DRAFT REPORT OF COMMISSION II - PART I
PROJET DE RAPPORT DE LA COMMISSION II - PARTIE I
PROJECTO DE INFORME DE LA COMISION II - PARTE I
CHAIRMAN: We shall now begin with the adoption of C 87/II/REP/1 which covers item 13 of our agenda, the Programme of Work and Budget 1988-89. Before giving the floor to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to introduce the Report, I should like to recall a few of the procedures which normally assist us in ensuring a smooth adoption procedure. First, we are here to adopt a report which reflects the debate which has already taken place. Therefore, it will not be necessary to enter into any lengthy discussion of substance. We should confine our interventions to suggestions for additions, deletions or modifications to the text which is being presented to us. Secondly, we should remember that the Report is being adopted simultaneously in several languages. Page numbers of the several language versions are not always the same. We should therefore always identify the number of the paragraph to which we are referring and also the sentence within that paragraph.
Thirdly, changes which affect only one language, for example grammar, style or punctuation, may be given directly to the Secretary in order to take up the time of the Commission.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Le Comité de rédaction, composé de 16 représentants d'Etats Membres, a siégé deux jours durant, pendant environ 12 heures, à raison de 6 heures par séance, pour essayer de mettre au point un rapport susceptible de refléter les points de vue qui ont été exprimés au cours des débats de la commission.
Le rapport qui vous est présenté, sans peut-être refléter complètement tous les points de vue qui ont été exprimés ici, reprend les points essentiels que le Comité a estimé nécessaire d'introduire dans ce rapport. Nous avons donc, au cours de douze heures de débat, fait un examen minutieux de ce rapport qui vous est soumis et je dois dire que l'atmosphère qui a régné au cours de nos discussions a été très amicale, grâce à quoi nous avons abouti à ce résultat. Certes, les discussions ont été àresmais, chaque fois, nous avons pu aboutir à une solution acceptable pour tous.
Voilà pourquoi nous pensons que le rapport qui vous est présenté et qui est le fruit des délibérations des membres de notre Comité de rédaction est un rapport suffisamment fouillé et équilibré. C'est pour cette raison que nous espérons de tout coeur qu'il sera adopté sans problème à la Commission.
Je dois ajouter que dans ce rapport, qui est composé de quarante-trois paragraphes, deux paragraphes n'ont pas été suffisamment discutés au sein de notre Comité pour une question de temps. Nous n'avons pas pu disposer de tout le temps nécessaire pour pouvoir étudier complètement ce rapport. Ces deux paragraphes sont les paragraphes 41 et 43. En tant que Président de ce Comité, je pense qu'il va de soi que chaque membre de la Commission, y compris les membres du Comité, auront le loisir d'intervenir sur ces deux paragraphes puisque nous ne les avons pas suffisamment discutés au cours de nos séances.
Vous aurez pu constater que, dans le texte anglais, la dernière phrase du paragraphe 8 est entre crochets - dans les textes français et espagnol, ces crochets ont été supprimés. En effet, nous avons estimé que cette phrase n'était pas bien placée et qu'elle devait être insérée à un autre endroit. Or, faute de temps, nous n'avons pas eu l'opportunité de placer cette phrase où il fallait. Peut-être nous entendrons-nous, au cours de nos débats, pour soit laisser cette phrase où elle est, soit la supprimer, soit la placer ailleurs.
Je crois que tous les membres du Comité seront d'accord pour surtout laisser la parole, au cours de ce débat, à.ceux qui n'ont pas eu l'opportunité, comme nous, d'examiner ce rapport. Nous espérons, de taute façon, que les discussions qui ont eu lieu au niveau du Comité ont permis à ce rapport de refléter les points de vue de tous les membres de la Commission.
Ms Kay KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): I am sorry, but in the haste of preparing this Report for you there are a few corrections to the various language versions which the Secretariat has already noticed.
The first correction affects all language versions and is in paragraph 41 of the Report. The second sentence which reads: "Several Member Nations asked that the FAO Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean be strengthened". This should be: "Several Member Nations asked that the Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean be strengthened". It is a question of title. In Spanish the title should be: "Oficina Regional de América Latina y el Caribe". In French it should be: "Bureau de la Région Amérique latine et Caraïbes". In addition there is a change I should like to announce in the French version of modification which was made in the other languages but not in French and it is between paragraphs 32 and 33 of the French version only. The last sentence in paragraph 32, which I will read in French states: "La Conférence a confirmé l'importance de la conservation des ressources naturelles et de la protection de l'environnement". This sentence should, in fact, be the first sentence of paragraph 33. In other words, for the French version, the last sentence of paragraph 32 should become the first sentence of paragraph 33.
The next correction is the one already announced by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee regarding the square brackets at the last sentence of paragraph 8.
CHAIRMAN: Does Mexico have a question regarding the corrections?
José Ramon LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México):eseo aclarar que la traducción al español de la anrnienda necesaria en el párrafo 41 me llegó que quedaría igual y quiero precisar que en español se cambia también el nombre de la enmienda de la segunda oración del párrafo 41, de tal suerte que diga: "la Oficina Regional de América Latina y el Caribe". Me había llegado la traducción que quedaría igual y quiero hacer esa precisión.
CHAIRMAN: The Secretary advises the Chair that they have it as you just stated it.
Sra Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La delegación Argentina simplemente quería, con el beneplácito de su atención, solicitar que procediéramos despacio en el estudio de este documento puesto que no hemos podido siquiera terminar de leerlo íntegramente por falta de tiempo.
CHAIRMAN: Your point is very well taken and it is precisely for that reason that I asked us to have a recess. Perhaps it should have gone longer but we will take it slowly and we shall take it paragraph by paragraph and that ought to enable persons to read ahead and keep abreast - keep ahead so that you have adequate time but your point is very well taken and we will do our best to accom-modate that.
CHAIRMAN: Paragraph 1.Is paragraph 1 agreed to? Is there any member country which has a suggestion? This is going to be the easy one. It is one sentence. There being none - the Chair observes that as we look around the room -we see no problem with that one-sentence paragraph.
Ismael DIAZ YUBERO (España): No sé exactamente si es un tema que afecta sólo a la versión española, pero en lo que se refiere a la frase tercera creo que está mal construida porque parece ser, según está expresado en la versión española, que el número de personas malnutridas crece en términos absolutos aunque no en relativos debido a la lentitud de los cambios en la pauta de distribución de ingresos y a la pobreza todavía generalizada.
Yo creo que no es ésa la razón por la que crece el número de personas desnutridas o malnutridas, sino por otras razones completamente distintas. Por lo tanto, propongo cambiar el orden en que está estructurada la frase y que quedase de la siguiente forma; si le parece, lo leo primero a velocidad normal y si usted me concede lo leeré a velocidad de dictado: "en términos absolutos, no en términos relativos, el número de personas desnutridas y malnutridas seguía creciendo debido, sobre todo, a la lentitud de los cambios en las pautas de distribución de los ingresos y a la pobreza todavía generalizada". Si le parece lo puedo leer a velocidad de dictado: "en términos absolutos, aunque no en
términos relativos, el número de personas desnutridas y malnutridas seguía creciendo debido, sobre todo, a la lentitud de los cambios en las pautas de distribución de los ingresos y a la pobreza todavía generalizada".
CHAIRMAN: Does.iiiyboily have anybjection lo that sentence realignment? The chair observes none. That is approved. Are there any other member countries which have a point on paragraph 2?
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): It is not a question of substance but I think it is partly due to the haste with which the Secretariat had to prepare the final draft report that is in front of us. I believe - and you can consult the Chairman of the Drafting Committee on this - that it was agreed in the Committee that references to speakers or to points of view should be made with the same phrase throughout the report - either "delegations" or "Member Nations" or whatever, but that it should be the same throughout the report so no distinction could possibly be read into it. I have no personal view upon what phrase should be used or where, but it was that which was agreed generallyn the Committee and the Secretariat undertook to see to it.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would ask the Chairman of the Drafting Committee: is that a fair and accurate representation of what was agreed to?
Joseph TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Oui, Monsieur le Président. Je crois que la remarque a été faite lors des discussions au sein du Comité. Il a effectivement été demandé au Secrétariat d'uniformiser les termes dans tous les textes. J'avais constaté moi-même qu'il existait des variations mais je pensais qu'il suffisait que nous le signalions au Secrétariat pour qu'il tienne compte de ces remarques dans notre rapport définitif.
CHAIRMAN: Shall we now have an understanding then that the point of Norway is well taken, that it is concurred in by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and that throughout the text when that issue comes up we can permit the Secretary and the Secretariat to pick up any of those references and put them in proper order. Any problem with that? Thank you. Are there any additional points with paragraph 2? The Chair hearing none, we now proceed to paragraph 3.
Juan Manuel GALVEZ B. (Honduras): Estoy de acuerdo con lo que han expresado anteriormente de que no ha habido suficiente tiempo para estudiar este documento, pero sí quiero referirmel párrafo 3 que he podido verificar. Lo que observé en el documento en español ocurre también en el documento en inglés y quiero señalar cuál es ese párrafo. Cuarta oración del párrafo 3 que dice así: "Esto era lo que ocurría en los países en desarrollo afectados por pesadas obligaciones del servicio de la deuda y las condiciones desfavorables del intercambio en su comercio exterior, pero también en algunos países desarrollados.". Para mí el pensamiento no está claro, o no está bien expresado. Sugeriría que se cambiara por lo siguiente: "Esto era lo que ocurría en algunos países desarrollados y en los países en desarrollo afectados por pesadas obligaciones del servicio de la deuda y las condiciones desfavorables del intercambio en su comercio exterior".
En inglés ocurre lo mismo, es my sencillo ponerlo en ese orden.
CHAIRMAN: No objection to that?
V. K. SIBAL (India): We had the same concern which has been expressed by Honduras and we also felt that the sentence was not very clear in its intent.. We thought a very minor amendment, however, would set matters right and the amendment that we had in mind would involve the least change but reflect the sense more clearly. We would suggest that in this sentence - I will read it as it is: "This was the case for those developing countries which were affected by heavy debt servicing obligations and unfavourable terms of exchange in their external trade...." - "as also..." rather than "but also" so that it would now read "as also for some developed countries". This will mean that the pressures on domestic budgets of shortage of foreign currency were exerted on both.
Ismael DIAZ YUBERO (España): Habís pedido la palabre para apoyar la propuesta de Honduras ya que me parece que queda el párrafo mucho más claro, pero además quería intentar aclararlo un poco más. La realidad es que la situación de falta de pago en unos países o en un tipo de países u otros, es sustancialmente distinta. Por ello, yo creo que para aclarar más la propuesta que ha hecho anteriormente Honduras yo pediría que la ultima frase de este párrafo se sacase en un párrafo nuevo. Podría decir algo así como: "La Conferencia observó también por primera vez". Seguiría hasta el final, pero en un párrafo nuevo para que no parezca que las circunstancias de falta de pago en un caso y en otro tienen factores comunes.
CHAIRMAN: We now have two different proposals for the same sentence. We also have four member countries which have caught the attention of the Secretary. They are Colombia, Mexico, Costa Rica and Venezuela. We would ask you to make your comments and we will try to work out these differences as we proceed.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo voy a referirme al párrafo 3, pero no a esta parte sobre la cual se está discutiendo. Prefiero que usted, Señor Presidente, termine de resolver las propuestas que se han hecho y luego antes de adoptar el párrafo 3 me conceda la palabra.
CHAIRMAN: This is a good suggestion. We shall do so.
José Ramon LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): Mexico fue Miembro del Comité de Redacción y tenemos como regla general no intervenir cuando se debate el Informe, y menos aún hacer propuestas de ningún tipo, ya que expresamos nuestra plena solidaridad con el Informe. Sin embargo, en este caso debo advertir que este párrafo en particular nos llevó muchas horas de trabajo y tratamos de hacer un distingo entre los países en desarrollo que, evidentemente como puede corroborarse, estamos pasando por una crisis financiera y económica muy grave y la circunstancia que quizá por primera vez enfrentan algunos países desarrollados en cuanto a su situación presupuestaria y el manejo de sus divisas.
Parece que no logramos en el Comité de Redacción expresar esta diferencia muy bien; pero creo que si vamos a ayudar a que este texto sea más claro deberíamos inclinarnos por la propuesta de la India, porque aquí lo que queremos subrayar y destacar es la condición en la que se encuentran prácticamente la totalidad de los países en desarrollo y, ciertamente, como una novedad la de algunos países desarrollados. Yo me inclinaría, por tratarse de un asunto delicado por la propuesta de la India.
CHAIRMAN: At this point I think I would be appropriate to ask if the Chairman of the Drafting Committee would wish to intervene here and make any suggestion on the different approaches.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): En effet, il s'agit là d'un point qui a retenu l'attention du Comité de rédaction pendant une période suffisamment longue. Il me semble que nous étions arrivés à refléter presque ce qui avait été dit dans cette Commission.
Pour ma part, je suis prit à accepter qu'on remplace le mot "mais" par le mot "et"; il me semble qu'ainsi il n'y aura pas de changement important dans ce texte que nous avons obtenu au prix de beaucoup d'efforts au sein du Comité de rédaction.
CHAIRMAN: Does anyone have any objection to the compromise suggested by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee? The Chair sees no objection. That is approved. At this point, with this back-and-forth, the Chair will have to rely heavily on the Secretary to advise on who has the floor, particularly when we now get into the requests asking us to come back. The Secretary advises me that it is now proper, under our order of proceeding, to recognize Colombia.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La Delegación de Colombia propone que se suprima la ultima frase del párrafo 3. Hacemos esta propuesta porque sinceramente consideramos que tal vez no conviene entrar en detalles sobre cuestiones que pertenecen al fuero muy respetable de un Estato soberano. Si quisiéramos proponer una enmienda, sin duda entraríamos en controversia que deseamos evitar a estas alturas. Por ello, creemos que la propuesta más sensata que podemos hacer es suprimir la última frase del párrafo 3.
CHAIRMAN: Once again, this is the Drafting Committee; and the Chair will make great efforts to try to provide adequate opportunity for the Chairman of that body to clarify what was discussed there. We will try to have communications up here, but at this point I would ask the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, as I shall be doing throughout the afternoon, to try to clarify these points.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Au niveau du Comité de rédaction, nous avons pensé que ce membre de phrase était suffisamment important pour figurer ici. Nous ne pensions pas que cela pouvait heurter l'Etat visé ici; mais il me semble qu'il appartient plutôt à notre Commission de se prononcer elle-même sur cet aspect des choses.
Le Comité de rédaction n'a pas vu d'inconvénient! ce que cela figure ici.
CHAIRMAN: We have before us two suggestions. One is by the representative of Colombia, that that paragraph be deleted; and one is by the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, that it should be retained. The Chair's impression is that there is a consensus to retain that. Is that an inaccurate or an accurate perception? Would those persons who are opposed to the view expressed by the I would say to Venezuela that I have already said I would recognize the Point of Order as soon as we have finished this. Unless it is a Point of Order on this point, 1 have been trying to be sensitive to the fact that some countries object to being interrupted on Points of Order and I have been trying to do them at the end of their speaking. The proper procedure would be to give the Chairman an adequate opportunity to speak. At that point 1 intended to recognize you for your Point of Order. If you wish to make your Point of Order now I would be glad to recognize you for that purpose if you so desired. But we would prefer to finish this point. What is your wish?
Sra.Mercedes FERMIN-GOMEZ (Venezuela): Tengo ml cartel alzado y el señor Presidente no so digna mirar. Ruego igualmente al Presidente del Comité de Redacción que se digne mirar para este lado porque aquí hay delegaciones que también quieren hablar.
Voy a tomar la palabra porque el Señor Presidente dijo que iba a preferir dar la palabra a las personas que no habían intervenido en el Comité de Redacción. Quiero referirme a una cosa sencilla y que no implica ninguna controversia. Yo no estoy de acuerdo con que es lo mismo decir que las pesadas obligaciones del servicio de la deuda que afectan a los países en desarrollo, es lo mismo que las que pesan sobre los países desarrollados. Por esta razón, Señor Presidente, no estoy de acuerdo en poner "así como" o "así también" porque eso identifica las dos situaciones. Estoy de acuerdo con que se deje la palabra "pero", porque pudiera ser que algunos países desarrollados tengan problemas, pero no por las mismas razones que los países en desarrollo, cuya razón es la pesada carga del servicio de la deuda.
Como puede ver el Señor Presidente, no estoy creando problemas para punto de orden. Estoy tratando de respaldar la redacción del Comité originalmente como vino, porque me parece lógico.
En cuanto a la proposición de Colombia voy a apoyar plenamente lo que ha propuesto el Señor Embajador de Colombia.
CHAIRMAN: 1 am sorry, but that is not a Point of Order: it is a discussion on the proposal made by India.
V.K. SIBAL (India): At this stage we are not clear whether the discussion on sentence 4 is still on. Our impression was that you had pronounced upon it. Assuming that to be so, we are not going to say anything more on that subject. However, on the Colombian proposal we also agree that the point made by Colombia is very reasonable because when we see that the payment of the main contributor is seriously affected by its domestic financial conditions it seems very final in its intent. The American delegation of course is here and they could perhaps best interpret what their stand is. But we understood that they are thinking of full-funding, requests are being made to the legislature, the process is still continuing and the commitments are all there. In the light of all that, perhaps it is not an accurate enough reflection of the American position; but we are subject to correction by the American delegation.
CHAIRMAN: I think it might facilitate things if we could be just a little less formal for a moment. The Chair would call your attention to the fact that we have Costa Rica - and we appreciate your patience: you will be next to be recognized - and after that we have a couple of other items.
Venezuela, the Chair tried to deal with Points of Order after speakers have commenced but the Chair's recollection is exactly what the representative of India has just stated: that we asked whether or not there was agreement on the changing of "but" to "as". At that point it would have been appropriate to indicate that view, but as we went around the floor to see if there were any objections to India's suggestion, we did not see any raised at that point. That is why we proceeded. If you now wish to resurrect that, we will be glad to clarify that and backstep just a little bit. However, our impression here, and I think it is the impression of most countries here, was that there was a broad consensus in favour of the suggestion made by India. I am perfectly willing to be corrected, but that was the Chair's understanding, and we proceeded on that basis.
Briefly, is there or is there not - as we have already declared it closed we will re-open - a view for an acceptancehe suggestion made by India? The Chair's impression is that there is. Is the Chair wrong? Will those countries who feel that the Chair is wrong in concluding that there is a consensus on India's suggestion please so indicate. This is going to be very difficult, as we are quibbling over words: so let us try to be as precise as possible. Is there agreement or is there disagreement with the Indian suggestion? The Chair has ruled that there was agreement with that suggestion but since then it appears that there has been a misunderstanding on a Point of Order and an opinion. We want to clarify this. Please let us stick to one point. We have before us one question: is there agreement on the suggestion of India, or is there not? That is simple. Could those countries which disagree with India's suggestion - I called for this before - please state. Could we try to clarify whether anyone disagrees with India's suggestion? In the order that we have before us made by the Secretary, which we are trying to follow, Costa Rica was first, as I believe I stated a moment ago.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Quería manifestar antes que usted dictara su posición que estoy de acuerdo con la Embajadora de Venezuela. "Pero", no es la misma cosa que "así como". El debate como se celebró aquí puso de relieve la gran situación de dificultad en que se encuentra por su deuda los países en desarrollo. Acepto la idea de que hay también algunos casos de países desarrollados; por lo tanto esta situación se refleja mas por la palabra "pero" que por "así como".
Ya que estoy en el uso de la palabra, si usted me lo permite señor Presidente, voy a referirme a la enmienda del Embajador Bula Hoyos. La acepto plenamente ya que me parece muy razonable y si nos ponemos a hacer una enmienda efectiva, o un cambio del texto del último párrafo, vamos a empezar un debate bastante largo.
Me parece, además, que la gran mayoría de las delegaciones expresaron un concepto completamente opuesto a lo que contiene el último párrafo. Este último párrafo habla únicamente de dificultades internas del mayor contribuyente. Sin embargo, aquí ha sido puesto de relieve que había dificultades no sólo de carácter económico, sino de carácter político. No eran dificultades internas, sino que era una actitud deliberada. Esto no me gustaría que fuera reflejado en el Informe y me quedaría más conforme si en una atmósfera de conciliación, insisto en la palabra conciliación, se aceptara la propuesta del Embajador Bula Hoyos de suprimir completamente el último párrafo.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your suggestion. The Chair will try to be objective but it is going to be very difficult to argue over fine points of language. None of us would want to have to defend this before any university. The argument that we are talking about, we are defining a developing country as one that is affected by heavy debt servicing obligations and unfavourable terms of exchange in their external trade. That applies to the United States of America. On the 'as' and 'but' we have before us a number of countries who wish to speak.
Ismael DIAZ YUBERO (España): Yo estoy totalmente de acuerdo con lo que ha expuesto la Representante, la Sra. Embajadora de Venezuela. Por eso, yo me había pronunciado por la propuesta que había hecho Honduras, y que creo que debería ser reconsiderada, pero, Sr. Presidente, Ud. fue demasiado rápido, y prácticamente no nos dio tiempo a reaccionar y podernos oponer a la propuesta que había hecho la India. En todo caso, y le ofrezco como solución intermedia, en lo que se refiere a esta penúltima frase, digo la penúltima porque quizá de la última haya que volver a hablar más tarde, mantener el texto como está, y en caso de no ser así, prefiero la propuesta de Honduras a la propuesta de la India.
CHAIRMAN: I am sorry if I went too fast but the Chair thought that there was adequate time for persons to express opposition to India's proposal. The Chair is certainly not trying to support one proposal over another. I assure you that the Chair has no intention to ramrod through India's proposal or anybody elses.
E. Patrick ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): It was my intention originally to ask you to state clearly the proposal by India but it seems to be simply a matter of "as" versus "but". In that regard we support the use of "but", since there is something unusual about the situation applying to the developed countries.
A word on the next sentence: throughout the debate there were numerous references to the main contributor and so there may well be some reasonable argument, some good reasoning why there could be mention of the main contributor in the report. But I think we have to be careful with the language and we must be careful as to what conclusions we draw. The way it reads seems to suggest a conclusion that there will be some difficulty in the payments because of .... That being so we may wish to consider wording such as "The main contributor indicated that ..." we may want to govern the way in which we conclude the sentence, or that it was likely to be. I think we have to be very careful as to how we word that last sentence.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would hope that we can do the "as" and "but", which to most persons generally means about the same.
Juan Manuel CALVEZ B. (Honduras): Es obvio que hay controversia en cuanto al párrafo 3. Ahora qui-siera sugerir que debería de reescribirse con mucha calma, y luego leerlo nuevamente, para poder llegar a un consenso, y lo creo muy importante porque debemos llegar a un consenso que permita que todos podamos defender este Informe tan importante en cualquier universidad del mundo.
V.K. SIBAL (India): We had asked for the floor not to get an opportunity to speak on this subject but in order to explain why we were suggesting what we were suggesting and we thought this explana-tion might help. It is not simply a question of the replacement of one small word by another; I think there is a distinct change in meanings. We have to see sentence 3 in order to appreciate sentence 4. Sentence 3 says that certain countries are not able to pay as per their constitutional obligations on account of two reasons, pressures on domestic budgets or shortages of foreign currency. This is the crucial point which qualifies the next sentence. The two factors operated in the case of developing countries who have their problems of debt servicing obligations and unfavourable terms of exchange in their external trade, as also for some developed countries. The reference is not to debt servicing obligations but to shortages of foreign currency or pressures on domestic budgets. This is how we interpretated what the Drafting Committee has done and we thought it would reflect the meaning of what they were trying to say more clearly if we did not use the word "but", because "but" would mean that this is not the case, when you said this was the case. This applies equally to developing countries and some developed countries. That is the reason behind our suggestion.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Let us try to be flexible on two points, the "as" and the "but" and the "first time" business and go through the remaining list of speakers and deal with the whole paragraph.
McDonald Phillip BENJAMIN (Dominica): With regard to the phraseology implied by the use of "but" or "as", I think we can say that "as" is a softer expression, "but" implies a larger differentiation, between the situations. In light of this we would prefer the use of the word "but".
With regard to the sentence dealing with the main contributor, we find that this is so loosely worded as to confuse the situation. For example, financial conditions can refer to the stock market crisis situation. So our impression is that the Colombian proposal to delete this is acceptable to us.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair observes that at the rate we are going to be a long time.
Salimoen SOERJOATMODJO (Indonesia): I would agree with the proposal of India for deleting the last sentence, because if it is not deleted I think it will give the impression of giving the justification for the contributor not to pay the arrears.
Yacoub Y. AL-YOUSUFI (Kuwait) (original language Arabic): I am not going to refer to the English text, but as far as those who speak Arabic are concerned I think that the idea in the Arabic text is correct, but I want to say that the name of the main contributor is repeated twice, at the beginning of the paragraph and at the end of the paragraph, and their name is mentioned in the Arabic text at the end of the paragraph. I propose that we delete the reference to the United States in the last sentence of paragraph 3. This concerns the Arabic text only.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I just wanted to give a little background to the last sentence of paragraph 3, why this sentence is written down here. I think it was agreed that the reasons for
the arrears of the biggest contributor should be as indicated by the American delegation itself. So I think these are words quoted from the intervention of the American delegation. It is vague, but if we look at the context of where it was said we realise that it is no so vague at all. Therefore I believe that the suggestion made by my neighbour, Trinidad and Tobago, that this is indeed coming from the United States delegation itself is probably a good one because then we would realize that it. is to be read within the context of the intervention made by the American delegation.
CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Chair can make a suggestion. The Chair would suggest that you delete the phrase "For the first time". The reason the Chair would suggest that is because the Chairman served in the United States Congress, and believe me that was not the first time. We may adopt it, but that is not factually true. 1 can tell you that the phrase "for the first time" is an inaccurate statement of the facts, but do with it as you wish.
Apolinaire ANDRIATSIAFAJATO (Madagascar): Je souhaitais abonder dans le sens de votre proposition de ne pas languir sur une conjonction et sur le fait de mettre "et" ou "mais" dans cette phrase qui fait l'objet actuellement de controverse. Mais, en faisant preuve de souplesse, je voudrais égale-ment dire que le problème n'est pas aussi souple que cela car, lorsqu'on parle du service de la dette et de l'échange défavorable du commerce extérieur, et lorsqu'on dit que certains pays développés souffrent également des mêmes problèmes, je pense que les effets ne sont pas par comparaison les mêmes dans tous ces pays concernés. Les pays sous-développés subissent de plein fouet les effets du service de la dette et des termes de l'échange défavorable, tandis que certains pays développés, en faisant une comparaison d'une façon peut-être plus atténuée que pour les pays sous-dévcloppés, subissent les effets de ces mêmes problèmes.
C'est pourquoi j'abonderai dans le sens de l'intervention de Trinité-et-Tobago, pays sous-développé comme le mien, pour dire que "mais" serait plus approprié que "et" qui place sur le même pied d'égalité pays développés et pays sous-développés, alors que les effets de ces problèmes ne sont pas du tout les mêmes. Pour être clair, je répète que "mais" conviendrait plutôt mieux que "et" dans cette phrase concernant le commerce extérieur.
Je pense d'ailleurs que nous avons nous-mêmes imaginé qu'il s'agissait surtout pour certains pays développés de l'échange défavorable du commerce extérieur et non pas du service de la dette.
Quant à la dernière phrase, je me rallierai à la proposition de la Colombie, de l'Indonésie, et du Venezuela portant sur la suppression de cette phrase qui semble justifier et cautionner le non paiement des contributions qui sont prévues dans l'acte constitutif de la FAO. Il s'agit d'une obligation statutaire qui avait été acceptée par le principal bailleur de fonds sans tenir compte de la situation intérieure financière, ou autres facteurs, qui pouvaient à l'époque peser sur ce principal bailleur de fonds. Il y a une obligation contractuelle qui doit être respectée. Et le fait de mettre cette phrase, alors que cette situation est peut-être occasionnelle ou circonstancielle, me semble personnellement tout simplement justifier le comportement actuel de verser ou de ne pas verser, ou de ne verser qu'en partie, la contribution qui fait évidemment vivre cette Organisation.
C'est pour cela que je serai également d'avis de supprimer tout simplement cette dernière phrase qui ne me paraît pas tellement importante, comme vous l'aviez suggéré, pour avancer plus vite et pour ne pas nous éterniser davantage sur ce point.
CHAIRMAN: At this point of the consultation with the Secretariat the Chair thinks it might be appropriate to back up a little bit and remind you that the debate has already taken place; we are not re-doing the debate, that was done before. Wè have before us the Report. Now, at the rate we are going the Report on what was said will take longer than what was said and we have before us really a couple of fairly simple items. The Drafting Committee has come back with their Report.
The Chairman of that Committee is here to defend that Report and to speak about it but I must caution you that at the rate we are going we are going to be here for a very long time, defining the English and Arabic "and other languages which will seriously delay the work. What we ought to be able to do is to decide rather quickly who likes 'as', who likes 'but'; that is not that difficult, it shouldn't take that long. It doesn't matter that much and we ought to be able to decide that but. let us get on with the 'ases and buts' and to work. The Chair would suggest that if would bo more constructivo for us as a body to say simply who likes 'as', who likes 'but'. You know, it is like ice-cream; some people like chocolate and some people like vanilla and the fate of the world doesn't matter which you order; whereas we ought to be able to decide such a relatively simple question in a relatively simple manner and if we are not we are going to have a long, long time getting on to other issues, but this is not the time to re-open the discussion which has already taken place and which has already been reported about. Now, if you do not like the Report and the discussion that occurred maybe you should have said something other than what you said at the time we were having that discussion but the responsibility of the Chairman of the Drafting Committee and the members of the Drafting Committee was to do a report on what was said, not on what some people wish they had said and that is the difficulty that now confronts us. The Chair would recommend, it is up to you, that we ought to, right now, here and now, dispense with a protracted discussion on the niceties of the various languages of the world and have a show of feeling for who likes 'but', who likes 'as', and who does not like either.
I would like to be a little bit informal. I am a believer in parliamentary procedure, as some people might have observed but, or as, we go on here, I think a little bit of informality here may be in order and wo may wish to proceed and dispose of this and see if we can get to the fourth paragraph of a document which has 43 paragraphs. Is there a reaction to that? The Chair has the feeling, sitting up here, that most people would like to get on.
lbrahima KABA (Guinée): Pour notre part, nous estimons que ces phrases - la première comme la dernière - constituent des expressions d'excuse que la Conférence trouve à l'égard des pays membres qui ne se sont pas acquittés de leurs obligations. Ces phrases ne ressortent pas des débats qui se sont déroulés. Nous les considérons comme des commentaires. A mon avis, la Conférence n'a pas à trouver d'excuse aux pays membres qui ne se sont pas acquittés de leurs obligations.
C'est pourquoi je proposerai que toutes ces phrases soient carrément éliminées. Les pays membres ont l'obligation de s'acquitter de leurs contributions.
CHAIRMAN: I am sorry but at this point the Chair finds itself defending a report in which the Chair did not participate. The Chairman of the Drafting Committee participated. I will yield the floor for the next few minutes and will give carte blanche to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee to respond to your questions
On the order of business here we have some other countries who are on the list and who wish to speak - Argentina, you are one of them - and we will try to go down that list and,Chairman of the Drafting Committee, your report is being challenged here; you can defend it. The order of speakers is Iran, Trinidad and Tobago, Argentina, the United States of America, Panama and Iraq and che Chair will act as a conduit to the Chairman of the Drafting Committee who will tell you why they came to the conclusions that they came to and at this point I will back off from my efforts to try and explain that 'as' and 'but' do not mean a lot in the order of things when we have 43 paragraphs to get through. At the rate we are going it is going to take literally longer to get through and to hold the discussion than to deal with the explanation of what was discussed. Now, if that is what wo wish to do, I have to call your attention to the fact that the clock is ticking, it is almost five o'clock; we have a contact group which has taken more than a week to establish, which has its first meeting this evening which may mean we may end up running late and blocking that and if we want to spend all of our time talking about 'as' and 'but' go ahead and do it. It will be of interest perhaps to three or four people at. Oxford University one day but it will be of minimal interest to the work of this Organization. That is what I would caution but from this point on, for the remainder of the afternoon, Chairman of the Drafting Committee, you have the distinct pleasure of explaining the difference between 'as' and 'but'.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): Comme je l'ai dit au départ, nous avons mis douze heures pour adopter 41 paragraphes. Autant vous dire que tous les aspects ont été passés au peigne fin.La rédaction qui est proposée ici constitue un compromis qui n'a certainement pas satisfait tout le monde mais auquel nous sommes parvenus pour pouvoir avancer, pour vous permettre, Monsieur le Président, de présider cette séance, aujourd'hui.
Je l'ai déjà dit tout à l'heure, entre "mais" et "et", il y a peut-être une nuance, mais nous, au niveau du Comité de rédaction, nous avouspréféré le "mais:.D'abord, la question ne s'est méme pas posée de savoir s'il fallait mettre "mais" ou "et". Pour nous, c'était le "mais" et nous l'avons adopté.
C'est pour cette raison que j'ai dit, tout à l'heure, que si le voeu de la Commission est de changer le "mais" en "et", nous n'y voyons pas d'inconvénient. La Commission est souveraine. Ce que nous avons fait, c'est proposer un texte. Il appartient à la Commission de trancher.
D'autre part, je voudrais rappeler aux membres du Comité de rédaction qu'ils n'ont pas à intervenir ici et que, s'ils le font, c'est pour défendre le projet de rapport et non pour y apporter des amendements qu'ils n'ont pas apportés au cours du débat du Comité. Je crois que cela est important si l'on veut clarifier les choses au sein de la Commission.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, and Iam sure you will have more opportunity.
Ahmad ALAVI (Iran, Islamic Republic of): It is just concerning the fourth sentence of this paragraph, 'but' and 'as' and it is if we read as it is like this was not only the case for those developing countries but also all this discussion would be solved. "This was not only the case for those developing countries", and so on, "but also for some developed countries."
CHAIRMAN: Iran has suggested to say "but also". The Chair observes that the Chairman of the Drafting Committee has admonished the members of the Drafting Committee. As I heard him, the Chairman said that the members of the Drafting Committee who wanted to talk about "but" or "as" should have talked about it at the meeting. Iran is a member of that Drafting Committee, but you now disagree with the Drafting Committee, and you propose "not only" and you would also put "but also". Chairman of the Drafting Committee, any time you wish to have the floor to explain something, you are welcome to it.
E. Patrick ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): Firstly, I wish to agree totally with the previous speaker because on consideration I think Iran is correct. If we add there "not only" after "this was the case", I believe that we need not go back to this matter again and everybody would accept it. I feel perfectly convinced about it. Let it read "This was the case not only" and then "but" will stand and we need not go back to that matter again for the rest of the afternoon. That is point No.l and I believe you can almost take that as read. The second point concerns the suggestion made earlier to let the last sentence read "that the main contributor" - if the main contributor says so, let it be so.
CHAIRMAN: Representative of Trinidad and Tobago, I admire your optimism, but I have to point out in all due fairness the Chair cannot accept your statement that each of the following speakers will agree. The Chair has to let them say whether or not they do and we have seven people to talkabout "as" and "but".
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La delegación de Argentina concuerda con usted en que tenemos que tratar de reflejar en este informe lo que fue dicho durante el debate. Por consiguiente, estamos de acuerdo con la delegación de Colombia de que la última frase del párrafo 3 debería, en honor de la verdad, ser suprimida de este párrafo, por cuanto da una imagen inexacta de lo que fue nuestro debate.
Con rolación a las alegacionso habría que considerar que esto fue dicho por la delegación de Estados Unidos, quisiera recordar a las distinguidas delegaciones que señalaron esto, que en el párrafo 22 se expresa extensamente lo que dijo el mayor contribuyente, de manera que no necesitamos tener esta interrupción en el párrafo 3.
Con relación a las palabras "pero" o "así como" mi delegación no encuentra diferencia sustancial, pero sí la encuentra con la propuesta que acaba de ofrecernos la distinguida delegación de Trinidad y Tabago, que lamentablemente no podemos aceptar.
La delegación de Argentina quisiera proponer que usted encargara tal vez a las delegaciones que tienen sentimientos muy acendrados con relación a las expresiones "pero" o "así como" que se reunieran entre ellas para ver si pueden dirimir esta situación en beneficio de todos los miembros. En caso contrario creo que tendremos tal vez que proceder a suprimir la última parte de esta oración.
CHAIRMAN: At this point the Chair has to say under no circumstances would the Chair ever appoint anybody to figure out whether "as" or "but" is preferable for fear that I would be laughed out of any city in the world. We are getting to the point of being foolish. The Chair has before it a note from a member country, Trinidad and Tobago, which makes a respectful suggestion that what I called his optimism be put to the test andask if there are any objections to what Trinidad and Tobago said. Unfortunately, as I was reading that note I distinctly heard the Government of Argentina expressing an objection to what Trinidad and Tobago said. I believe I am clear in that, Trinidad and Tobago?
E. Patrick ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): Yes.
CHAIRMAN: I was right.
Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): If it was not so serious I would be laughing, but if one looks in the original text at the fourth sentence, which is under discussion.in the context of the third sentence which it modifies, the language proposed by the Drafting Committee is perfectly reasonable and should not be changed. It is perfectly reasonable.
Horacio MALTEZ (Panamá): Sin entrar en cuestiones de fondo en lo que se refiere a la tercera frase del párrafo 3, nuestra delegación considera que tal como había explicado anteriormente el Presidente del Comité de Redacción y había sido ratificado después por el delegado de México, miembro de esc Comité, esta frase fue resultado de un compromiso o de un equilibrio logrado a nivel de dicho Comité; por lo tanto, estimamos que debe permanecer tal como aparecía en la versión original. Por lo tanto, apoyamos lo propuesto por Colombia y que fue apoyado luego por otras muchas delegaciones en lo relativo a la eliminación de la última oración de dicho párrafo 3.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair notes that each of ray vice-chairmen has the wisdom to be absent this afternoon. I would be delighted to call either one of them forth and then they could tell me tomorrow whether "as" or "but" won. But they are not here for that purpose, nor did I think the rest of us were.
Abdal Halem AL NOMAN (Iraq) (original language Arabic): In fact, I support the Chairman when he says that we must not go on forever in this discussion on "as" or "but". There can be a difference amongst the various languages because inArabic there is no "but". Though it just shows that this situation can also apply to certain developed countries. Therefore, I uggest as we go through this Report paragraph by paragraph and adopt the paragraphs we just have certain brief amendments and that is all.
CHAIRMAN: On this point the Chair is surprised to learn that there are no "buts" in parts of the world - it prevents them from being kicked, I guess. On this point the Chair would observe that that is a very important linguistic distinction, because as we are going through this discussion I noticed at one point that when the Chairman of the Drafting Committee was speaking - he was speaking in a different language than my native tongue - he used the word "and". Only a moment before that I said to the Secretary "may be they just ought to say 'and'". Then I noticed he said that. 1 ask if there was any significance, she said "no because they do not have that word". I do not mean to open up a new front here by suggesting in addition to "as" and "but" there is "and". However, I want to tell you something, there is no-one to sit in my place and I am not going to spend one minute past 5.30 this evening talking about "as" and "but". Anybody who wants to talk about "as" and "but" are going to be talking somewhere else other than at a meeting over which I am presiding. At this point the Chairman of the Drafting Committee has the floor.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Président, Comité de rédaction): En effet, la discussion s'éternise sur ce point; dos propositions ont été faites, et nous-mêmes au Comité de rédaction avons présenté un texte.
Nous avons retenu le mot "mais"; il y a une autre proposition pour le mot "et".
il me semble qu'il convient de mettre tout cela aux voix pour voir s'il y a une majorité pour le "mais" ou le "et", sinon nous risquons de rester sur ce point jusqu'à demain.
Une autre proposition a également été faite sur le point de savoir s'il fallait ou non supprimer la dernière phrase; les discussions ont suffisamment duré et il me semble qu'il faut mettre cela aux voix pour passer au point suivant. Si nous continuons à écouter les commentaires de chacun, nous n'y arriverons jamais. Ceont des méthodes que nous avons parfois utilisées ici pour avancer et que, ce mesemble, vous pouvez appliquer aujourd'hui.
CHAIRMAN: At this point the Chair is torn between trying to be sensitive to countries which have expressed their right to speak and trying to be sensitive to common sense. The Chair would suggest that it might be a prudent way out to simply have a show of hands and those people who want a sentence left as the Drafting Committee drafted it - I would caution you that there are sixteen sovereign nations of the world who put their heads together and wrote this sentence. Now, I would suggest it might be prudent and worhty of this Organization if we simply had an indication of those people who think that the sixteen sovereign nations of the world knew what they were doing and those persons who think .... Your point of order is well taken, we are not going to press that point. We will continue with the "as" and the "but" until five-thirty. State your point of order.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Anwar Mohamed KHALED (Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of) (original language Arabic): We have just learned that you have wide experience in Parliament and I have nothing to add to your information, but I should liko to say that with regard to such meetings and conferences there should be a proposal and we should give the opportunity to delegates to object or to support the proposal. So, if we cannot decide on this question, then it should be put to the vote. This proposal has been made by the Chairman of the meeting, so we have to stop talking and put this matter to the vote. So should we keep this as it is put already or not? We have to decide upon this question.
CHAIRMAN: Your point of order is well taken. The Chair apologizes. In the confusion, the Chair did not hear that there was a formal proposal to vote and on that I stand corrected. We were up here in the confusion of things trying to put our heads together and come up with a quick resolution of what seems to many persons here an inordinate discussion of a minor point and in the course of that the Chair never heard that there was a motion to vote and for that I stand corrected. At this point ... Excuse me just a moment. I beg your indulgence for a moment. We have before us a request for a vote. Now the Chair would advise you further that under the rules of this Organization if a single delegate - one, only one - asks for a roll call vote we will have a roll call vote on "as" or "but". It may well be historic. Argentina, you have a point of order.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Guillermo GONZALEZ (Argentina): Sinceramente le pido, Señor Presidente, su máximo apoyo para salir de esta situación extraña, de la que todos somos responsables, pero tenemos que confesar que usted, Señor Presidente, no nos ha ayudado a salir.
Mi Delegación no tiene objeciones en que usted nos ponga a votación ahora o como quiera, pero dejando también constancia de que hay una tercera alternativa con respecto ai uso o no de las conjunciones, y es la eliminación de esa parte de la frase. Así que si usted lo va a someter a votación, ponga a votación las tres opciones. Yo lo pido formalmente.
CHAIRMAN: I must correct you. The Chair did not move the vote. The Chair was corrected by a representative here. The representative of the People's Democratic Republic of the Yemen took the floor and chastised me for not having heard that there was a motion to vote. The Chair stated that the Chair had not heard that motion, stated that we were discussing things here and I had not heard that motion. I apologized for not having heard that. I stood corrected and I asked the Secretariat to proceed under the orders of this Organization. Now that was in response to - I did not initiate that - someone else made that motion. I did not hear it - it was called to my attention that I had failed to respond to it because I had not heard it and I then responded. So please do not sit there and tell me that the reason wo are in for a vote on that is because I thought so. I think it is rather clear that the Chair thinks this is a bit foolish and if you did not understand that I thought the fact that I said that as of 5.30 this evening I will exercise the prerogatives of the Chair, which include the right to adjourn or close debate - and promptly at 5.30 I am not going to preside over a meeting about whether or not "as" or "but" is proper when
we have some forty other paragraphs to decide. Now I would think Argentina that that is not an indication from me that I want to spend this afternoon doing those things, so please do not state that when it is not true. Yemen pressed the point. I had not heard it. I publicly apologized for not having heard it. 1 said I stood corrected and that there was a motion and I then asked the Secretariat to proceed under the proper order. I cannot follow my personal views on this, because if we were following my personal views we would not be talking about such dumb things for so long. We are now in a voto. I am sorry, the Chair is going to consult with the legal staff of FAO and ask them for some interpretation. You will be recognized if in their view you are correct. Argentina, is your Point of Order on the vote? Yes or no? If it is yes
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Guillermo GONZALEZ (Argentina): Ha hecho usted, Señor Presidente, alusiones a mi intervención que estimo son incorrectas y tengo el derecho a dar mi respuesta. No acepto interpretaciones erróneas, y no se si de mala fe, ya que usted está utilizando la Presidencia.
CHAIRMAN: You are out of order. I am sorry, but the Chair just said that I would defer to the Secretariat's legal staff for an opinion on this. I then turned to the legal representative and asked him. I said my recollection of the rules is that we are now in a vote only, it is in order. I then asked you if your point of order was on the vote and you indicated otherwise. So therefore it is not in order. The vote before the body is this: Do we accept the Drafting Committee language on this sentence? I will ask the Secretary to read the sentence. Do you have a point of order on the vote?
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Joãougusto DE MEDICIS (Brazil): yes. I insist that we vote also on the third alternative as proposed by Argentina. That is a point of order on the vote.
CHAIRMAN: That is a point of order on the vote and there can be a separate vote on that. The Chair has upheld the point of order of Brazil which is for a separate vote on that.
The Chair would tell the delegates that under the rules of the Organization - the Chair reminds you those rules were here long before the Chair arrived here - that if any delegate requests a roll call vote there will be one. The vote before the house will be this; Do you accept the language of the Drafting Committee as it relates to this sentence?
Ms Kay KILLINGSWORTH (Secretary, Commission II): "This was the case for those developing countries which were affected by heavy debt servicing obligations and unfavourable terms of exchange in their external trade, but also for some developed countries."
CHAIRMAN: Isthat clear? Is there any member country that does not understand what the vote is on? We will not come back to this. If any member country does not understand what is being voted on, state so now. Everybody understands what is being voted on. Now does any country wish a roll call
vote? God bless you. We can have it by a show of hands. Those countries which support - which favour - the Drafting Committee language, please so indicate. Before we do this, for clarification the Chair will have to ask that those persons who are members of staff who are otherwise not with a national delegation here, please go to a spot other than the signs of the members countries. Would the member countries who support the draft statement as submitted by the Drafting Committee so indicate by this procedure, which should be unmistakeable. Please stand up with the sign of your country. Please understand the Secretary has to canvas this entire room and you may think she has already counted you, but she may not have. Please make every effort to make your position as clear as possible.
Vote by show of hands
Vote a main levée
Votación a mano alzada
The proposal was adopted by 51 votes to 14 with 11 abstentions.
La proposition est adoptée par 51 voix contre 14 et 11 abstentions.
Por 51 votos contra 14 y 11 abstenciones queda aprobada la propuesta.
CHAIRMAN: You may all go home today knowing that the world will sleep tonight, knowing that this has been resolved. The Chair indicated earlier that at 5.30 we would adjourn, it is now past 5.30. I would urge that tomorrow we will be more productive.
The meeting rose at 17.30 hours.
La séance est levée à 17 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 17.30 horas.
