OVERSIGHT OFFICE ACCOUNTABLE TO MEMBER STATES, REPRESENTATIVE OF SYRIA STRESSES IN FIFTH COMMITTEE DEBATE

30 October 1998

Press Release
GA/AB/3254

OVERSIGHT OFFICE ACCOUNTABLE TO MEMBER STATES, REPRESENTATIVE OF SYRIA STRESSES IN FIFTH COMMITTEE DEBATE

19981030 Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Confident That Office Has Not Exceeded Its Authority

The Office of Internal Oversight Services should find ways to make its own work more efficient to serve as example to the rest of the Organization, the representative of Iran told the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) this morning. The Committee was reviewing implementation of resolution 48/218 B, by which the Oversight Office was created.

Despite the independent nature of its work, the Oversight Office was still accountable to Member States, who had the final say in all United Nations work, the representative of Syria said. The Office was not mandated to comment on or interfere in political positions expressed by countries, and must not deviate from its mandated role. Member States were still waiting for the findings of an investigation into the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), he added.

In response to Committee members, the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, Karl Paschke, said he was confident that the Office had not exceeded its authority and that, in instances where Member States had perceived it had, he had discussed and clarified its position. He was aware that the Office's mandate was to provide internal oversight under the Secretary-General's authority.

Responding to comments on the Oversight Office's use of resources, he said that a new office with a new mandate could not predict reliably, when it started work, what resources it would need. He hoped Fifth Committee members would recognize that resources given to the Office would lead to increased efficiency throughout the Organization.

The representative of Canada, also speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, said the function of oversight was to provide managers with assurance that the management framework was sound and functioning. The Office of Internal Oversight Services had been performing that role since its inception. Its report addressed the most important concerns of Member States.

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3254 17th Meeting (AM) 30 October 1998

The representatives of Indonesia (for the "Group of 77" developing countries and China), Egypt, Libya, Algeria and Yemen also spoke.

Under other matters, statements were made by the representatives of Syria, Cuba, Tunisia and Iran.

The Committee will meet again at 3 p.m. on Monday, 2 November, to continue discussing implementation of resolution 48/218 B; the Joint Inspection Unit; and the thematic reports of the Oversight Office. In addition, it is scheduled to consider the United Nations common system and its pension system.

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to continue its discussions of: reports of the Office of Internal Oversight Services -- under the agenda item on review of the Organization's administrative and financial efficiency; and the use of the development dividend -- under the agenda item on the 1998-1999 programme budget. The Committee was also expected to continue its consideration of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU), as well as of the Oversight Office -- under the agenda item on review of General Assembly resolution 48/218 B, by which that body was established.

(For background on reports of the Office of Internal Oversight Services and the Joint Inspection Unit see Press Release GA/AB/3253 of 29 October; on the development dividend and on the review of the Oversight Office, see Press Release GA/AB/3252 of 29 October.)

Statements on Implementation of Assembly Resolution 48/218 B

CECEP HERAWAN (Indonesia), speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said the Group attached great importance to the item. It believed it was high time to review the Office of Internal Oversight Services. The new experience of establishing the Office needed to be examined to ensure it carried out its role to the satisfaction of Member States. It should operate within the rules of the Organization and under the responsibility of the Secretary-General, as the General Assembly had established the Office under his authority.

It was the responsibility of the Secretary-General to ensure that the Oversight Office report did not recommend things which were not in accord with mandates from legislative bodies, he said. Its role was to comment on waste, fraud, mismanagement and abuse within the Secretariat. It was strictly confined to internal management. Mandated programmes and activities could only be modified by legislative bodies.

Resources for the Oversight Office had been steadily increasing despite the financial problems of the Organization, he said. The Office should set an example to other departments by using reduced resources and enhancing output. The Office should also be geographically balanced in its staff. The Group would like information about the number of Oversight Offices reports submitted to the General Assembly since 1994 and how many were yet to be considered by the Assembly.

JOHN ORR (Canada), also speaking on behalf of Australia and New Zealand, said that internal oversight, an integral part of the United Nations since its foundation, had been consolidated by the establishment of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, thereby enhancing the investigation mandate and

Fifth Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/AB/3254 17th Meeting (AM) 30 October 1998

following an emerging trend by reporting annually to the General Assembly. A strong oversight function was a necessary management tool, but it was ultimately management's responsibility to ensure programmes and activities were well-managed. The function of oversight was to provide managers with assurance that the management framework was sound and functioning. The Oversight Office had been performing that role since its inception and Canada, Australia and New Zealand continued to fully support it.

It was management's role to prepare programme performance reports. Therefore, the Secretary-General's biennial report on the programme performance of the United Nations, prepared by the Office, might be more effectively prepared elsewhere. The Office could review the report for the General Assembly and provide input on the development of performance measures -- an area where the United Nations lacked experience. The most significant element of resolution 48/218 B was the annual Oversight Office report to the General Assembly -- a new feature within the Organization. He was pleased that the Oversight Office reports were clear and concise, and they were a valuable contribution to the work of the Fifth Committee.

The Investigations Section was a new function established under resolution 48/218 B, he said. Prior to its establishment, the Secretary- General had had few tools to gather evidence on criminal, illegal or improper conduct of United Nations staff and suppliers. It had fulfilled a need in the United Nations system. The section had undergone growing pains and it would be timely to update guidance for investigations, notably on procedures for guaranteeing basic rights of people under investigation, on respect for the presumption of innocence and on the right to engage legal counsel at any stage in an investigation.

He said updated guidelines would strengthen the role of the Office, and thereby foster an open and honest management culture. The Oversight Office had a responsibility to ensure its reports presented issues relevant to Member States. Given its volume of work, he was grateful for its effective summary of the most important concerns of Member States.

TAMMAM SULAIMAN (Syria) said it was time to review the role of the Oversight Office and look at its accomplishments over the last four years. When the Fifth Committee had discussed establishing that body, his delegation had stressed the importance of maintaining the role of Member States in the Fifth Committee when the Oversight Office assumed its role. Syria still maintained that position. The independent nature of the work of the Oversight Office did not mean that it worked without accountability to Member States, who had the final say in all the United Nations work, particularly that of the Oversight Office.

There had been an investigation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), he said. Since that Force operated on Syrian

Fifth Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/AB/3254 17th Meeting (AM) 30 October 1998

territory, his delegation had been anxious to have a full picture on the investigation and its findings. However, it seemed that the Oversight Office had undertaken the investigation without notifying Member States of the outcome. According to resolution 48/218 B, the Office was to share the outcome of its investigations. However, there was no trace of that regarding UNDOF, despite the Oversight Office's repeated assurances to Member States that it would share its findings.

During the Assembly's last session, there had been debate on whether the Oversight Office's recommendations were presented to Member States for information or for a decision, he recalled. That was another indication that Member States must review and completely clarify its role. The debate during the fifty-second session between the Secretary-General, the Committee of 24 and the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) on transferring the Decolonization Unit from the Department of Political Affairs to the Department of General Assembly Affairs and Conference Services had been misinterpreted by the Oversight Office. Contrary to the opinion of the Oversight Office, the position of the Syrian delegation during that debate had not been based on the incitement of any Secretariat members, but rather on the basis of careful and principled study and assessment.

The Oversight Office must not deviate from the role specified for it under resolution 48/218 B, he continued. Its mandate did not allow it to comment or interfere in political positions expressed by countries. He wondered how the Oversight Office had so determined that his delegation's position was not based on the position that the Decolonization Unit must remain under political affairs, a position held by many other States. He asked for a list of the nationalities of the Oversight Office's staff members -- both at the Professional and General Service levels -- as well as the number of gratis personnel who had been employed in the Office since its inception, so those could be addressed as part of the Committee's review. The Office should respond in writing to the remarks of Committee Members. He then drew attention to a technical translation matter.

AHMED DARWISH (Egypt) said that Egypt supported the supervisory and the oversight and monitoring roles of the Office of Internal Oversight Services. Resolution 48/218 B had established the Office under the authority of the Secretary-General, and it was to have operational independence under the Secretary-General. The Oversight Office's role was to uncover mismanagement and fraud and to rationalize management, thereby ensuring resources were used in the most rational way to implement Member States' mandates.

Egypt welcomed the outcome of the Office's efforts to save $21 million for the Organization, and affirmed that the Office should continue its work under its mandate, he said. The composition of staff of the Office must be based on equitable geographical distribution. It was important to increase

Fifth Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/AB/3254 17th Meeting (AM) 30 October 1998

coordination between the Oversight Office and the Fifth Committee, which would be to the benefit of all Member States and the Organization at large.

SEYED MIRMOHAMMAD (Iran) said that resolution 48/218 B established the Office of Internal Oversight Services to assist the Secretary-General. Subsequently, a number of issues had arisen, the settlement of which would give rise to better understanding between the Secretary-General and the General Assembly on the Office. The Secretary-General, as chief administrative officer, had certain prerogatives. The Oversight Office would receive appreciation for its activities from the General Assembly as long as its activities fell within the Secretary-General's responsibility. However, if it recommended changes to things within the purview of the Assembly, such recommendations should be reviewed by the Assembly prior to implementation.

The practise of submitting Oversight Office reports through a brief note by the Secretary-General might fall short of requirements under the regulations, he said. The Secretary-General should assume greater responsibility in that regard. The scope of the Office could not be expanded to oversight of inter-governmental bodies, as it was not so mandated. He noted the progressive increases in its resources. In view of financial difficulties of the United Nations, the Office should identify efficiency gains within the Office and serve as example to the rest of the Organization. It should also be staffed according to the principle of equitable geographical representation. Iran would like to be provided with information on the composition of the staff of the Office. It would also like to explore the relationship between it and external oversight services, and sought information on that matter.

DULCE BUERGO-RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) proposed an additional formal meeting on the item to continue debate.

MOVSES ABELIAN (Armenia), Chairman of the Fifth Committee, announced that an additional meeting would be held the following Monday at 3 p.m.

KARL T. PASCHKE, Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, responded to issues raised by Member States. He expressed gratitude to representatives who had spoken, and expressed a strong intention to be a participant in the review and evaluation of the Office of Internal Oversight Services functions and reporting procedures. The review would be useful and important not only to fulfil the mandate the General Assembly had given itself, but also to improve the performance of the Office and clarify its role. Some questions that had been raised would require more thorough reflection on his part. He noted that one delegation had requested responses be given in writing. In Monday's session he would revert to those questions.

He noted that some delegations had suggested that the Oversight Office should ensure that it never transgressed its mandate. He was confident that

Fifth Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/AB/3254 17th Meeting (AM) 30 October 1998

it had not done so, and that where there were instances in which some Member States might have held that perception, he had joined in discussion and had provided clarification. He was aware that the mandate was to provide internal oversight under the Secretary-General's authority. His Office had never called that into doubt and would not do so in the future.

Some criticism had been voiced against the Office's increased resources over the past two bienniums, he said. He underlined that when the Office had been created in 1994, the General Assembly had decided that it should work within existing resources. That was a difficult task, and he had undertaken a number of discussions with Fifth Committee members in which he had found much understanding. He was grateful for the support for the modest increases he had requested. A new office with a new mandate could not predict reliably, when it started work, what resources it would need. He hoped that if he requested adjustments in personnel, which he believed were in the interest of Member States, the Fifth Committee members would recognize that those resources would be used to increase efficiency throughout the Organization.

He had heard the request that human resources should be managed according to the principle of geographical balance. The Office had been staffed according to that principle in the past, and would be in the future. He would provide relevant information on that, as well as specific answers to other specific questions, in the course of the review.

DJAMEL MOKTEFI (Algeria) said that the Committee's consideration of implementation of resolution 48/218 B should lead to removing all ambiguity as to whether the spirit and letter of the resolution had been followed. The Group of 77 and China had recommended a list of the Office's reports; that list should include the status of each of the reports prepared by the Office and submitted to the General Assembly. It seemed that the Oversight Office made recommendations, the Secretary-General endorsed them and programme managers implemented them. The question was: what were the factors that enabled the Office to have its recommendations implemented in such a short period of time, given the well-known reluctance of bureaucratic machinery.

He then asked whether the Oversight Office had found the support of the General Assembly, and if that was lacking, what were the official reasons. The Office had been established in accordance with a specific concept, he said. Based on experience, what evolution had there been with the practice of that concept? he asked. The Under-Secretary-General was in the best position to evaluate the evolution of the concept.

IBRAHIM ELMONTASER (Libya) said States relied greatly on the Office's oversight functions, particularly on matters such as the budget and peacekeeping. The Office must oversee the Organization's interests without becoming involved in the question of oversight for Member States. Member States had the right to review the role of the Office on the basis of

Fifth Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/AB/3254 17th Meeting (AM) 30 October 1998

principles and certain criteria. The Office must be restructured on the basis of equitable geographical representation. Therefore, it was necessary to obtain a list of its staffing. Also, gratis personnel should not be used. The Office's reports should not be partial; they should not threaten nor annoy Member States. Beyond that, he supported the Office, which should be given the resources necessary for its functioning.

ABDULLA AL-SHAMMAM (Yemen) supported the Oversight Office formulating recommendations for the Code of Conduct for United Nations staff, to prevent conflicts of interest. Also, his delegation believed a mechanism should be established to penalize staff who directly or indirectly committed offenses, or violated the rules by misusing their role in the Organization to obtain privileges, which wasted the Organization's moral and material resources.

A separate tribunal should be created, apart from the administrative tribunal, with judges from outside the United Nations to ensure that staff who committed crimes or offenses -- whether or not they were still in service -- were properly punished, he said. He encouraged efforts to make the Oversight Office more effective. Such activities must be revealed and reported on to Member States with the necessary recommendations.

Other Matters

Mr. SULAIMAN (Syria) said the Committee's schedule should not be changed for external reasons. He expressed concern over the cancellation of a meeting this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN said that this had not been done. Committee Members could determine its programme of work.

Ms. BUERGO-RODRIGUEZ (Cuba) said in the future, due attention should be paid to any change that affected the programme of work of the Committee because of activities that were not within the Committee's purview.

RADHIA ACHOURI (Tunisia) said that the Secretary-General's report on reform of human resources management under measures and proposals for reform of the Organization was not listed on the agenda of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). However, the ACABQ should consider the report, which touched on two very important agenda items.

The CHAIRMAN said he would check on that and get back to the Committee on the matter. He then said it was up to the Committee to hold a meeting at any given time. If it wished to hold informal consultations on any item of its programme of work, it could so decide. Any delegation was free to make a proposal.

Fifth Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/AB/3254 17th Meeting (AM) 30 October 1998

Mr. SULAIMAN (Syria) said it was not just a question of taking advantage of the conference services given to the Committee for this afternoon. Rather, on a matter of principle, meetings scheduled for the Committee should not be cancelled. Such a practice did not serve the interests of the Committee.

The CHAIRMAN asked whether any Member State proposed to hold informal consultations on any agenda item. He clarified that he was not participating in the outside work that was scheduled elsewhere.

Mr. MIRMOHAMMAD (Iran) said that in recent weeks, the Committee had been held responsible for making another such decision. He did not agree with that practice. The Committee should not be targeted to make decisions on those sensitive points. It entrusted the Bureau with the responsibility of taking its concerns into account.

The CHAIRMAN agreed. The announcement yesterday during the formal meeting of the cancellation of the meeting had not been challenged. The Bureau prepared a programme of work and distributed it; if Committee Members wished to raise any issue they could. He asked again if there was any formal proposal to hold a meeting this afternoon, without which, he could not schedule a meeting.

* *** *