CHAIRMAN: The Secretary advises the Chair that we now have a quorum. Continuing where we left off last night in our discussion, we have some speakers yet to speak on the topic and others wishing to make comments. We have seven countries left on our list: Belgium, Netherlands, Barbados, Philippines, Antigua and Barbuda, France and Norway. The Chair would observe that we are past our deadline and we should be wrapping up business. We would like to bring the proceedings to a close. We will not break for lunch: we will proceed until 4.00. p.m., at which time we may or may not have reached a conclusion, but we will have reached a finish. The closure at 4.00 p.m. will be rigidly enforced. The Chair would request member countries to bear in mind that a great deal of discussion took place yesterday and would also request that as far as possible it would be useful for everyone if we could avoid ploughing the same ground over and over and that countries which have said what they need to have said would say no more. We need to start proceeding to conclusions, but we will finish with or without a conclusion.
Antoine SAINTRAINT (Belgique): J'ai suivi avec beaucoup d'attention le débat d'hier et j'aimerais quand même obtenir de notre collègue norvégien une précision qui me paraît extrêmement importante. On a parlé d'experts objectifs, d'experts impartiaux, d'experts se situant en dehors de l'Organisation et devant émettre un jugement objectif. Je voudrais savoir, en posant une question précise, à charge de quel budget et comment sera effectué le financement de cette expertise? Je poserai également la même question, et j'espère que le délégué de la France aura l'occasion d'y répondre. C'est un aspect important et clair que celui qui reçoit une rémunération a un certain lien de dépendence. Il paraît important que ce point soit soulevé et que la question posée ici reçoive une réponse claire.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would ask the Norwegian delegation to be cognissant of the question and to try, in the interests of facilitating discussion, to respond to it when their turn comes.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): I think that after our very lengthy debates of last night it would be right to make a proposal. I would propose that you close the debate on this item. After having heard the delegates of Norway and France answering their requests for elucidation that were raised yesterday, we could move on to the vote, on the basis of the two draft resolutions moved by France and Norway; and that would be all.
CHAIRMAN: On a point of clarification - and perhaps as there was a translation difficulty we could ask the translators to keep this in mind - in the translation from Arabic to English the words were used "to close the debate". That could be a closure motion. However, following that in the translation we also heard a request on your part that we should hear the response as indicated from these other countries which are on the list. We cannot do both. We cannot clośe the debate and also continue to hear countries speak on this subject. Did you wish to put a closure motion or not? Would you please respond.
Bashir El Mabrouk SAID (Libya) (original language Arabic): Yes, I did indeed propose that you close the debate on this item and that you proceed to the vote on the two motions for resolutions submitted by France and Norway.
CHAIRMAN: The delegate of Libya has made a closure motion. Let me read you the Rule: "A delegate or representative may at any time move the closure of the debate on the item under discussion whether or not any delegate or representative has signified his wish to speak. Permission to speak on the closure debate shall be accorded only to two speakers opposing the closure, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote. If the Conference or Council is in favour of the closure the Chairman should declare the closure of the debate. The Chairman may limit the time allowed to speakers under this paragraph".
The Chair héreby limits the time to three minutes. We have the floor available to two speakers in opposition, only in opposition. Would the two countries who wish to oppose the closure please seek the attention of the Chair?
Ton A.J.M. OOMEN (Netherlands): I want to draw your attention to the fact that last night when you adjourned the meeting the Commission voted on continuing the debate and I think it cannot happen that after a motion to continue the debate a motion to stop the debate can be put forward.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): On a point of order, I wish to demand a role call vote on that motion if and when it is put.
CHAIRMAN: The motion has already been put and we are in the process of taking it. Denmark, you have the floor for the purpose of opposing. Yes, there was a motion to adjourn to 9.30 this morning. However, there has been a closure motion this morning and we must deal with it.
John GLISTRUP (Denmark): I would also like to recall that the last thing we did last night was that the Committee voted on the proposal of the Federal Republic of Germany to postpone the debate but to continue the debate today. At that time I supported that motion because we were all tired. This morning we have listened to two interventions, one by Belgium posing questions and one by Libya for a. motion to stop the debate. I think the happenings between last night and these two statements should not have changed the view of this Commission that we wanted in full to discuss this issue. Therefore I oppose the motion.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): When the delegate of Libya made his motion you said that you did not understand it very clearly. The problem was that he was making amotion of closure after, I understood, the list of speakers that you have on your table, precisely after Norway, because Norway is the last speaker on your table. If that is correct, I would support that motion: if not, I will be opposing that motion.
CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, but the Chair did seek clarification on that. The Chair asked specifically, are you now moving a closure motion, and the answer was yes. As the United Kingdom has requested a roll call vote, there must be a roll call vote. Proceed on the vote.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (COLOMBIA): El colega de Países Bajos tiene razón, Senor Presidente. El colega de Países Bajos tiene razón. Anoche resolvimos que hoy continuaríamos el debate.
El párrafo 25 del Artículo 12 del Reglamento dice lo siguiente: "Cuando una propuesta haya sida aceptada (y ese fue el caso de anoche) o rechazada, no podrá discutirse de nuevo en el mismo Período de Sesiones. En el mismo Período de Sesiones, repito Señor Presidente, y este es el mismo Período de Sesiones de nuestra Comisión.
CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. It is wrong. We are not in the same session. We adjourned last night. We are in a new day of business. Libya has made a motion.
Commence the vote. Can I clarify what the vote is? A vote Yes is a vote to cease discission: a vote NO is to enable countries who wish to speak to have the opportunity to speak - Yes if you want to cease discussion, No if you want countries to be able to continue to discuss.
Vote
Vote
Votación
CHAIRMAN: The motion has been rejected. We shall now proceed but in the interests of time the Chair will make an observation; the highest number of this is no reply, no reply! That ought to say something about how we are proceeding with serious business. We have consumed a long period of time on a motion that had the support "of three member countries; almost 25 times as many people were not here as cared to vote for it. That should tell us something of significance.
The Chair would suggest that we bear in mind a 4 o'clock deadline. It is beyond my power Lo suspend rules. I must enforce them. When motions are made the rules will be carried out. Any country has the right at any time to make closure motions or to do such things but the Chair would suggest that out of concern for orderly process there ought to be a sense of what the support is here and it seems obvious that at this late hour the member countries do wish, for those member countries which last night did not have the opportunity to speak, be given that opportunity this morning. The member countries do wish clearly to proceed to a vote on the issues before us following the respectful opportunity of the other member countries to speak their piece. We cannot continue to interrupt ourselves and to waste time like this but the clock is ticking and we would highly recommend that if we are going to have quorum problems and that, we would get some assistance in getting those 72 people here when we are dealing with the most important business we have dealt with in the past three weeks.
Ton A.J.N. OOMEN (Netherlands.) : My delegation feels very encouraged by the great majority of delegations here that voted in favour of continuation of the debate and I am not sure if it was only for the opportunity to listen to the Netherlands opinion but I agree with you that it is significant how many delegations are not present during the debate of this very important item.
After so many interesting statements of philosophies yesterday in a constructive way from both supporters and opponents of the different proposals related to the reform and in particular to the group of experts, it is quite a job for my delegation to add very much to that but nevertheless 1 have to try to add something which can put a new light on the subject. The Netherlands delegation wants to express, however, a different light on the ideas of the mechanisms and ideas proposed and discussed up to now. For my delegation there is no shadow of doubt that our Organization needs a new orientation in the direction it should exercise its mandate as stated in the revised para. 2, the main parameters that are relevant in this process lay outside the Organization, namely the evolution and trends related to world food and agricultural situation. This evolution has its origin in the first place in the world market and other international developments and secondly in the international bodies which are dealing with the negotiations and decisions in the global economic area. In this very process FAO has played thus far an additional role. It is from this point of view that FAO in our opinion needs an independent analysis, how to come to play a protagonistic role in the international decision-making process on agricultural development.
Therefore it is necessary to have experts from outside who are of outstanding quality and experience in the field of agriculture. However, it is more important to recognise ability and analyse the political and economic possibilities in order to give FAO more influence in this international process. In the first place this would be to assert the interest of the developing countries. Therefore, we fully associate with the views expressed by our Norwegian colleague. In our opinion the composition of a group of experts should be based on regional representation, chosen by the regions. The role that the Finance Committee and the Programme Committee should play is of eminent importance, that is to say, to give their comments on the results of the group of experts.
CHAIRMAN: Barbados. Barbados is not here.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): The French proposal has been called "illogical" by some delegates because according to them it mixes up competence, the studying element and the decision making process. According to these delegations the study Is of value only if there is a strict division between the study aspect and the decision-making process. Also, the study is of real value only if it is independent that is, independent from member states, management and political decisions. These delegations say that the Programme and Finance Committees are composed of countries which are elected. In other words, they are part of the decision machinery which represents Governments within the Organization and therefore are not the appropriate Bodies to carry out this study.
I do not believe that because individuals have been elected they are no longer independent. I do not believe that because the member of the Programme and Finance Committees are elected they cease to become independent. 1 should like to point out that according to the General Rules of the Organization (Rule XXVI) the Member of the Programme and Finance Committees are elected for their personal expertise and quality. The rule states: "such members shall be elected by the Council in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraph 3 of this Rule. Members of the Committee shall appoint as their representative individuals who have shown interest in the objectives and activities of the Organization". There follow three qualifications. Firstly, people who have no interest or love for what FAO stands for, its objectives and its activities, have no business to be elected onto the Programme and Finance Committees. Secondly, "They must have participated in Conference and Council Session". That means that they must have some knowledge of how the Organization is run. Thirdly, they must "have special competence and expertise in economic, social and technical matters pertaining to the various fields of the Organization's activities". Therefore, these individuals are chosen for their special competence either in the field of economics, social science or the technical field which are the fields of responsibility of FAO.
If, for example, Germany were elected to the Committee it could appoint the people that have been mentioned, such as Dr Bommer. If India were elected, Dr Swaminathan could be elected. If Nigeria were elected they could certainly appoint Mr Bukar Shaib to the membership of this Committee. It these people were elected to become members of the Committee, would they cease to become independent individuals just because they have been appointed members of the Finance Committee? Man does not cease to become an independent individual, and the independence of man does not depend on the duty or function he discharges. It depends on his character, make-up and personality. If men are independent they will remain independent even if they are members of a Committee.
I have serious doubts as to whether or not the Programme and Finance Committee belong to the decision making process of the Organization. In my view the Programme and Finance Committees are technical Bodies rather than governing Bodies or decision-making Bodies.
I should like to refer to Article VII of the Constitution, para 4, which states: "Subject to the general supervision of the Conference and Council the Director-General shall have full power and authority to direct the work of the Organization." The Director-General receives orders, directives and guidance only from the Council and Conference, not from the Programme and Finance Committees. In my view the Programme and Finance Committees are more technical Bodies than governing
Bodies. They look at the technical aspects of the programme and the technical aspects of financial matters. I should like to point out that in the papers submitted by the US delegation they stated precisely the position of the Members of the Programme and Finance Committee (Document C 87/30 Page A19). They said: "Traditionally, members of the Programme and Finance Committees serve as individual experts and are officially uninstructed ". Therefore, according to this view members of the Programme and Finance Committees are not representatives of the Government because they are elected according to their experience, their own competence and their own technical knowledge and they are unofficially uninstructed from the Government. For this reason there was a recommendation on page A20 which states: "we strongly rècommend that members of these two Committees be charged with the responsibility of representing the views of their own Governments". If that recommendation is made, it means that the United States delegation is of the belief that the members of these Committees act as independent experts and that they do not necessarily represent the Government's views.
Furthermore, if members of these Committees are chosen for their competence, and serve as individual experts and if the Programme and Finance Committees are technical Committees I do not see why these members cannot be independent.
The second objection being raised against the Programme and Finance Committees is that the Committee is too big. (There are eleven plus twelve plus seven making thirty). Those of us who have experience of big Committees know that we cannot really work with big Committees and that is easily remedied by division, by working with sub-Committees. Those who have competence with finance will work and study those aspects of the Organization dealing with finance. Those who have competence with genetic resources will look at those aspects of the Organization that pertain to that field of
discipline, the same will apply to crops, plant protection and seed. If the Committee is big so much the better because it can be subdivided and the work can be finished earlier and the results can go back to Committee in order to get the overall view of the Committee.
Another objection raised was that the Committee should be made up of independent eminent experts of a high level. I do not know what high level means because we can appoint anybody of the highest level, of the highest category to the Programme and Finance Committees If we are going to elect members of the Committee on Friday we will deserve the people we will elect. If we do not have the people there that are of the highest quality then it is our fault, just as it will be our fault if we do not elect anybody whom we believe should be able to do the job.
The case for reform has not been made. When you talk of reform it is because you have proved that the Organization is mismanaged, inefficient and is not able to do the job it has been founded and organized to do. I have not heard substantiation of this. It is true the Commission agrees to a review because it is healthy to look at the mirror. We should not be afraid to look at the mirror. The Contact Group has already laid out the terms of reference, that we should look at and 1 believe that the French proposal has the full support of the Commission. It has the full support of many other Individual member countries from other groups. If anyone has a doubt about the desire of the people here to support the French proposal, then, Mr Chairman, you can call for a vote - a roll call vote or a showing of hands - to see whether the French proposal meets with the approval of the Commission. We did not reach agreement on this matter in the Contact Group because evidently in the contact group we had to have a consensus and we have to take into account views which have been expressed in this Commission. Those views have been expressed and we know that the majority is in support of the French proposal therefore we believe a decision can now be taken.
CHAIRMAN: Antigua and Barbuda - not here.
Bernard LEDUN (France): Après l'éloquence dont a fait montre mon collègue philippin, il ne me reste plus grand chose à dire. Je voudrais tout de même faire quelques remarques sur un certain nombre de critiques qui ont été adressées au projet français et qui pourront permettre sans doute, à l'usage de certaines délégations, de redresser certaines erreurs d'interprétation qui auraient pu éventuellement se glisser dans les discours qui ont été prononcés hier.
Je ne vais pas répondre nommément, bien entendu, à chacune de ces critiques ou à chacune des délégations qui les a exprimées; je vais simplement les ramasser en bloc pour en parler les unes après les autres.
D'une part, une opposition a été faite entre le projet de résolution français et le projet de résolution norvégien sur les aspects internes et externes des experts qui seraient commis par l'Organisation. Je pense qu'en ce qui concerne le projet que nous avons soumis, il est bien clair que les experts seront effectivement des experts externes. Je ne vois pas comment on pourrait les désigner sous le label d'experts internes dans la mesure où, tout comme d'ailleurs les experts désignés par les pays membres de l'Organisation, ces experts seront choisis à l'extérieur; ils ne seront pas statutairement liés à l'Organisation. Il s'agira donc, dans tous les cas, de compétences qui viendront se greffer sur l'Organisation, mais se greffer à partir de l'extérieur.
Un deuxième reproche qui a été fait à notre projet de résolution concerne l'esprit d'indépendance de ces experts, qui a été mis en doute par certains, sous le prétexte qu'ils émaneraient des comités techniques de la FAO et qu'à ce titre ils auraient partie liée avec le fonctionnement de cette Organisation. C'est, à mon avis, une critique qui ne tient pas dans la mesure où les experts qui seront choisis garderont leur label d'experts choisis individuellement, choisis pour leur compétence.
On a cité, hier, le nom de M. Swaminathan, aujourd'hui, celui du Professeur Bornmer. Si ces experts, dont la compétence, dont le sérieux ne font aucun doute et dont la renommée est internationale, étaient choisis par les pays membres de l'Organisation, selon la procédure préconisée dans le projet de résolution norvégien et s'ils étaient choisis également selon notre projet, ils seraient
dans les deux cas indépendants. Je ne vois pas pourquoi M. Swaminathan, s'il était choisi par les comités techniques, serait moins indépendant que s'il l'était par les pays membres de l'Organisation. Cette logique m'échappe.
Par ailleurs, nous avons également reproché à nos experts d'être trop techniques. Le projet de résolution que nous avons soumis à votre attention est clair. Il indique: "choisis en fonction do leur compétence dans los domaines de 1 'agriculture, du développement, des finances et de l'administration". Je ne pense pas qu'il s'agisse là d'une énumération qui se perd dans les détails ou la technicité. Il s'agit de grands domaines d'activités de la FAO sur lesquels les experts pourront faire partager un point de vue qui ne concerne pas nécessairement des aspects fouillés ou très précis de l'Organisation. On ne peut pas reprocher à des gens de valeur ou des sages - appelons-les des "sages", si nous voulons - comme, par exemple, M. Swaminathan ou le Professeur Bommer, de se perdre dans des détails, de se perdre dans le labyrinthe du fonctionnement de l'Organisation simplement parce qu'ils passeront en revue les grands modes de fonctionnement de l'Organisation. Et là, je renvoie simplement mes auditeurs au mandat tel qu'il a été défini dans .le document du Groupe de contact.
Par ailleurs - et cela mon collègue philippin l'a bien dit - nous ne confondons pas non plus le processus d'étude avec le processus de prise de décisions. Ces experts seront commis à la révision d'un certain nombre de processus. . Ils pourront proposer un rapport. Ce rapport sera finalement soumis à l'examen du Conseil et de la Conférence, donc des organes de décision et des organes exécutifs de la FAO. Ils ne feront jamais que des propositions qui vaudront ce qu'elles vaudront, qui pourront être appréciées en connaissance de cause par les organes directeurs, c'est-à-dire par tous les pays membres, mais qui n'imposeront en rien un diktat ou une obligation pour les pays membres de cette Organisation.
Par ailleurs, je crois qu'une confusion a également été faite en ce qui concerne le nombre des experts indépendants. Certains pays ont fait remarquer, hier, qu'ils viendraient se surajouter aux membres du Comité technique et que nous nous trouverions en face d'un conglomérat d'une trentaine de personnes. Non, les experts - je l'ai bien précisé - seront choisis par les comités techniques. Cela ne veut pas dire pour autant qu'ils travailleront sans arret, de manière permanente, au sein de ce comité. Cela veut dire que l'étude à laquelle ils se livreront ne sera pas une étude menée conjointement et de façon permanente par tous les membres des deux comités, c'est-à-dire une vingtaine de personnes, plus les six, sept, ou huit experts indépendants. Je pense donc que ce reproche n'est pas fondé et qu'il est tout à fait loisible aux experts de se réunir séparément, de se concerter séparément du Comité technique.
L'honorable délégué de la Colombie a posé une question fort pertinente sur le nombre d'experts qui seraient mandatés ou seraient commis pour les projets de résolution. Quand nous disons un petit nombre d'experts, ce.la veut dire effectivement une certaine limite. L'on peut difficilement concevoir l'idée de convoquer un Comité d'experts de 40 à 50 personnes. Je pense que le chiffre de 7 (sept) qui a été proposé par l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos, n'est pas mauvais en soi. Bien entendu, cela pourra varier à deux ou trois unités en plus ou en moins. Cela n'a pas d'importance. Nous n'avons pas décidé de fermer le débat. Je pense qu'en fait on ne peut pas préjuger de la décision qui appartient au Comité.
Je ne voudrais pas prolonger un débat qui a été largement alimenté. Je voudrais simplement redire que le projet que nous avons présenté et qui est actuellement sur vos bureaux, se présente comme un amendement au paragraphe l.du document .C 87/LIM/27 et au Point 2 du document C 87/LIM/50.
En ce qui concerne ce dernier document qui est le document du Groupe de contact, il serait amené, tel que nous le définissons, à remplir le vide (entre parenthèses ou entre crochets), qui figure au Point 2.dudit document. Il s'agirait d'un complément ou d'une adjonction. Cela signifierait du même coup qu'il s'agit bel et bien d'un amendement. C'est un amendement que je présente à cette Commission et sur lequel j'espère recueillir le consensus le plus large possible.
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): I have had a number of questions addressed to me by the delegate of Belgium, and I will answer those before I continue. The delegate of Belgium asked how the experts were going to be paid and how this review was to be paid for. Of course, that question was thought of and discussed among the Nordic countries before we made our proposal. We found no particular
difficulty on that score. We believe that this is a question that should be considered by the membership of this Organization. By that I mean, if we had proposed one particular solution, it might easily have been misunderstood.
Of course, there are two ways of paying for such a review. One way is within the resources and budget of the Organization, and the other is by voluntary contribution. Both ways are possible. Both ways are not always praticai, but I have had assurances from a great many members of this Organization that if it were so decided, and decided by the official membership, I am sure that a large part - or even the total part if the membership so wished - could be paid for by voluntary contributions here. However, that is a question for the membership as to which method would be the most correct and palatable way of having resources for the study. It is something we would venture to suggest before this particular issue has been discussed and before a decision has been taken upon the substance of the proposal itself.
If you will permit me one short comment on something raised by the distinguished delegate of the Philippines, he stated his belief that the Programme and Finance Committees were not part of the decision-making process here. Well, my belief is that indeed they are, because we look upon this as a process. A decision is not only the final "yes" or "no". In my own country that comes from the King in Council, but it is quite clear that there is a process leading up to that decision.
Not only do we have that general point. We have a few direct points which show that they clearly are decision-making bodies. If one looks in the Basic Text of the Rules, it is stated quite clearly in paragraph 7(d) of Rule XXVII that, "to approve budgetary transfers proposed by the Director-General". It also says, "to determine after consultation with the external auditor, the scope of the audit" - in other words, they approve, they determine, and those are decisions. In the same way, when six months ago in this room we discussed the use of the borrowing authority, the Director-General said he would use it only after consultation with the Programme and Finance Committees. I believe that is part of the decision-making process. It Is quite clear, and I absolutely know that there is no other opinion than that the Programme and Finance Committees are an important part of the process, and those people we elect to those Committees are important members of that process.
That is why I found thè suggestion made yesterday by the delegate of Kenya so very interesting, because I found quite a large strain of concern running through the debate that these two Committees should be involved and I included that in my intervention yesterday on that point. Now, I would like to make it absolutely clear that it was meant to be included as an amendment to my present text, to get that involvement quite clear, but to get it in a way that still keeps the separation between proposals and decisions.
So in paragraph 3 of document C 87/LIM/50, there has to be an addition. After the last sentence of that paragraph it should now read, "and also seek the views of the Programme and Finance Committees". I shall repeat that, "and also seek the views of the Programme and Finance Committees".
This is all I have to say at present, but I may have to request the floor again if other questions come up.
Václav DOBES (Czechoslovakia): I will-be brief. My delegation welcomes the timely initiative by the delegation of France. As a matter of fact, in our opinion the French proposal presents a reasonable compromise between the draft resolution of the Latin American/Caribbean group and the Near East group and that of the Nordic countries. We share the view expressed clearly in this Commission that the French proposal gives us a wise solution at this particular moment in our Conference. In this connection we incline to the opinion of the delegation of the Philippines.
Adel Helmy EL-SARKI (Egypt) (original language Arabic): In the name of God the most gracious and merciful - my delegation, after having listened to the discussion on this subject, would like to express briefly its views in order to give other delegations an opportunity to make their own
statements and air their views. We would like to thank all delegations which have participated in this discussion on reforms.
My delegation feels it is important to compress expenditure, especially concerning travel expenses. We feel that FAO staff should be used much more to carry out the consultative process.
The Finance and Programme Committees are extremely important as the members are elected through the member countries. The candidates for the Programme and Finance Committees should be chosen according to their skills. We would like to welcome the French proposal on this point. The delegate of the Philippines said he agreed with the French proposal, and we would like to support it as it would speed up our work.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): La delegación de Colombia está muy satisfecha por el ambiente que se ha estado creando en esta Sala desde anoche cuando usted, Señor Presidente, ha ordenado nuestros trabajos en forma satisfactoria y eficaz. Además hoy es el día de Thanksgiving Day, la fiesta de Acción de Gracias, que es muy grata al pueblo de su país, Señor Presidente. De manera que esperamos que la discusión de este Tema tan controvertido va a concluirse hoy, de manera generalmente aceptable para todos.
Creemos, que como lo han dicho entre otros el colega de Filipinas y el colega de Checoslovaquia, se tiende a perfilar un consenso en favor de la propuesta de Francia. Yo espero que la propuesta francesa pueda dar satisfacción, si no a toda la Comisión, por lo menos a la mayoría de los Miembros de esta Comisión. Porque a nuestro juicio ha aparecido claro en el curso del debate, que si bien la forma misma de la propuesta nórdica no cuenta con apoyo suficiente, sí cuenta con ese apoyo muy generalizado el espíritu de la propuesta nórdica, que está dirigido a que sea un grupo reducido que se ocupe del examen para introducir algunas posibles mejoras como lo aclaró anoche el colega Iskit, de Turquía.
Anoche expresó algunas consideraciones sobre la propuesta de Francia, que fueron repetidas por otras Delegaciones. Dos aspectos concretos nos preocupaban: dejar abierto el número de miembros del Comité limitado al solo calificativo de reducido, y la forma multitudinaria como se llevaría a cabo ese examen, si a los 21 miembros de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas sumamos los, por lo menos, siete miembros del Grupo más el personal de la Secretaría que normalmente atiende las reuniones de los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas.
Hoy debemos reconocer con satisfacción que el colega de Francia ha hecho una aclaración muy satisfactoria y muy conveniente. No vamos naturalmente a proponer modificaciones al texto de Francia, porque esto podría complicar el debate; pero sí creemos que la adopción de la propuesta francesa podría faci 1 i tarse 'si en el Informe, en la parte del Informe sobre este Tema, constan las aclaraciones de Francia que complementa el texto de esa propuesta. 0 sea, Señor Presidente, proponemos que se adopte la propuesta de Francia y en le Informe se especifique que el numero de miembros del Grupo de Expertos será, aproximadamente de siete. Este es el numero que ha contado con algún apoyo en esta Sala. Si lo pudiéramos especificar en siete, todavía sería mejor.
Y lo que es más importante, creo que esto satisfaría a los nórdicos y a otras Delegaciones. Que ese Grupo podrá reunirse separadamente; es decir, solo los siete Miembros del Grupo y luego, periódicamente, cuando ese Grupo haya logrado un cierto número de recomendaciones, podrá presentar informes y discutir con los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas.
Algo más, todos sabemos que los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas tienen mandatos definidos y, justamente por eso, según las prácticas actuales, solamente se reúnen conjuntamente cuando discuten normalmente el proyecto del Programa de Labores y Presupuesto; de manera que la definición respectiva del mandato de cada uno de esos dos Comités pudiera ser también que no en todas las ocasiones sea aconsejable que los miembros del Grupo se reúnan conjuntamente con los dos Comités. Cuando el Grupo tenga propuestas que hacer sobre el Programa, por ejemplo, podrían reunirse con el Comité del Programa y discutirlas. Cuando tengan cuestiones financieras, reunirse con el Comité de Finanzas y discutirla y, cuando tengan propuestas o recomendaciones más generales que tengan aplicaciones más amplias, podrían reunirse conjuntamente con los Comités del Programa y de Finanzas.
He tratado de entrar en contacto muy rápidamente con mí colega de Francia, y ahora que le ilega mi intervención en su propia lengua, creo que él asiente a esta propuesta. 0 sea, que modifiquemos el texto de Francia que lo adoptemos, pero que en el Informe consten esas aclaraciones de Francia que, repito, facilitarían la adopción por esta Comisión.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would observe that we have had repeated references to the French proposal; and there is a difference between what France is saying and what other countries are saying that France has said. . France stated that it would later move an amendment and others are referring to a proposal. There is a distinct difference.
Ms Josephine KAMSVAG (New Zealand): The New Zealand delegation would simply like to point out that it should be extremely difficult for any delegate to express the full support of Commission IT for the French proposal, when it does not have the support of the South West Pacific constituency.
Anwar Mohamed KHALED (Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of) (original language Arabic): It is my pleasure to take the floor in order to air my views before Commission II on reviewing certain aspects of FAO's activities and to speak of the democratic procedures applied here. To save time, we will not go into the details of certain issues but we feel that these issues have become crystallized in the French proposal. This proposal conciliates between the difference views and provides a positive solution to the problem, especially since it would lead to a consensus. This is a very good compromise text. Through this proposal we could work with the different technical bodies of FAO to review these aspects of the Organization's activities. On this basis, my delegation would like to support the French proposal, as well as document C 87/LIM/50, as drafted by the Contact Group.
Zbigniew KARNICKI (Poland): As the time is running out, I will try to be as brief as possible. My delegation feels that the French proposal is a good compromise and we wish to support it. We are inclined to support the number of experts as has been mentioned, which is about seven. We have to take into consideration their competence and we must have due consideration for balanced distribution. We think this is acceptable and we would also like to support it.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Nous nous sommes déjà prononcés sur cette question, parce que nous pensions au départ qu'il convenait certainement de donner suffisamment de temps à nous tous pour réfléchir sur la question du mécanisme.
Je crois que l'évolution du débat a montré que les membres de cette Commission voulaient en finir avec ce problème. Nous étions dès lors dans l'obligation de nous prononcer.
Nous devons dire que si nous nous sommes prononcés en faveur de la proposition française, nous ne pensons pas que cette solution soit idéale, mais nous pensons qu'il s'agit là d'un moindre mal. Donc si nous devions nous prononcer au cours de cette Conférence, nous devrions choisir cette solution, parce qu'elle pose moins de problèmes que la solution nordique.
Nous voudrions néanmoins rendre hommage à l'effort de réflexion des pays nordiques, qui ont fait une proposition réfléchie, mais nous pensons qu'il s'agit là d'un extrême, et par conséquent, vu l'évolution des discussions, il nous fallait choisir une solution de compromis.
Comme je l'ai dit hier, nous mêmes avions une proposition que nous avons débattu avec nos collègues au sein du groupe de contact. Mais après mûre réflexion, nous avons pensé qu'il était mieux d'accepter un compromis si nous tenions à trancher sur cette question. A l'origine nous pensions qu'il fallait peut être poursuivre la réflexion sur ce problème de mécanisme, parce que nous ne sommes pas très favorables au vote sur un tel problème. Nous pensons que le vote n'arrange pas toujours les choses dans ce genre de questions, et notre objectif est d'arriver à un consensus sur ce mecanismo, car les problèmes que nous allons lui confier sont des problèmes importants pour l'avenir de notre Organisation.
Je crois que, comme par le passé les réformes au sein de notre Organisation se sont toujours opérées à l'issue d'un consensus et nous espérons que ce consensus puisse être atteint aujourd'hui, ou peut-être plus tard, sur ce problème important afin que les conclusions et recommandations qui sortirent de ce mécanisme puissent être discutées par les Etats Membres. C'est de cette façon, et de cette façon seulement, que nous pourrons recueillir les bienfaits d'un tel exercice.
Nous voudrions nous résumer en disant que nous étions partisans d'une réflexion approfondie sur la question, et qu'il convenait peut-être, dans toute la mesure possible de réunir un consensus sur sur ce problème. Mais si la Conférence en décidait autrement, nous nous sommes déjà prononcés hier en faveur de la proposition française. Nous pensons que les éclaircissements que la délégation française vient de donner ce matin pour compléter son exposé d'hier nous paraissent utiles, et peuvent nous permettre de sortir, non pas de l'impasse, mais des difficultés que certaines délégations ont pu connaître hier après l'exposé de la France.
Voilà ce que nous tenions à dire sur cette question et nous espérons qu'un consensus pourra sortir de nos travaux.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ambassador Tchicaya. I am sure I speak for all members of the body when 1 express to you our appreciation for your staying up to 4 a.m. this morning to chair the Drafting Committee, and not only you but the members who participated.
Sra. Mercedes FERMIN-GOMEZ (Venezuela): Vamos a ser.muy breves para contribuir a que éste debate no se prolongue demasiado, y vamos a comenzar por expresar que, aún cuando todavía tenemos reservas con relación a la necesidad de crear un grupo de expertos de alto nivel que siga el análisis que se ha hecho aquí, será una carga más para la ya bastante cargada economía de la Organización, puesto que a estos expertos va a haber que pagarles con cargo a los recursos de la Organización, o en todo caso, habrá que hacer contribuciones voluntarias que podrían hacerse para sacar a la FAO del atolladero en que está metida ahora económicamente.
Repito que, a pesar de todo eso, nosotros, reflexionando sobre la situación que se ha presentado, y .habiendo escuchado las intervenciones de Francia, Colombia, y actualmente de Congo, nos inclinamos por dar nuestro apoyo a la propuesta que ha hecho la delegación de Francia, considerando que será una salida más inteligente y muy auspiciosa para la Organización. Nos ahorramos los argumentos porque han sido expresados muy claramente por algunos de los oradores que me han precedido en el uso de la palabra para apoyar esta propuesta. Por consiguiente, Sr. Presidente, dejando expresado nuestro apoyo a esta proposición, le agradecemos la palabra.
Ms Anna Liisa KORHONEN (Finland): My delegation has not taken the floor before this moment because we are co-sponsors of the Nordic text, but I think that at this point it might be useful for us to get clarification into our debate just along the lines you yourself said, Mr Chairman, namely that we should know what is the French proposal. So far we have understood that what the French delegation has said is that they have an amendment to our text. The text which was read yesterday, I am not quite sure in what place that would be. That was last night. Also this morning I understand that our colleague from France has said that it should be in the beginning of paragraph 2 of C 87/LIM/50, but if the text that they dictated yesterday should be placed here I am a little bit confused how the sentence of the paragraph should read. Therefore, in order to be quite clear what is the status of the French proposal, I would seek your clarification on that.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Finland. Your point of clarification is well taken. The Chair observed that there was a distinct difference between what France was saying and what countries were saying that France was saying, that France last evening and this morning has made reference to an amendment, others have made reference to a proposal. The Chair simply observed that they are distinctly different. It would not be in order at this time to go into details of where to place their
amendment. That will come at the time they move their amendment. France at that time will be able clearly to state where they move their amendment and what it says. But it would add to the confusion if at this point we went into details of that. At the appropriate time an amendment will be in order, but we are not now even on the basic resolution.
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Creemos que podemos seguir satisfechos por la tranquilidad que hemos obtenido ya en la discusión al final de la Conferencia, lastimosamente, pero estamos en posición ya de seguir adelante bien.
Sr. Presidente, específicamente, porque se han dado muchas explicaciones, muchas informaciones muy útiles para la comprensión y para poder tener un juicio a la hora de buscar el consenso; queremos decir que específicamente, como mecanismo, para examinar o revisar las actividades de FAO, puesto que todavía no hemos aprobado el alcance porque seguimos considerando que no hay condiciones ni se han aprobado para unas reformas, sino como mecanismo para examinar estas actividades, apoyamos la enmienda francesa a la proposición noruega. Consideramos que esta enmienda equilibra esta proposición, le da el equilibrio necesario entre los dos polos de discusión, cuestión que puede facilitar a todos un consenso, y le auguramos a usted que pueda lograr ese consenso esta tarde.
CHAIRMAN: We are in this afternoon already. It is nearly 12.30 and we are going to be ceasing in three and a half hours. The Chair observes that we have a considerable list of speakers remaining and a number of countries who spoke last evening and who this morning wish to go into a second round. The Chair would observe that if we give countries who have spoken already today a second round opportunity we must extend that to everyone, which would create serious time difficulties.
We are coming to a point at which it would perhaps be best to deal with the decision-making, and if we are going to talk about a resolution and the amendments there to deal with them orderly and talk about them while they are under way in the process of decision-making as opposed to what we are going to do later on. We may spend a lot of time talking about what we are going to do later and come to later and find that the time has elapsed.
Arrow Solomon OBÜRU (Kenya): We appreciate the spirit of compromise that seems to be prevailing in the course of the discussions. Now we would wish, taking note of this spirit, to request a recess of about ten minutes to allow for some consultations which may facilitate this compromise on some of the areas of amendment of taking note of both the French and the Norwegian resolutions.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would observe that under the Rules the Chairman has the prerogative to call such recesses. We view your suggestion as a constructive suggestion in the orderly process, so long as there is a clear understanding that time would be limited.
We would also ask for member countries who can, to forgo speaking, perhaps bearing in mind that there would be plenty of time to speak on the resolution and any amendments thereto and perhaps it would be a good idea to call a quick recess, have some private consultations and discussions, come back here, make a closure motion, suspend further discussion, get on to the business of the resolution and amendments thereto and try to reach conclusions. We will have a recess for 15 minutes.
The meeting was suspended from 12.30 to 14.45 hours
La séance est suspendue de 12 h 30 à 14 h 45
Se suspende la sesión de las 12.30 horas a las 14.45 .horas
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): I should like to inform you and the whole of the Commission that the Group of 77 wishes to meet for 45 minutes maximum in the Malaysia Room. I should like to request you to defer the meeting until 3.30 so that this Group can meet.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair hereby declares a recess until 3.30. The Group of 77 has been requested to go to the Malaysia Room for a brief discussion. The Chair will be here at 3.30 to commence proceedings. We have a 4 o'clock deadline that we are working against, so please be here at 3.30.
The meeting was suspended from 14.45 hours to 15.55 hours
La séance est suspendue de 14 h 45 à 15 h 55
Se suspende la sesión de las 14.45 horas a las 15.55 horas
CHAIRMAN: The Chair announced earlier today that we would adjourn at 4.00 p.m. It is now two to four o'clock. We have some time left. We would suggest that in the interests of the best use of the remaining time it would be prudent to suspend further talk and move to the business of trying to arrive at conclusions. Unless there is any objection, the Chair would suggest that we would suspend further discussion and move to voting on the issues before us. The Chair sees no objection. We now have to deal with the resolution introduced by Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries.
Harald HØSTMARK(Norway): I believe we have explained that we have tried to give the meeting the full thinking behind the resolution. I do not think this is the time to repeat all the arguments. 1 would merely recommend our resolution to the Commission.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to establish some clarification for the benefit of members. We ruled yesterday that you were incorporating the recommendations of the Contact Group: is that correct?
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): That is absolutely correct, depending on consensus.
Bernard LEDUN (France): La delegation française souhaite rappeler qu'elle a proposé un amendement qu'elle confirme de façon formelle maintenant. Cet amendement au texte du groupe nordique remplacerait le paragraphe 1 du document C 87/LIM/27.
J'ai lu, hier après-midi, le texte de la proposition d'amendement que nous avions faite. Je suis prêt, bien entendu, pour clarifier le débat, à le relire à nouveau.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair feels that it would be appropriate to clarify matters for everyone if you would please do precisely that, so that we can understand your amendment fully.
Bernard LEDUN (France): L'amendement est le suivant. En lieu et place du paragraphe 1 du document C 87/LIM/27, nous lirions les mots suivants:
"Décide: aux fins de l'examen mentionné au paragraphe 2 ci-dessous, le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier, travaillant conjointement, seront assistées d'un petit nombre d'experts. Ils seront choisis en fonction de leurs compétences dans les domaines de l'agriculture, du développement, des finances ou de l'administration, par le Comité du Programme et le Comité financier en consultation avec le Directeur Général, en tenant compte d'une répartition géographique equi librée."
Je propose que nous passions maintenant à un vote sur l'adoption de cet amendement.
CHAIRMAN: You may, but other delegations have sought the floor.
Arrow Solomon OBURU (Kenya): It is my wish to propose an amendment to the amendment, an amendment to the French proposal. If you agree, Mr Chairman, I shall go ahead and propose what I have.
CHAIRMAN: You are perfectly in order. Please proceed to explain to your amendment to the amendment.
Arrow Solomon OBURU (Kenya): As a resumé, we propose this, influenced purely by the interests to compromise. We appreciate and have noted the discussions that have gone on here. We realize a deadlock, a deadlock which if allowed to sustain itself is not solving the interests of the member countries, nor of the Organization. We realize that the best solution to a deadlock is a compromise. A compromise means give and take and it is in this spirit of give and take that Kenya wishes to propose, because what we have tried to put here is a bridge which would belong neither to the French proposal nor to the Nordic, like bridges that link countries or various parts of a country. We hope that in this spirit our proposal will be accepted. I shall now read what we propose, and if accepted it will replace paragraph 1 of the French proposal. This is what it is:
"A group of experts consisting of seven members shall be selected by the Independent Chairman of the Council in consultation with the regional groups, taking into account their competence in the fields of agriculture, finance, development or administration. Before beginning its work the group shall elect a Chairman from among themselves. In their work they shall consult and seek the views of the Programme and Finance Committees."
CHAIRMAN: We now have a resolution, an amendment and an amendment to the amendment. We shall now proceed with the discussion on the amendment to the amendment.
Costa Rica on a Point of Order?
The Chair will state this and will not repeat it. We have repeatedly had points of order that were not points of order. As you proceed to state your point of order, if it is not a point of order I will cease to recognize you and proceed to the issue at hand. We will waste no more time on mislabelling. State your point of order.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): El mío es un Punto de Orden; un clásico Punto de Orden. El texto que acaba de leer la Delegación de Kenya no es una enmienda a la enmienda de Francia. Es una enmienda alternativa. El texto que ha sido leído en estos momentos, está mucho más cerca de la propuesta de los Paíese Nórdicos de lo que está la enmienda de Francia.
Por lo tanto, yo creo que la Delegación de Kenya tiene derecho de que su enmienda sea votada después y no antes de la propuesta francesa.
Por si acaso Ud. no interpretara la cosa como lo digo, yo me permito de sugerir, yo de antemano pido una votación de la Comisión sobre si la propuesta de Kenya es una enmienda o una enmienda a la enmienda. De acuerdo con mi interpretación, es una enmienda separada mucho más cercana a la proposición inicial, y por lo tanto tiene que ser votada después.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair rules that there has been a resolution introduced, but notwithstanding your opinion that there has been an amendment to that advanced and Kenya has advanced an amendment to that, under parliamentary procedure, under the Rules of this Organization an amendment to an amendment must be voted on first. Kenya's amendment is perfectly in order. France's amendment clarifies your wishes to move the Norwegian resolution in a certain direction, Kenya's further refines it. Kenya is perfectly in order and under the Rules of this body and under standard procedure in any organized body they have the floor. The motion has been moved, the discussion is on Kenya's motion. Does anyone wish to speak to Kenya's amendment? Colombia, state your point of order.
Conzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Yo quiero pedirle al Consejero Legal que lea la primera frase del párrafo 26 del artículo XII del Reglamento General de la Organizacion;y que el Consejero Legal diga si usted tiene razón o la tiene Costa Rica, porque pienso que la enmienda de Francia debe votarse primero.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would caution that the French amendment is open to another possible interpretation under the Rules of being considered as a separate proposal. We tried to take a flexible approach to avoid that and if we do make a ruling in that direction in which we are headed and that division will be an up or down vote on the Nordic resolution followed by an up or down vote on the French proposal.
CHAIRMAN: We will have a roll call vote; a roll call vote has been requested by the United Kingdom. We will have a roll call vote on whether or not to rule Kenya out of order.
Ton A. M. OOMEN (Netherlands): Do you allow me a point of clarification?
CHAIRMAN: Yes.
Ton A.J.M. OOMEN (Netherlands): I got the impression that the meeting is not completely aware of what the proposal of Kenya tried to say. As a matter of fact our Kenyan colleague stated a sentence starting with "a group of experts" but that will replace, in my reconciliation, after the text put forward by the delegation fo France that reads "decides that for the purpose oí the review mentioned in para. 2" and then it starts with "a group of experts consisting". That is what i understood and perhaps you can ask the Kenyan delegate if he tried to intend it.
CHAIRMAN: Kenya? It would help to have clarification, can you so indicate?
Arrow Solomon OBURU (Kenya): In fact I had a copy of the French text with me adding after "decides that", that was the French one and then you add "a group of experts", "decides that a group of experts".
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would observe that the French amendment makes reference to a small.group, the Kenyan amendment further amends that to define that as seven and the Kenyan resoultion or motion, the amendment to the amendment, is clearly an appropriate amendment to the amendment, that we have used the word "small" and we have a further refining of that in the Kenyan proposal. It is perfectly in order, it is perfectly appropriate.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I heard the proposal quite clearly. It was very precisely an amendment to a proposal made by France which itself was an amendment to the Nordic text and it seems to me under the appropriate rules there cannot be any question of paragraph 26 applying. We are not talking about two rival amendments to the same proposal. We are talking about an amendment to an amendment, which then will be taken in relation to the proposal. Consequently I would respectfully submit that we are right to continue the discussion and if nobody else wishes to speak to vote on the Kenyan amendment. If it can be accepted by the delegation of France, of course, perhaps that would make it easier.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair-must draw your attention to paragraph 26 of Rule XII. Under the rules "when an amendment to a proposal is moved the amendment shall be voted on first". You will not get attention simply by being loud and out of order. "When an amendment to a proposal is moved the amendment shall be voted on first. When two or more amendments to a proposal are moved Conference and Council shall first vote on the amendment deemed by the Chairman to be furthest removed in substance from the original proposal and then on the amendment next removed therefrom", and so on until all the amendments have been put to a vote. "Where, however, the adoption of one amendment necessarily implies the rejection of another the latter shall not be put to the vote. If one or more amendments are adopted the amendment proposed shall then be voted upon."
Kenya, under every legislative body that ever observed, your motion is perfectly in order.
Bernard LEDUN (France): Je constate qu'il me faut agiter ma pancarte avant d'être enfin vu. Je regrette de différer sur l'interprétation donnée à la proposition kenyenne. La proposition kenyenne, a mon avis, est un amendement au texte norvégien, et non pas un amendement à l'amendement français. Dans ces conditions, je demande une consultation du Conseiller juridique qui nous permettra de trancher ce débat.
CHAIRMAN: I am sorry but that is a misstatement of fact; the Legal Counsel renders opinion, the body decides. You may not like facts but they still remain facts.
Sra. Monica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Gracias, Sr. Presidente. La Delegación argentina entiende que las interpretaciones dadas por la Delegación de Costa Rica y la Delegación de Francia acerca de la enmienda que acaba de presentar la Delegación de Kenya son correctas. La Delegación de Costa Rica pidió que fuera el Cuerpo, es decir, este Comité, el que votara acerca de esta interpretación. Si el Sr. Presidente no quiere que escuchemos la opinión del Asesor Legal, que parece ser muy necesaria en este momento, mi Delegación pediría que se hiciera lugar a la moción de Costa Rica. Gracias, señor.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair has asked the Secretary who handed me the list of persons who have stated a point of order in the order as she sees them and we will try to proceed with them but on a point of correction, Argentina, the Chair does not say that we shouldnot hear the Legal Counsel, the Chair corrected a misstatement pointing out that the Legal Counsel does not decide, the Legal Counsel recommends, the body decides. Those are the facts. Madagascar, you had a point of order. Did you? I do not want to ask you to invent one if you did not but if you do please state it.
Apolinaire ANDRIATSIAFAJATO (Madagascar): Est-ce-que vous me donnez la parole? Je la prends. C'est pour dire simplement...
CHAIRMAN: I said this earlier, if you have a point of order state your point of order, if you do not you will not be recognised. If you have a point of order state your point of order.
Apolinaire ANDRIATSIAFAJATO (Madagascar): C'est une motion d'ordre. Je veux simplement appuyer la proposition française de consulter le Conseiller juridique...
CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. Costa Rica, you have a point of order? State your point of order.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Si, Señor Presidente, he formulado una solicitud de votación en la Asamblea después...
CHAIRMAN: That is not a Point of Order. United States? You have a Point of Order?
Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): I do not have a Point of Order.
CHAIRMAN: Congo? You have a Point of Order? State your Point of Order.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): C'est une motion d'ordre, Monsieur le Président. Il y.a longtemps que je la demande, elle vient très tard. Ma motion d'ordre est celle-ci: j'ai écouté avec intérêt le débat sur les amendements. Mon problème est de savoir avant tout si cette Commission est pour que nous puissions passer au vote réellement. Je pense, pour ma part, que nous avons fait quelques progrès sur ce sujet et que passer au vote ne me semble pas la meilleure solution pour aborder cette question. Je crois fermement que nous devrions pouvoir permettre à notre Organisation de faire en sorte que nous puissions continuer le dialogue. Je ne pense pas qu'en mettant au vote tel ou tel amendement, telle ou telle résolution, nous réglerons le problème. C'est pour cette raison qu'avant de passer au vote je voudrais qu'il y ait un vote qui détermine oui ou non si nous sommes prêts à voter sur ces résolutions.
CHAIRMAN: I'm afraid the train has left the station.
The Chair has ruled Kenya's amendment is the amendment furthest removed; that has been disputed. Under the rules of the Organization it is in order to have à vote, the Chair has ruled that Kenya's motion is furthest removed.
Ther'e has been a rejection of that in the motion put forth by Costa Rica and concurred in by Argentina, concurred in by one or two others. It is in order to have a vote on that. Those who feel that Kenya's motion is in order as an amendment to the amendment, that is furthest removed, should vote yes to sustain the ruling. Those who feel otherwise should vote no.
United States you have a Point of Order?
Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): Mr Chairman, before we proceed to a vote, I would like to call for a roll-call vote.
CHAIRMAN: We are in a roll-call vote right now. We will proceed with the vote.
The Chair is having a vote as requested by Costa Rica and as supported- by some other Member Countries. That is what the rules provide; they must be followed. Let me state that in less parliamentary terms.
The Chair has given a ruling that under what the Chair read earlier as the Rules that are the Rules adopted by this body, Kenya's motion is the motion furthest removed, that is to say, it was properly an amendment to an amendment. That decision has been appealed to in a point of order by Costa Rica. That point of order has been concurred in. That was essentially the same point of order made by other Member Countries. Under the Rules of this Organization the point of order of Costa Rica is in order and we can have a vote on that. Under the motion by the United Kingdom
that vote must be under the Rules a roll-call vote.
Those who sustain the view of the Chair that Kenya's motion amendment is in fact the amendment furthest removed should vote yes. Those who feel otherwise should vote no.
It will be a roll-call vote.
VOTE
VOTE
VOTACION
CHAIRMAN: The body has decided that Kenya's proposal is not the furthest removed.
The Chair now advises the body that it has a request from Norway on a ruling that the French amendment implies rejection of the Norwegian proposal. The Chair rules in favour of Norway, that is, that Norway's motion would be voted on as one proposal, the French as another. If anyone wishes to appeal? The Chair has recognized India on a point of order.
Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): 1 thought the whole purpose of the meeting of the Contact Group was to establish whether or not the Nordic -
CHAIRMAN: We are holding a discussion. If you have a point of order say so. If you do not have a point of order, we will proceed with those who do.
Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): 1 feel the decision with the Nordic position is not correct.
CHAIRMAN: That is a valid point of order. We have heard your point of order and we must recognize others. It will be considered.
Sra. MÓnica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): El punto de orden de la degación Argentina está dirigido a saber cuándo y cómo ha hecho Noruega esta apreciación; nosotros no escuchamos en la sala que Noruega dijera esto y no sabemos a qué se debe su gula.
(ante la intervención del Chairman se producen protestas)
CHAIRMAN: Do you wish to confirm that Norway? Do not nod your head; please say yes.
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): Yes.
CHAIRMAN: You could not see him nod his head. He said yes.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Acabamos de votar sobre cuál de las dos enmiendas se alejaba más de la propuesta, (le interrumpe el Sr. Presidente)
CHAIRMAN: State the point of order and the Chair will proceed. Telling us what occurred recently is not a point of order.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): ¡Es una moción de orden! ¡Acabamos de votar sobre cuál de las dos enmiendas se alejaba más de la propuesta de los países nórdicos y usted ya reconoció personalmente, poniéndolo a votación, que había dos enmiendas y a estas alturas usted se permite retirar todo lo que hemos hecho hasta ahora! ¡Es una exageración lo que está pasando!
CHAIRMAN: That is not true. That is not a point of order. Costa Rica, please, please spend some time in reading and understanding what a point of order is. You have yet to state a point of order; rarely have you stated one. If you think the.Chair can save some time, there is a motion by India to deal with and obviously it has to be concurred with. Do you wish to repeat that? We can take up time repeating it, but the Chair understands that India's point of order is agreed to by Argentina and we can follow the procedure. What you are doing is to agree with India, but if you wish to have more time to state another point of order, take the time to do it. It does not bother the Chair, but we insist that a point of order is a point of order. Algeria, do you have a point of order to state?
Mile Faouzia BOUMAIZA (Algérie): Monsieur le Président comme le veut le Règlement je viens simplement appuyer la motion d'ordre de l'Inde.
CHAIRMAN: That is valid. You are perfectly in order.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr. Presidente, la delegación de Colombia impugna su decisión "y por lo tanto corresponde a la Comisión decidir. Usted se divierte sometiéndonos a votaciones continuas; está convirtiendo esta sala en un rodeo de Texas para cow boys (rumores)
CHAIRMAN: Texas cowboys are free to vote; they are free people; they live in a democratic society and vote. You do, too. I thought, the Chair had made it clear that we are totally unini luenced by loud noise.
Sra. Mercedes FERMIN GOMEZ (Venezuela): Sí, Sr. Presidente. Mi punto de orden se refiere a una decisión tomada por Noruega. Cuando un proponente pone en una Asamblea cualquiera, y ésta es una Asamblea muy importante, una proposición, sea ésta una resolución, sea una enmienda o sea una propuesta suelta, ella la entrega a la asamblea y ya no tiene derecho a calificarla, de manera que Noruega no tiene derecho a decir que la enmienda de Francia es así o de otra forma y que quiere que le modifique su proposición. Está en poder de la Asamblea y solamente la Asamblea puede decidir, o el Presidente cuando está asistido por un reglamento y por un Asesor Legal; la decisión de que Noruega retira su propuesta porque ya no quiere que Francia haga esto o .lo otro, está absolutamente fuera de orden. Est es mi punto de orden; no podemos estar considerando que Noruega decida, porque no tiene poder de decisión ante una propuesta que ya ella entregó a esta Asamblea y que está en manos de la Asamblea; es jurídicamente cierto por la decisión parlamentaria.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. You happen to be wrong. I observe that essentially you are making the same point of order that India made succinctly at the beginning. If you wish to make an echo, fine; you may do so, but it will consume a period of time unnecessarily. The Chair will rule that India's point of order is perfectly in order and under the rules will have to be decided on by the body. If you wish, the Chair will be willing to let the body decide on that now.
E. Patrick ALLEYNE (Trinidad and Tobago): We wish to support India's position on which you have ruled, Mr Chairman. Also, we would like to be advised as to the basis on which you have ruled that the French proposal automatically rejects the Norwegian proposal?
CHAIRMAN: I did not say automatically"; I said "implies a rejection". It is in the rules. Norway, you said you had a point of order.
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): I asked for the floor because there has been an obvious misunderstanding of my position and I want to make perfectly clear what my position is. I did not specify a point of order, but it is a point of clarification. I make that perfectly clear. The penultimate speaker believed I asked for a withdrawal of the French motion. That is not so at all. I feel that the French proposal negates completely in essence, in spirit and in substance the motion I have put.
Accordingly 1 have respectfully requested the Chair to put my motion to the vote before the other motion, which is a totally different one. I repeat I have not asked, nor do I feel I have the right to ask, the French to withdraw their motion. That is not at all implied in my request.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair feels that you have been absolutely clear all along. India has put a point of order. We are not going to plough the same ground. A motion has been made by the United Kingdom for a Roil Call vote.
Akbar Mirza KHALEELI (India): The fact that the Norwegian proposal is the only one is not correct. There was a Mexican draft and because there was a Mexican draft and a Norwegian draft we had a Contact Group. Therefore it was our understanding with the Contact Group that where we agreed with the Norwegian position it would be put, and the French one would be put as the amendment to it. That was our understanding at that time; but 1 will not make an issue of this and delay the meeting any further.
CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order, but the point of discussion here is the Norwegian proposal. We have not yet reached the Mexican proposal, although perhaps we can do so. We are now in a vote. A vote Yes is a vote to have an up-or-down vote for the Norwegian resolution. A vote No is to have first a vote on the French and then on the Norwegian. Is that clear? So we are taking a vote. A vote Yes is to sustain the ruling, the result of which would be to have a separation: an up-or-down vote on the Norwegian proposal, and you could have a subsequent vote on France. A vote No would be to have a vote first on the French amendment and then a vote on the Norwegian motion. It is very clear, commence the vote.
Vote
Vote
Votación
CHAIRMAN: We shall now proceed to a vote on the French amendment. All the ground has been pretty well covered. We have some votes. We have clearly a pattern here. A vote is in order on the French amendment to the resolution by Norway on behalf of the Nordic countries. Whether that amendment passes or does not pass there will then be a vote on the original proposal. The Chair would highly recommend that with all the hours that have gone into it, and with Plenary hoping to meet in another hour, it is likely that everything that has any bearing has been said, and we should proceed to an orderly vote on the amendment, followed by a vote on the resolution. It is easy to do, United Kingdom, you have the floor for a point of order.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I formally request a roll call vote on the French amendment.
CHAIRMAN: There will be a roll-call vote. There is only one more after this.
A yes is a vote for the French amendment, a No is a vote against the French amendment. That is to say, in this, as in the previous one, yes means yes, no means no.
Vote
Vote
Votación
CHAIRMAN: Norway has asked to make a brief comment to the body on this reservation. Norway, could you please do so.
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): In explanation of the vote that has just been taken I formally have to state on behalf of the co-sponsor group of this Resolution that is before the House that the co-sponsor group, the Nordic countries, no longer feel that they can be associated with it as it has been amended.
CHAIRMAN: I think some members missed your announcement. If you can please repeat it loudly, some countries missed it.
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): I shall do so, Mr Chairman. As this resolution has now been amended to a certain extent that we feel that it negates the spirit of the intent of the Resolution that we had originally placed before the House we, the Nordic countries, do no longer wish or feel that we can be associated with the Resolution as amended.
Bernard LEDUN (France): Non, ce n'est pas une motion d'ordre mais une simple déclaration que je souhaite faire. En premier lieu, je souhaite remercier tous les pays qui ont bien voulu voter pour la proposition d'amendement que nous avons soumise en Commission II. En second lieu, compte tenu de la décision que vient de faire connaître la Norvège, qu'en passant je remercie pour l'effort de proposition qu'elle a mené, tout au long des derniers mois, et la contribution qu'elle a apportée à l'amélioration de notre organisation. Cela étant, comme la Norvège vient de retirer l'ensemble de son projet de résolution, je suggère qu'en ce qui nous concerne la proposition d'amendement que nous avons faite, et qui a été accueillie à la majorité par cette assemblée, devienne le paragraphe 1 du document du Groupe de contact C 87/LIM/50. En ce qui concerne le préambule de ce document du Groupe de contact, la délégation française...
CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, France, you had the Chair's attention on a point of order and we tried to indulge that. We have limited time left. We have the General Committee asking us to please commence our business in fifteen minutes. We are trying to move expeditiously.
Norway's withdrawal does not kill the motion, the issue before us, it does not kill it but the motion that was made before is the motion that must now be voted on as amended. We shall proceed to a vote on what used to be called the Nordic Resolution as amended by the vote just taken. Philippines, state your point of order.
Horacio GARANDANG (Philippines): The Philippine delegation wishes clarification on what paragraphs of the so-called Nordic proposal are going to be voted right now.
CHAIRMAN: The document that will be voted on is what used to be called the Nordic Resolution, as was introduced earlier by Norway and was subsequently amended by France. There could be no further alteration of that without a subsequent vote or votes on specific different amendments.
For your point of information let the Chair give the body a point of information. The General Committee has communicated with us. We have tried to work against deadlines here. We were going to adjourn at 4.00 o'clock. In a clearly overwhelming view of the body today there was a time when it appeared more prudent to recess and try to work things out. That was attempted and was not successful. There is no problem with that. The Chair has moved back its 4.00 o'clock deadline as a result of that because it would not be fair.
The General Committee, which must set the schedule, postponed its meeting and then met, and it has said that considering the limited time available they have decided that Commission II wind up its meeting at 18 hours, 14 minutes from now. Thursday, 26 November, to permit the Plenary to convene at 18.15 hours, any unfinished work of the Commission to be examined by the Plenary.
The General Committee also decided to fix the adjournment of the Conference at 13 hours on Friday, 27 November. The Chair must try to work in concert and cooperation with the General Committee. We were making a judgement that we were finally proceeding on an orderly vote, but the vote in order would have to be a vote on what used to be the Nordic proposal or amendment, as amended. That is what is before us; we cannot alter that. Snudi Arabia, state your point of order.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): It is not a point of order.
CHAIRMAN: Philippines, state your point of order.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): You did not give us the explanation we were asking for. We are not clear what the Nordic proposal is right now. It has been amended by the French proposal. It has been amended by the Report of the Contact Group, but we don't know whether that includes paragraphs 6 and 7 of the former Nordic proposal. Do I understand that the Report of the Contact Group amended paras. 1-7 of the Nordic proposal?
CHAIRMAN: Norway in stating its resolution clearly stated prior to its introduction that it incorporated the language of the Contact Group. It very clearly stated that it did so.
Norway, please correct the Chair if the Chair is mis-stating your position. The Chair clearly heard you several times yesterday express that as your intent and clearly heard you state yesterday that is what you were doing, and clearly heard you state that today. Please respond.
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): I can confirm that the Chair's impression is correct.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I should like to put a very precise question. Did the report of the Contact Group substitute paras 1-7 of the Nordic proposal, yes or no?
CHAIRMAN: The Philippines has asked a very precise question that ought to be answered. I would ask the Chairman of the Contact Group to please respond specifically to that question. It is a legitimate point of clarification and the body should know exactly what it is voting on. The Chair totally agrees with the representative of the Philippines that the body ought to have an understanding of what it is voting on. I absolutely uphold your point.
John JURECKY (Chairman, Contact Group): I will read to you the text of what I reported yesterday. I said that we continued from para. 2; that is where we actually began our work. We got as far as para. 5, where only limited dicussion was possible due to the exhaustion of our available time. Therefore, the Contact Group agreed that paras. 2 through 4 of C 87/LIM/27 were to be replaced by the language in the document that should now be before you.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair must point out also that Norway in moving its amendment not only stated that it was adopting the recommendations of the Contact Group, it clearly addressed itself to the issues of the parenthesis, brackets, and it added at the end of para 3 after the work "Conference", the phrase "and also seek the views of the Programme and Finance Committees".
Norway, those are the notes that the Chairman took while you were speaking. Is that an accurate statement of what you moved?
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): That is accurate.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I move that the vote on the Nordic proposal exclude paras, 5, 6, and 7, because those paras. have not been agreed upon in the Contact Group and therefore, they should be voted upon separately.
CHAIRMAN: Let the Chair respond to one point of order at a time, please. The Representative of the Philippines has made a motion. We are now on that Resolution. We are now on what used to be called the Nordic resolution. Call it the non-Nordic Resolution. Under the Rules the Representative of the Philippines has moved that we vote separately on certain paragraphs which he enumerated.
Under the Rules parts of a proposal or of an amendment shall be voted on separately if a delegate or representative requests such division, provided that if objection is made the question of division shall be decided by the Conference or the Council. Those are the Rules.
United Kingdom, you have a point of order. State your point of order.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): I think the proposal was in effect to delete paras. 5, 6 and 7 from the Draft Resolution rather than to take everything point by point. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Philippines but I think that was the correct proposal, rather than taking them bit by bit.
CHAIRMAN: The Philippines said that those particular paragraphs should be deleted, in which case on part of the proposal there would be a decision of inclusion or exclusion. That is a decision that the body would have to make.
Philippines, for a point of clarification could you state for the body? You moved to delete paras, 5, 6 and 7. Is that correct?
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): That is correct.
CHAIRMAN: I do not believe that people could hear.
The Chair asked the Philippines for a point of clarification. The Chair believes that it heard the Philippines move to delete paras. 5, 6 and 7 of the non-Nordic Resolution.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I move that paras. 5, 6 and 7, be deleted because we have not reached an agreement on this.
Leo HERTOG (Netherlands): I have a point of clarification. Who is now the sponsor of the non-Nordic Resolution? I guess Norway is no longer the sponsor.
CHAIRMAN: Norway has disassociated itself from that. In Norway's judgment the adoption of that amendment would so alter its proposal as to be counter to it. Norway made that point. The body voted opposite of that. Norway then took the floor to say that it disassociated itself from that as a result of the outcome of that vote. That is very clear.
We are now on what used to be called the Nordic Resolution. It has no name. Let me explain this please, because this could be confusing.
Norway moved to disassociate itself after the amendment was adopted. Under the Rules of this body if there is a disassociation like that after an amendment, Norway's disassociation does not kill the motion that was before the body. Had Norway wished to do that, Norway could have withdrawn its support prior to a vote being taken on the amendment. Norway did not do that.
Norway instead withdrew its support after the amendment was adopted. You still have a proposal. It will appear in the documents as a Resolution adopted by the body. It will not have a name. At this point we are on that Resolution.
The Philippines has asked for clarification and received it, and further made another specific amendment, which is perfectly in order. The motion of the Philippines is to vote to delete from what used to be the Nordic Resolution and what will be Document C 87/LIM/27, paras. 5, 6 and 7 completely. That is perfectly in order, and the Chair would recommend that in the interests of time we proceed to a vote on the motion of the Philippines.
Those who wish to delete paras. 5, 6 and 7 would vote yes. Those who do not wish to delete those paragraphs would vote no. How do you wish to have a vote? Does anyone request a roll-call vote? No one requests a roll-call vote. Let us have a division by hand.
VOTE BY SHOW OF HANDS
VOTE A MAIN LEVEE
VOTACION A MANO ALZADA
CHAIRMAN: Those who support the motion of the Representative of the Philippines to delete paras. 5, 6 and 7 please raise your hand to signal yes. A "yes" will be raising your country sign in support of the motion by the Philippines.
It is obvious that the motion carries, but please for the benefit of the Secretariat would you please leave your signs up so that they can get a ball-park figure. Thank you.
Those countries that oppose the motion of the Philippines and who wish to vote "no" please so indicate by holding your country sign up.
The Chair rules that the motion on the Philippines has prevailed and that the Resolution before us, which used to be the Nordic Resolution, now with the language of France included but with paras. 5, 6 and 7 excluded, fails. Clear? Clear.
Unless there is another amendment we may now proceed to a vote on the Resolution. The Chair would remind you, please, that we are trying to help the General Committee to convene the Plenary.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): We ask for a roll-call vote.
Joseph TCHICAYA (Congo): Je crois que dans la même foulée de la proposition faite par notre ami des Philippines, nous pensons que le groupe de contact n'ayant pas également eu le temps d'étudier le préambule, ce préambule peut être modifié, et je propose formellement que nous prenions le préambule fait par la France.
CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order. That is a motion. I do wish when we ask for points of order, please would you state the point of order because it would facilitate things. If you wish to put forward a motion on that, do so, and we must then vote on your motion. I hear no motion.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Temel ISKIT (Turkey): This is a point of clarification. Am I correct in assuming that since document C 87/LIM/50, the Report of the Contact Group, supercedes paragraphs 2 to 4 of the so-called Nordic Resolution, and since the French amendment which is accepted supercedes paragraph 1 of the
so-called Nordic amendment, we will be voting for the French amendment plus the report of the Contact Group? Am I correct in this understanding?
CHAIRMAN: Partially correct. You are absolutely right insofar as you have gone except that there further is the phrase I read to you before, that Norway incorporated under paragraph 3 - alter "Conference" to add "and also seek the views of the Programme and Finance Committees". That was not in the printed document. It is a minor change and everyone seems to have concurred with it. In addition, the motion of the Philippines has prevailed. So that there is no confusion, it is almost the whole that you are voting on. The vote here will be a vote on the resolution as amended by France and the Philippines. The hour is late; it is two minutes past the time that we promised Plenary we would end. Plenary is convening at a quarter after six and at that time I shall adjourn this meeting. If you wish to spend the rest of time on points of order, so be it. If you wish to have a vote, so be it. Time is running out. Costa Rica state your point of order.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Sí, Sr. Presidente, es para aclarar respecto a la frase "informado el Comité de Finanzas y el Comité de Programas". Esto ha sido superado aceptando la enmienda francesa, porque está en contradicción con el mecanismo aceptado por la enmienda francesa.
CHAIRMAN: You raised a point, Costa Rica, that has validity in it, that because of the two languages in the French proposal there is repetition. It says that the Programme and Finance Committees should be involved and then it goes on to say that the Programme and Finance Committees then would seek the views of the Programme and Finance Committees. That is true. There is nothing mutually exclusive here except that the body who is doing the work would seek its own views. The Chair recommends to Norway that because of this repetition it might be in order to withdraw that particular phrase, if you have no objection, because it is repetition. Costa Rica, Norway has withdrawn the phrase, "and also seek the views of the Programme and Finance Committees" to accomodate your notation which is somewhat repetitious.
Elio PASCARELLI (Italy): Briefly I do not understand whether this preamble, as mentioned by the distinguished delegate of the Congo, the preamble we are voting on, is the one in the former Nordic Resolution, or that of the French document that we have on the project.
CHAIRMAN: The vote is on the preamble as originally prepared by Norway, unless you adopt a substitution.
Sra.Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): Es un punto de aclaración, Sr. Presidente. El LIM/50, que se supone que va a reemplazar los párrafos 2 a 4 del LIM/27, contiene varios corchetes. Yo quisiera saber cuál es el procedimiento que vamos a adoptar con relación a esos corchetes.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair stated earlier that Norway, in accepting the Contact Group's paper, explicitly stated it was accepting them with the language included between the brackets. That is the recollection of the Chair. Was that how you moved that yesterday, Norway?
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): That was how I moved it, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: The vote is in order. How do you wish the vote to be taken? A roll-call vote has been requested by the United Kingdom.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kindom of): I swear I do not understand what we are going to vote on. Can you make it clear please?
CHAIRMAN: What you are going to vote on is what has been explained for the past 15 minutes. You are going to vote.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): No.
CHAIRMAN: The answer to that is not "no"; the answer to that is "yes". We have tried to frame and state this over and over. The delegate of Turkey just a few moments ago stated the issue and he framed it very precisely save for the fact that he did not include the exclusion of the three paragraphs. The Chair told the delegate of Turkey in front of everyone that as he had stated it, it was absolutely right except that it excluded the paragraphs excluded by a vote of this body. We have only a few minutes. People know what we are voting on here. We have been talking about it for two days. A vote "yes" is a vote in favour of the resolution as amended by France and the Philippines. Call the vote.
Carlos DI MOTTOLA BALESTRA (Costa Rica): Mi delegación ha votado este texto que ha tenido un gran apoyo en el entendimiento que en el párrafo 2 los corchetes se quedaban porque se dijo que se habría votado sobre lo que había sido acordado en el Grupo de Contacto y en el Grupo de Contacto se pusieron los corchetes y no hubo ninguna consulta sobre la eventual eliminación de corchetes antes de la votación.
CHAIRMAN: The Secretariat has produced the result of the vote - and incidentally if you voted on that premise you voted wrongly - on the Resolution, which has no name now, which was amended by France and also by the Philippines. Here are the results and I shall read them twice: votes for 79; votes against. 7; abstentions, 15; no reply 54; number of votes cast. 86; majority required, 44. it is adopted
We shall continue for five more minutes. Plenary is about to begin. We will conclude our business and everything else will be referred to Plenary. I would ask you to proceed there. However, out of courtesy to member countries who have asked to be recognized so that they may explain their votes, we will so recognize those countries. We would merely ask you please to be brief.
George Henry MUSGROVE (Canada): This delegation would like to give an explanation of vote. Having voted against the resolution that was before us is somewhat of a dichotomy, because for some three or four years we have sought an independent external review of our Organization and the role it should be playing during the next few years. We have heard the Democrats speak today and in our view they have rejected an independent external view of the Organization. As such, we do not feel that this Resolution answers our basic needs. It is a matter of some interested indifference to us that there is to be such a study. We do not feel that it will respond to the requirements we have for it: nor will it have the independence of view that was sought. We would not wish others not to have the right to that exercise, but we do not feel that the expenditure will be worth the outcome.
While I have the floor, I should like to express our thnks to the Nordic delegation and others who very thoughtfully put forward a resolution initially that sought to achieve compromise from all quarters of the room in an attempt to have it approved. It is our disappointment that they were not successful in so doing.
Sra. Mónica DEREGIBUS (Argentina): La delegación argentina quisiera también explicar su voto en abstención.
La delegación argentina ha debido abstenerse en la votación que antecede por cuanto no cree que el grupo que se está estableciendo deba estudiar la función de la FAO puesto que las funciones de la FAO están establecidas en su Constitución.
Asimismo ha debido abstenerse por cuanto en el párrafo 2.b) se refiere a que dicho grupo debe exa-minar si es necesario introducir cambios en las estructuras internas y los procedimientos de la FAO, y esta formulación tan general no resulta aceptable por no conocer su verdadero alcance.
Ian BUIST (United Kingdom): The Resolution which has just been voted upon by the Commission will be passed to the Plenary, when I am sure it will be submitted to a further vote. My delegation will make a statement of explanation of its vote in the Plenary after the vote has taken place.
Paul Richard BRYDEN (Australia): We were unable to support the Resolution on this important item. In our view, there is a clear consensus that there is a need for a review of FAO. However, while the Resolution which has just been adopted by a majority vote contains many good ideas, we consider that the mechanism established to carry out such a review is in no way adequate to the weighty and difficult task entrusted to it. Democracy, in my country, is not the tyranny of the majority. We regret that our Conference has missed an historic opportunity to reaffirm and revitalize the commitment of us all to the noble mandate and role of FAO at a time when such a reaffirmation has never been more sorely needed.
Finally, I should like to thank the Nordic delegations for putting forward their draft Resolution, which contained so many good and fruitful ideas. I should also like to thank the Contact Group for its genuine efforts to achieve consensus.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would observe that it is difficult sometimes to hear speakers when there is noise in the room. May I ask you please to show courtesy to other delegations.
Sra. Margarita LIZARRAGA SAUCEDO (México): Mi delegación es copartícipe de una resolución presentada a esta Asamblea como el LIM/29 y revisión 1. En espíritu de gran compromiso, nos sentamos a la Mesa países representantes, varias regiones para tratar de buscar fórmula de compromiso en una tarea tan difícil como es ésta, la cual no era deseable para los países en desarrollo porque considerábamos que no estaba aún madura la situación para Ilegar a tal punto; sin embargo, y en aras de buscar consenso nos sentamos y dirimimos prácticamente todos los elementos contenidos en una resolución hecha con mucho cuidado y que representaba los intereses de los países en desarrollo.
Espero que se estime, como nosotros hemos estimado enormemente, el trabajo y la contribución que han hecho los países nórdicos, los colegas de las otras regiones que, sentados en paridad, discutimos ampliamente como lo reportó nuestro Presidente del Comité de Contacto; por tanto, creo que hemos hecho un esfuerzo conjunto, que debe apreciarse la voluntad de todos, que no queríamos Ilegar al voto y que si lo hemos tenido que expresar en esta manera lo hacemos también en el espíritu y con las salvedades que ha hecho la delegación de Argentina.
Antonio GAYOSO (United States of America): In deference to your request for brief statements, I will defer my statement on this issue until I speak in the Plenary tomorrow, or tonight, when the issue is debated there.
Harald HØSTMARK (Norway): This is not an explanation of vote: but permit me two words. I regret that we have not been able to reach a compromise on this resolution, but I wish personally in my own capacity to thank all those members in this Commission from many nations and many regions who have worked hard and willingly and who have tried in a good spirit to find a compromise. I do not think it will offend anybody if 1 especially mention Mexico as one of those which has worked the hardest with me; but I thank them all. That is all 1 would wish to say at this moment.
CHAIRMAN: The Chair would observe that our time has expired. We have some unfinished business and we have other resolutions that have not been reached. They will be dealt with in Plenary. The Chair declares this Commission finished.
The meeting rose at 18.30 hours
La séance est levée à 18 h 30
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.30 horas
