GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS CONSIDERATION OF ITEM ON ARMED AGGRESSION AGAINST DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO BY ASSEMBLY PLENARY

1 December 1998

Press Release
GA/9519

GENERAL COMMITTEE RECOMMENDS CONSIDERATION OF ITEM ON ARMED AGGRESSION AGAINST DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO BY ASSEMBLY PLENARY

19981201 Also Recommends Inclusion of Granting of Observer Status to International Union for Conservation of Nature in Agenda of Forty-Fourth Assembly Session

The General Committee this morning recommended the allocation of the agenda item entitled "The armed aggression against the Democratic Republic of the Congo" for consideration by the plenary of the General Assembly. The Committee had previously recommended the inclusion of that item in the agenda of the current Assembly session and deferred the issue of its allocation.

Speaking on the matter, the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo -- the sponsor of the item -- requested that it be considered in plenary because foreign troops had invaded his country. The representatives of Uganda and Rwanda said the item should not be in the agenda of the General Assembly, because that could undermine the efforts being undertaken by the Security Council, the Secretary-General, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), the African leaders and other regional organizations to overcome the crisis.

The representatives of Mexico and France also spoke in the debate on that matter.

In other action this morning, the General Committee recommended the non- inclusion of the item on granting of observer status to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in the General Assembly in the agenda of the current session, but to recommend its inclusion in the provisional agenda of the fifty-fourth session.

The item was introduced by the representatives of the Dominican Republic and Ecuador. The Committee took its decision following a discussion during which several speakers expressed doubts regarding the urgency of taking up that item during the current session of the Assembly. Concerns were also expressed regarding the status of Union and its entitlement to observer status. Several delegates recommended that the question be referred to the Sixth Committee (Legal) for consideration of its legal aspects.

The representatives of the United Kingdom, China, Morocco, Mongolia, France, Russian Federation and Mexico also spoke on the matter.

General Committee Work Programme

The General Committee met this morning to consider the allocation of an additional item of its agenda entitled "The armed aggression against the Democratic Republic of the Congo"; and to consider a request for the inclusion of an additional item submitted by the Dominican Republic.

The General Committee recommended on 23 October the inclusion of the new item, on the armed aggression against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the agenda of the Assembly's current session, in response to a request by that country's Permanent Representative (document A/53/232). The request was accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, stating that on 2 August, the coalition troops of Rwanda and Uganda invaded the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That aggression, which violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a Member State of the United Nations, had the immediate effect of sowing death and devastation throughout the Congolese territory.

The international community is called on to take all measures to restore peace and security, which are threatened in the Central African region by the Rwandan-Ugandan aggression, the memorandum goes on. The Democratic Republic of the Congo urges the United Nations to issue a strong condemnation of Rwanda and Uganda to thwart the irredentist designs of those two countries, and put an end to the cultures of impunity and genocide that they are spreading throughout Central Africa.

Also before the Committee is a request from the Permanent Representative of the Dominican Republic for the inclusion of an additional item in the agenda of the fifty-third session (document A/53/234), entitled "Granting of observer status for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in the General Assembly". Attached to the request are an explanatory memorandum (annex I) and a draft resolution (annex II).

According to the memorandum, the World Conservation Union, whose formal name is the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, was founded in 1948 at a conference convened by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and France in Fontainbleau, France. Now in its fiftieth year, the Union, whose States members and government agency members work in cooperation with its non-governmental organizations members, provides expertise and services to further the equitable and ecologically sustainable use of natural resources at global, regional, national and local levels.

Today, the 74 States members of the Union determine its policies and programmes by voting in a bicameral process in the World Conservation Congress, which is the Union's general assembly and highest organ. Currently there are also 107 governmental agency members and 679 non-governmental organization members. The Union's fastest growth has been in developing

General Committee - 3 - Press Release GA/9519 4th Meeting (AM) 1 December 1998

nations, where most of its non-governmental organizations members are based. The government agencies vote within their State delegation, and the non-governmental members vote in a separate chamber. The Union has members and works in over 138 countries.

The memorandum further states that the Union's organs are autonomous in the sense that no State controls them, but all States members participate in the direction of the Union. Its programme includes projects that no single State, acting alone, could undertake -- projects aimed at fulfilling the Union's statutory objective "to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable".

Also according to the memorandum, States have assigned responsibilities to the organization in a number of international agreements, including four major multilateral environmental conventions. The World Conservation Union has cooperation agreements with the United Nations Development Programme and the United Nations Environment Programme. It also has a special relationship with Switzerland, where it has its headquarters. It has also adopted Swiss law for its business operations, and the associations provisions of the Swiss Civil Code provide a juridical framework within which the non-governmental and State government agency members may become members of the Union, since they lack capacity to adhere to an international agreement.

The memorandum also notes that the Union has developed as a unique international organization. Its statutes and regulations, and rules of procedure for the World Conservation Congress, constitute a sort of lex specialis in international law. In the 1970s and 1980s, the Union was instrumental in introducing the concept of sustainable development in international policy. Its work was endorsed in the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, and ultimately it was incorporated by the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development into Agenda 21.

The World Conservation Congress revised the Union's statutes of 1948 on 22 October 1996 at its meetings in Montreal, following a three-year period of consultation and deliberation. The revised statutes were adopted by the unanimous consent of all Union States members and non-governmental organizations members, who mandated the Council to examine how to strengthen the Union's collaboration with the United Nations (IUCN resolution 1.80). In April, the Union Council decided to propose that the General Assembly consider according it observer status. The challenges that the entire United Nations system faces in attaining sustainable development can be immeasurably enhanced by integrating the Union's work more closely with that of the United Nations.

By the terms of the draft resolution on the observer status for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources in

General Committee - 4 - Press Release GA/9519 4th Meeting (AM) 1 December 1998

the General Assembly, which is contained in annex II to the document, the Assembly would decide to invite the Union to participate in the sessions and work of the General Assembly in the capacity of observer and request the Secretary-General to take the necessary action to implement that decision.

Allocation of Item on Democratic Republic of Congo

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said his Government was glad to know the item entitled "Armed aggression against the Democratic Republic of the Congo" had been accepted for inclusion as an agenda item. He stressed that the item should be allocated to the Assembly plenary, and not to a Main Committee. Uganda and Rwanda had sent troops into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in violation of the United Nations Charter. That problem should be debated in the plenary, in spite of the fact that negotiations were going on in which his Government was taking part.

The representative of Uganda said he had seen the explanatory memorandum from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. His Government was raising issue not with the substantive aspect of the item, but with a procedural matter. His delegation would, however, go along with a recommendation by the Committee on the condition that consultations be undertaken to the satisfaction of all interested parties. He asked about the inclusion of the word "aggression" in the title of the agenda item. His Government strongly recommended that the matter be excluded from the agenda for several reasons. The word aggression was as misleading as it was inappropriate; it did not reflect the situation on the ground. He called for other provisions of the Charter to be fulfilled before giving consideration to that item.

It was surprising that the Democratic Republic of the Congo had gone beyond the other States in the region to take that path, he said. It would send the wrong signal, he said, adding that the political fallout could not be underestimated. Against that background, he appealed to the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to give respect to the African leaders who were fully involved in that matter, to give a chance to the Secretary- General of the United Nations, and to respect the Security Council. He appealed to the representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to withdraw his request for the inclusion of the item in the agenda of the General Assembly.

The representative of Rwanda said that the General Committee was not the place to debate the substance of the matter. However, during the meeting on 23 October, his delegation had raised a question of procedure, for which the answer still remained to be given. In the view of his delegation, the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was currently under discussion at the Security Council. Accordingly, the Secretary-General had been reporting on the subject. The provisions of the Charter and rules of procedure indicated that the item should not be considered by the General

General Committee - 5 - Press Release GA/9519 4th Meeting (AM) 1 December 1998

Assembly while the Council was seized of the matter. It was extremely important for the General Committee to advise the General Assembly not to fall into the mistake of debating an imagined aggression when relevant organs had not yet decided whether aggression had taken place.

The delicate nature of the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo necessitated finding a peaceful solution, he said. Regional African organizations and the leaders of that continent along with the Secretary- General of the United Nations were undertaking efforts to solve the crisis, and those efforts would be seriously undermined if the debate on the question took place in the General Assembly. For those reasons, and because of the genuine desire of his Government to contribute to the solution, Rwanda thought it would be inopportune to bring that matter up in the Assembly. The six reports of the Security Council International Commission of Inquiry had well documented the fact that aggression had been committed against Rwanda. The soldiers were being retrained and equipped by the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to conclude the genocide which they had been committing in Rwanda.

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said that he had listened carefully to what had been said by previous speakers and he wanted to underscore the fact that his country was fully aware of the efforts undertaken by the Secretary-General, the Security Council, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and other organizations on the issue. The fact that the Security Council was dealing with the issue did not preclude its discussion in the General Assembly. Article 12 of the Charter clearly stated that the Assembly could not make recommendations when the Security Council was dealing with it, but it did not say that the General Assembly had no right to debate it. His country was within its rights when it said that the issue should be debated in the Assembly. He also reiterated his request for the Committee to recommend the allocation of the item for discussion in plenary and rejected the request by Uganda to withdraw the request for inclusion of the item.

The representative of Mexico said that he had listened with great interest to the legal arguments presented in the discussion. He believed that the General Committee should not consider the substance of the matter. At a previous meeting, the General Committee had made a unanimous decision to include the item of the agenda, and that decision was well within the mandate of the Committee. To exclude an item from the agenda would require another unanimous decision on the part of the Committee. He proposed not to exclude the item from the agenda and to continue consultations with the concerned parties regarding the time and place of discussion of the item.

The representative of France said his Government would support the proposal made by the representative of Mexico. There were two questions, the procedural one of allocation and the question of timetable, when the item

General Committee - 6 - Press Release GA/9519 4th Meeting (AM) 1 December 1998

could be taken up or not. It was difficult for the Committee to make a decision on that matter. It was possible to avoid a debate; he hoped that would be the case. But the question of timing could not be settled.

The representative of Rwanda said his Government did not believe it was up to the delegation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo or the General Committee to determine that there had been aggression.

The Assembly President, DIDIER OPERTTI (Uruguay), speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee, said the recommendation to include the item had been made by consensus, with the title being used. The General Assembly had, on 28 October, at its forty-sixth meeting, decided to include the item. At that time, it had not allocated it to a given body. It had simply decided to include it as an agenda item. The object of discussion this morning was to allocate the substantive consideration of that topic. Therefore, if the Committee decided to assign it to the plenary, the date to examine it would be part of the work programme of the Assembly, and would be decided when the decision was adopted.

He said the possibility for diplomatic, regional and in-depth negotiations had been opened. According to what had been heard from the Secretary-General, the conditions were there for a peaceful negotiated arrangement to the situation. The Committee should determine the place where it should be taken up. He would consider the proposal of the representative of Mexico, supported by France, in the sense of allocating that item to the plenary, without discussing it in detail or prejudging the date when it would be considered. Whether it should be dealt with in the Security Council or not was open to debate.

The Committee had already decided to include it, and had done so in keeping with the Charter, he said. If there were no objections, the Chairman would endorse the proposal made by the representative of Mexico, and supported by the representative of France, deciding to assign the item to the plenary, without any other conditions.

The representative of Uganda said that his delegation was asking for the item not to be included on the agenda. He wanted clarifications on what the Chairman had suggested.

Mr. OPERTTI (Uruguay), speaking in his capacity as Chairman of the Committee, said that at a previous meeting, the General Committee had recommended unanimously the inclusion of the topic on the agenda of the General Assembly and had given it a title. The Assembly had endorsed that decision and included it in its agenda. Today, the General Committee would thus decide to allocate the item to the right group, be it the plenary or a Main Committee. The Committee would decide on the question of allocation of the item, because the matter of its inclusion had already been resolved. The

General Committee - 7 - Press Release GA/9519 4th Meeting (AM) 1 December 1998

Committee was considering the allocation of the item and not discussing the matter. Any consideration of the topic would be made when the General Assembly examined it.

The representative of Rwanda said that his country was not a member of the General Committee, but it wanted to be helpful in the debate. It was true that the recommendation on the inclusion had already been made. However, he felt it was not right, for the right procedure had not been followed. He also asked about the decision to allocate a number to the item.

The representative of the Democratic Republic of the Congo said that his delegation was prepared to accept the suggestion made by Mexico and France that the item be discussed in plenary, but his country would try to follow closely the negotiations on the matter, and on the basis of that would decide when to discuss the item.

The representative of Uganda agreed with the proposal of the Chairman, but wanted to make an observation. Going back to the original meeting, he said the item should be inscribed, but not given an item number or date of discussion, so that consideration could be given to the efforts taking place on the matter.

The CHAIRMAN said there had been discussion on the allocation of the item in the Assembly. The point being discussed now was to give it a number so that it could be identified in the agenda. Based on the information received, that was an internal procedure, a normal procedure. It did not set a date on when the item should be discussed. But if giving it a number was related to the matter of its consideration, that was an obstacle to a rapprochement. Since that was the case, the assignment of the item was a procedural matter, and in no way did it set the date for its consideration. Therefore, there was no reason why the assignment to the plenary should not be adopted this morning. Concluding, he said it was the Committee's decision that the item would be taken up in plenary.

Observer Status for Union for Conservation of Nature

The representative of the Dominican Republic introduced the request for inclusion in the Assembly's agenda of an item on the granting of observer status for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. She asked for the representative of Ecuador to be given the floor.

The representative of Ecuador, speaking on behalf of Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nepal, New Zealand, Dominican Republic and Ecuador, said that the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), also known as World Conservation Union, had cooperation from non-governmental organizations and governmental agencies, as well as with Governments from all over the world. The Union also admitted as members

General Committee - 8 - Press Release GA/9519 4th Meeting (AM) 1 December 1998

governmental agencies even in those cases when a particular Government decided not to become a member. Through legal innovations, member States had ensured wide participation in the Union and its independence. It had responsibilities through several international agreements. The IUCN worked in areas related to An Agenda for Peace and the Agenda for Development. For example, the Commission on the Law of the Environment had established a draft code of behaviour for transnational parks.

The World Conservation Union also cooperated with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), he said. In 1996, the World Conservation Congress in Montreal had decided to seek closer collaboration with the United Nations. The Union did not intend to take its responsibilities as an observer lightly: it was prepared to contribute its expert services and other assistance. The agenda of the General Assembly included items which required such services. Submitting the application on the part of the IUCN, his country hoped that the item would be included in the agenda of the current session of the Assembly and considered in plenary.

The representative of the United Kingdom said his Government believed there was a question that had to be looked at regarding the IUCN. Recalling General Assembly resolution 49/426, he stated that the granting of observer status should be confined to States and intergovernmental organizations that covered matters of interest to the Assembly. The IUCN had a complicated history in that regard. It was an organization sui generis, constituted in accordance with Swiss Civil Code. There were some complicated legal questions to do with status. Ideally, that matter should be allocated to the Sixth Committee, which considered technical and legal matters. Since the Sixth Committee had finished its work, the matter would have to be deferred.

The representative of China said his Government appreciated the valuable contribution of the IUCN, its dedication to the cause of sustainable development and to environmental protection. The Union was unique in its composition. That uniqueness was also why it was effective. All the same, caution was called for when it came to the question of granting observer status. In a unanimous decision four years ago, the question of criteria for granting observer status had been determined by the Assembly. According to that decision, status should only be confined to States and intergovernmental organizations whose activities covered matters of interest to the General Assembly.

The IUCN did not fit either category, he said. Further, the IUCN was registered as a non-governmental organization with consultative status with the Economic and Social Council. Thus, there would be a clear lack of consistency if it was a non-governmental organization in the Council and an intergovernmental organization in the Assembly. That would lead to complications for the future. It was up to the World Conservation Congress to

General Committee - 9 - Press Release GA/9519 4th Meeting (AM) 1 December 1998

make a comprehensive review. It was crucial for the organization to study the report and to pronounce its position on the matter. In light of the legal complications and time constraints, his Government would not recommend the inclusion of that item in the agenda of the current session of the Assembly.

The representative of Morocco said she appreciated the efforts of the Dominican Republic and Ecuador. She would have preferred to be informed of the request regarding the item earlier, if only to request the Office of Legal Affairs to clarify the status of the IUCN. As pointed out, in keeping with the Swiss Civil Code, the IUCN was an association with member States and non- governmental organizations. The representative of China had recalled that it was a non-governmental organization with a status with the Economic and Social Council. She suggested that the matter could be referred to a body other than the Sixth Committee, so that status could be considered as a whole. The question was important, as was the organization, but more time was needed.

The representative of Mongolia said that as the Chairman of the Sixth Committee, he wanted to clarify that the item had not been discussed in that Committee and had not been on its agenda. As a representative of Mongolia, he could say that the item seemed to present interest and could be helpful for the work of the Assembly. However, to make a legally correct recommendation, it was necessary to determine whether the Union was a non-governmental organization, an intergovernmental organization, or a mixture thereof. It was necessary to see whether it fit the criteria for granting an observer status.

The representative of France said that his country attached great importance to the work done by the IUCN. He understood concerns raised by previous speakers regarding the question of whether it fit the criteria of an intergovernmental organization. He did not think the General Committee could answer those questions. Today it was necessary to decide whether the item could be considered. The matter should be decided in a Main Committee, which should determine whether the observer status could be granted to the Union, so that various legal matters could be discussed. His delegation was inclined to support the recommendation of the United Kingdom to include the matter on the agenda and to entrust it to the Sixth Committee. That Committee had completed its work at this session, but a solution could be probably found.

The representative of the Russian Federation commended the activities of the World Conservation Union and said that his delegation had an understanding for the request by Ecuador and the Dominican Republic. However, it was a difficult question, which required further study. In that connection, he expressed doubts regarding the urgency of the matter. The request for inclusion had referred to the question as an urgent matter. The question was important, but how urgent was it? he asked. In 1996, the members of the International Union had entrusted the Council to study ways to strengthen its role in the United Nations. Two years later, in April, the Council had decided to ask the Assembly to grant an observer status to the IUCN, and that

General Committee - 10 - Press Release GA/9519 4th Meeting (AM) 1 December 1998

letter was received on 28 October, which showed that authors of the proposal themselves did not view the matter as urgent. The Sixth Committee had completed its work, and the matter probably should not be considered as urgent.

The representative of Mexico said that the proposal had been made by a Latin American country, and as such, Mexico should approve the request without reservations. However, he was also the Chairman of the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization), and as such, he had to assure that the right procedures were followed. He had reservations similar to those expressed by the representative of the Russian Federation. Those reservations did not concern the substance of the proposal, but its timing. The request for inclusion of the item had been presented late, and it was not an urgent matter. The benefits of the observer status could be discussed in the future, and then the requirements for inclusion as an observer would be discussed. He suggested that the item be included in agenda of the fifty-fourth session of the General Assembly. A decision should also be made on whether the matter should be referred to the Sixth Committee.

The representative of the Dominican Republic said there were two problems in the discussion. One was the relevance of the request of the Dominican Republic, on behalf of the Latin American countries, and the second was the merits of IUCN in being granted observer status. She acknowledged that the legal issue was complex, but pointed out that her Government had received the letter in October. It was important that before the end of the session the Union be granted status, thus, the relevance of including the agenda item in the current session.

The representative of Ecuador said the request had been presented as an urgent matter. Year after year, environmental issues had gained in importance. It was also important to count on the cooperation of the IUCN, hence the urgency of the request. In the debate, all had referred to the importance of the organization, and to the fact that its status had to be examined from a legal point of view. Thus, the Committee should set a time- frame for that examination to take place.

The CHAIRMAN said the matter needed further analysis. The organization was a sui generis body, and there was not enough time to send the agenda item to the Sixth Committee. The rejection of the request would imply something related to the merit of the case, whereas all had expressed doubt over the legal aspect. Thus, he would recommend that the item be deferred, but not without a time limit. The advantage of that was that a final decision did not have to be taken on the issue, while giving ample time so that the fifty- fourth session could send the agenda item to the best Committee.

General Committee - 11 - Press Release GA/9519 4th Meeting (AM) 1 December 1998

Those considerations were also being made by the IUCN and thus the decision was in no way a negative answer, he said. It would not undermine cooperation between the United Nations and the IUCN. An in-depth study would be made of the legal and institutional questions. It was thus decided to recommend that the item be included in the provisional agenda of the fifty- fourth session of the General Assembly.

* *** *