas porque nos vemos obligados para subrayar nuestro más profundo agradecimiento a usted, así como al Presidente del Comité de Redacción por el ejemplo de ecuanimidad, de equilibrio y la manera en que pudo encontrar una solución adecuada.
Discúlpeme que lo haga a estas alturas pero mi delegación no quiere dejar la sala sin agradecer a usted y al señor Masud por su valiosísima contribución.
P. GRIFFIN (Ireland):I am simply going to say something which I have said several times in the course of the deliberations of this Commission. That is that I greatly appreciate your impartiality, your patience, your devotion to the important post which you hold. I feel that you have exercised your chairmanship in an exemplary fashion and I have great pleasure in associating myself with what the delegate of Mexico has said. It has been a great pleasure for me to work with you here and also in the Contact Group, neither of which was perhaps the easiest imaginable task.
J. ROWINSKI (Poland): I would like in the name of Poland and all the Socialist countries participating in the Conference to express our gratitute for your chairmanship and I would like to thank the Chairman of the Drafting Committee.
CHAIRMAN (interpretation from Arabic):I do not think in the very last minutes of this afternoon's session that you wish now to listen to lengthy speeches. To set your minds at rest, I say that I feel too that we should not prolong this and that is why I have no intention whatsoever of addressing you at length here, especially as over the last week we have really talked quite enough.
But before the Commission actually started its work I had an opportunity of studying with great interest the papers which were prepared for this Commission, and I also had very important talks with those people who prepared the documents, and I confess here that I was unable to prevent myself from forming certain opinions and convictions on the probable outcome of the work of the Commission and the situation of agriculture throughout the world. In my convictions I was either too optimistic or too pessimistic, and that is why I tried to be as realistic as possible in my view of the probable results of this Commission.
Now that we have come to the end of our work, I find that my earlier conviction was not perhaps changed very much, although now I incline rather towards the optimistic side.
The chairing of this Commission was no doubt an excellent experience for me and it is a source of pride, thanks to many of you and thanks to the better knowledge I now have of the manner in which one can produce a consensus and make use of the constructive spirit you have all shown, although there were often matters of difference of opinion. I would like to thank you for your cooperation;it was of the greatest usefulness to me and has made my work very pleasant. I wish in particular to thank the Chairman and members of the Drafting Committee, as well as the Chairman and members of the Contact Group on World Food Security. I wish also to thank the members of the Contact Group that I had the honour to chair. The efforts of all these people have greatly contributed to our Work.
I wish to thank all who have helped me in the Secretariat of the Organization before and during the work of this Commission. Perhaps you will agree also to join me in thanking the interpreters. They have been patient and they have tried to help us, and I think this was very useful to us all. I would like to thank also the minute writers with equal warmth. On your behalf and mine I wish to thank the hostesses who have been indefatigable in their work here, they never lost their smiles, and I would like to make an exception to the rule I have given myself. I wish now to thank personally on my own
behalf and on your behalf Dr. Dutia, Secretary of the Commission, as well as his colleagues who have demonstrated so clearly how competent they are and their great knowledge of the work of this Commission. This has been of the greatest help to me in my work of the last week.
For those of you who will be leaving and travelling home, I would say "Bon Voyage". Thank you once again. Have a good trip home.
The work of this Commission is now at an end. Thank you very much. Applause
Aplausos
Applaudissements
Aplausos
The meeting rose at 19. 00 hours
La séance est levée à 19 heures
Se levanta la sesión a las 19. 00 horas
