CANADA SUGGESTS HIATUS FOR CHARTER COMMITTEE AS SIXTH COMMITTEE CONTINUES DEBATE ON CHARTER ISSUES, SANCTIONS

Press Release
GA/L/3109

CANADA SUGGESTS HIATUS FOR CHARTER COMMITTEE AS SIXTH COMMITTEE CONTINUES DEBATE ON CHARTER ISSUES, SANCTIONS

Canada proposed this morning to the Sixth Committee (Legal) that the General Assembly should place its Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization “on hiatus”.

As the Sixth Committee continued its discussion of the report of the Charter Committee, the representative of Canada expressed serious doubts about the renewal of that Committee’s mandate, saying that it continued to focus on proposals for which there was clearly no broad support. Given such important Sixth Committee priorities as the International Criminal Court, terrorism and law of the sea, which would consume extensive intersessional time, the General Assembly should approve a one-year hiatus for the Charter Committee. That would allow the sponsors of controversial proposals to redraft them and render them more likely to be approved in 2001.

The representative of Croatia said that the Charter Committee was high on the list of United Nations organs that mismanaged time and resources. Arriving late to meetings had become a way for delegations to express indirectly their stand vis-à-vis a topic or the likelihood of achieving results.

There were those, including the representatives of Libya and India, who were opposed to any curtailment of the Committee’s work. The representative of Hungary proposed that a “sunset provision” be applied to the backlog of items on the Special Committee’s agenda.

The issue of sanctions, and their impact on third States, continued to dominate the Committee’s debate. The representative of Jordan said that it was manifestly unfair to expect a State, just because it was a neighbour or trade partner of a sanctioned State, to assume all the responsibilities and costs of sanctions. The representative of Ghana cautioned that sanctions must not be invoked as a foreign policy tool intended to change another country’s political, economic or social system, nor must they be enforced for an unlimited period. Speakers generally agreed that, as soon as their objectives had been realized, sanctions must be lifted. The Ghanaian speaker recommended an in-depth study of ways to reorient sanctions so that they targeted those specific individuals responsible for infractions rather than whole States.

Sixth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/L/3109 6th Meeting (AM) 14 October 1999

The Charter Committee, which was established in 1974, has the task of examining in detail observations from governments on suggestions and proposals regarding such issues as the Charter, the strengthening of the role of the United Nations in terms of the maintenance of peace and security, cooperation among nations and the promotion of the rules of international law in relations between States.

Also speaking in the debate were the representatives of India, Algeria, China, Libya, Hungary, Cuba, Zambia, Iran and Belarus.

The Committee will meet again tomorrow Friday, 15 October, at 10 a.m. to continue its discussion of the report of the Charter Committee and the Secretary- General’s report on sanction issues.

Committee Work Programme

The Sixth Committee (Legal) met this morning to continue its examination of the report of The Special Committee on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Strengthening of the Role of the Organization (A/54/33).

The Committee also has before it, a report from the Secretary-General on the implementation of provisions of the Charter related to assistance to third States affected by the application of sanctions (A/54/383), and a progress report from the Secretary-General on the publication of supplements to the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council (A/54/363).

The Charter Committee, which was established in 1974, has the task of examining in detail observations received from Governments on proposals regarding the Charter, the strengthening of the role of the United Nations in maintaining peace and security, cooperation among nations and promotion of the rules of international law in relations between States. The Committee held its latest session at Headquarters from 12 to 23 April 1999.

For further details, see press release 3108 of 13 October.

Statements

D.P. SRIVASTAVA (India) endorsed the findings of the ad hoc expert group on sanctions, particularly the recommendation that the Security Council give careful consideration to the potential effects of sanctions on both the target States and third States, and the emphasis on the need for appropriate and timely exemptions for humanitarian purposes. He noted the recommendation that the consequences of economic sanctions should be borne by the international community on a more equitable basis. The replies received from Governments only confirmed India’s belief that the matter needed to be addressed directly by the Council itself.

He noted with interest the proposal by Cuba on the strengthening of the United Nations. India attached great importance to United Nations reform, including democratizing the Security Council and increasing the transparency in its working methods. He welcomed the clarifications by Sierra Leone on its proposal on dispute settlement and the supplementary proposal offered by the United Kingdom. However, the fundamental principle that State parties to a dispute were free to choose from the available means of peaceful settlement should not be affected. On the working methods of the Charter Committee, he said that any reduction in the duration of its meetings would adversely affect its very purpose.

AHCENE KERMA (Algeria) said that the question of the effect of sanctions on third States was becoming increasingly important in the light of the frequent resort to that measure. The technical aspects of the recommendations required greater examination by the Committee for a permanent solution to be found to problems of those third countries. Algeria agreed with the decision of the Non- Aligned Summit in Durban that a permanent mechanism should be found to resolve the problem of the effects of sanctions on third countries. The Russian proposal on basic conditions and criteria for the use of sanctions and other coercive measures was important. Their use must be based on provisions of the Charter. They must be limited in scope and should be lifted as soon as their objectives were achieved. Their humanitarian implications should be taken into account. The Special Committee should continue to study the Russian proposals.

He said the Cuban and Libyan proposals, dealing with the strengthening of the role of the Organization and enhancing its effectiveness as well as its maintenance of international peace and security, deserved the full attention of the Special Committee. Non-interference in the internal affairs of other States was the best policy. The International Court of Justice should be able to carry out its work under the best possible conditions; it must be given the resources to do so.

He encouraged the Secretariat to persevere in its efforts to mobilize resources to catch up on its publishing backlog for the Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs and the Repertoire of the Practice of the Security Council.

QU WENSHENG (China) said the proposal by Russia and Belarus -- to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on the legal consequences of the use of force without the prior authorization of the Security Council -- was an extremely timely and important initiative. The draft resolution on that proposal should continue to receive priority consideration.

Developing countries had always been deeply concerned over the question of assistance to third States affected by sanctions, he said. They maintained that the United Nations had an obligation to set up a trust fund and a permanent consultation mechanism to address the special economic and social problems faced by those States. The proposal to establish such a fund and mechanism deserved further consideration. The Special Committee should continue its consideration of the Russian proposal on basic criteria for the introduction of sanctions and, he hoped, reach consensus as soon as possible.

On peacekeeping proposals, he said it would be useful to adopt a declaratory instrument based on the past practices and experiences of the United Nations. Turning to the proposal by Sierra Leone on settlement of disputes, he said its further consideration could be facilitated by an updated assessment from the Secretary-General on the status of various mechanisms that could be used for dispute prevention and settlement. It was unnecessary to abolish or change the mandate of the Trusteeship Council at the moment, since such a move would inevitably entail revision of the Charter.

JOSKO KLISOVIC (Croatia) said it was essential that the Charter Committee to ensure better coordination with other United Nations bodies that deliberated on aspects of the same issues. He supported the proposal to ask the Secretariat to prepare a summary of the work of other bodies active in the area of United Nations reform. He also supported the proposal for a cut-off mechanism to avoid wasting time and resources on endless discussions of topics that had been proven unready for recommendation. That mechanism must have clear criteria for ascertaining when a proposal should be killed. While care should be taken in the introduction of new topics, they must not be rejected out of hand. He did not want to see the Charter Committee marginalized or occupied with a backlog of issues of waning importance. On the other hand, the Committee must not be used as a political tool for the achievement of an agenda more appropriate to other United Nations organs, in particular, the one in charge of maintaining peace and security.

The Charter Committee had been placed high on the list of United Nations organs that mismanaged allocated time and resources, he said. Arriving late to meetings had become a way for a delegation to indirectly express its stand vis-à- vis a topic under consideration or the likelihood of achieving results. The duration of the Committee’s sessions should be determined on the basis of the time needed for consideration of each topic on the agenda.

Asserting Croatia’s vested interest in the efficiency and credibility of the International Court of Justice, he hoped the Court would be given sufficient resources to discharge its functions properly. He understood the call for the Security Council to assess in advance the potential impact of sanctions. He also supported the need for the Secretariat to monitor and evaluate their political, economic, social and humanitarian effects.

ABDULAZIZ BUHEDMA (Libya) expressed solidarity with countries affected by sanctions and supported the recommendations on that subject in the Committee's report. The most unfair sanctions had been imposed on his country on false pretexts for more than seven years; they had caused untold damage and suffering.

He said that Charter provisions relating to the sovereign equality of States and the right of veto of the permanent members of the Security Council contradicted one another. There should be transparency in the Council's work. Many of the Council's decision were unfair; there was no reason for the veto right to continue to exist. Libya supported the reform of the Council and the broadening of the role of the General Assembly in the maintenance of international peace and security. He urged further consideration of Libya's revised proposal on the strengthening of the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security. In particular, it wanted the General Assembly's role strengthened as it was the only body in which all States had sovereign equality. The Security Council should be the executing arm of the General Assembly. The use of the veto should be limited, and the Council enlarged, based on the sovereign equality of States and balanced geographical representation.

Libya also supported Cuba's proposal on strengthening the role of the Organization and enhancing its effectiveness, and urged the Charter Committee to examine it further. He likewise expressed support for the Russian proposals on conditions and criteria for imposition of sanctions; strengthening the International Court of Justice and providing it with more resources; and for the Russian and Belarusian working paper on the immutability of Charter provisions in the area of peace and security and the strengthening of the role of the United Nations. There was a need to adopt legal principles to govern the right of intervention -- which was becoming the new norm and being exercised in a flagrant fashion. Finally, he was opposed to any proposal which might undermine the work of the Charter Committee.

HENRY HANSON-HALL (Ghana) said sanctions should be invoked with caution and only when all other peaceful means of dispute settlement had been exhausted. In particular, they must not be invoked as a foreign policy tool intended to change another country’s political, economic or social system, nor must they be enforced for an unlimited period. As soon as their objectives had been realized, sanctions must be lifted. The international community had a responsibility to assist third States affected by the application of sanctions; the expert group’s conclusion that the cost involved should be borne by the international community on a more equitable basis seemed reasonable, he said. Ghana shared the view that the principle of equity imposed a special responsibility on the major industrial and other high-income countries to assist third States under such circumstances.

Ghana also believed that the international financial institutions, notably the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, should play a leading role in assessing the actual economic impact of United Nations sanctions on third States and to provide financial assistance to those countries. At the same time, he said, there was a need for non-financial measures, such as providing greater access to markets for goods from the affected third States or allocating quotas, or providing for special commodity purchase agreements. The Secretariat should provide technical assistance to affected third States in the preparation of explanatory materials to be attached to their requests for consultations with the Security Council under Article 50 of the Charter.

Of particular importance to Ghana was the proposal for exemption from sanctions of foodstuffs, pharmaceutical and medical supplies, medical and agricultural equipment and educational items. The population of the target country should be allowed access to appropriate resources and procedures for financing humanitarian imports. He drew attention to the need for an in-depth study of ways to target specific individuals rather than whole States when imposing sanctions.

Finally, he said the Trusteeship Council should be reconstituted as a guardian and trustee of the global commons as the common heritage of mankind.

JOHN HOLMES (Canada) expressed concern that the agenda of the Charter Committee continued to focus on topics for which broad support clearly did not exist. The blame for that situation did not necessarily fall on one or a few delegations, he said. If, following a number of years of effort, a proposal failed to secure broad support, it was incumbent on the sponsors to withdraw or fundamentally rethink it.

Canada had serious doubts about the renewal of the mandate of the Charter Committee. Important Sixth Committee priorities, such as the International Criminal Court, terrorism and law of the sea, would consume extensive inter- sessional time. The Millennium Assembly would also put excessive demands on all delegations. Taking those demands into account, he suggested that the General Assembly approve a one year hiatus for the Charter Committee. That would allow sponsoring delegations to re-examine their proposals and, if appropriate, amend them to attract broader support. The Committee could then resume in 2001 to consider the revised proposals. Alternatively, the Committee should meet for no more than one week. The experience of the last few years clearly revealed that the consideration of all agenda items could easily be accommodated in, at most, 10 meetings.

He supported the draft resolution on the International Criminal Court of Justice and welcomed the work being done on the question of assistance to third States affected by sanctions. It was equally important, however, that the question be addressed in the appropriate forum so as to avoid duplication of effort.

DR. ZSOLT HETESY (Hungary) welcomed the draft resolution on the International Court of Justice but expressed disappointment that it did not cover the needs that the Court had identified. He supported the call of the European Union and other States for the accommodation of all the legitimate demands of the Court.

Concerning sanctions, he said that ideally the international community should agree on what was meant by Article 50 of the Charter. On a more realistic level, the international community should work together to agree on gradual steps that had the real potential to mitigate the adverse consequences of sanctions in the future. The implementation of those steps should not in any way impede the carrying out of the responsibilities of the Security Council.

On streamlining the work of the Charter Committee, he said the Committee had lost much of its momentum in recent years. That was due in part to the backlog of agenda items that, for various reasons, had been before the Committee for a long time, the Committee should do its best to dispose of those items in an efficient manner. In some cases, a cut-off mechanism or “sunset provision” might be the only solution. He also supported simplification of the Committee’s report. He suggested that the Sixth Committee look at the duration of the sessions of the Charter Committee, which should be based on actual workload and not tradition.

SORAYA ALVAREZ (Cuba) said the mandate of the Charter Committee remained entirely valid; the Committee should be strengthened and revitalized. Any measures in that regard should be carried out within the Committee itself, however. Cuba did not think that reducing the meeting time allocated to the Committee would be helpful.

She said sanctions should be imposed as an exceptional measure in the face of concrete threats to international peace and security. Cuba supported proposals by the Non-Aligned summit for a mechanism to find a permanent solution to the problem of sanctions’ effects on third States and for the establishment of a fund to assist those countries. The Russian proposals on implementation of sanctions were important and should be considered in detail by the Charter Committee its next session. The Charter did not advocate unlimited sanctions. The General Assembly should be able to take an active role in the lifting of sanctions.

The Russian proposal on peacekeeping operations was also valuable and was consistent with the mandate of the Special Committee, she said. The ability of the United Nations to act in conflict situations did not end with the Security Council. Cuba would continue to develop its proposal on the strengthening of the Organization’s role in international peace and security. It was prepared to take into account suggestions made in the Charter Committee. Finally, she said that, far from curtailing the work of the Charter Committee, the Sixth Committee should be recommending ways to strengthen it and improve its efficiency.

ENCYLA SINJELA (Zambia) said that as a country which had experienced the effects of sanctions, Zambia strongly supported the establishment of a permanent mechanism, and a trust fund, to minimize the humanitarian and economic impact of sanctions on third States. The sanctions committees should make arrangements to listen to the views of the affected States. She supported the proposal that a special representative be appointed in severe cases. Sanctions were an extreme measure that should be used with caution. She was pleased to note that both the Economic and Social Council and the Committee for Programme and Coordination had considered the effects of sanctions at their sessions this year.

Turning to the proposal on peaceful settlement of disputes, she supported the informal paper presented by the United Kingdom, which emphasized existing methods of dispute prevention and encouraged States to make greater use of such mechanisms. As much as Zambia supported International Court of Justice, she believed that budgetary issues could not be decided by the Charter Committee.

Turning the Trusteeship Council into the coordinator for the global commons would not be useful since those issues were handled in other forums, she said. She supported retaining the Council’s existence, though, since there were no financial implications.

SAEID MIRZAEE YENGEJEH (Iran) said an institutional mechanism should be developed to deal with the hardships inflicted on non-target States by the imposition of sanctions. Several of the concrete recommendations of the ad hoc expert group, such as the one on advance assessment and monitoring of effects, could be included in a set of guidelines for adoption by the Charter Committee. Iran strongly supported a thorough examination of the sanctions regime, as envisioned in the Russian proposal. Standard-setting for sanctions should be focused on Charter-based sanctions only. Unilateral sanctions ran counter to international law and had no place in this exercise. A revised proposal should be considered at the Charter Committee’s next session.

He expressed concern that consideration of peacekeeping operations not duplicate the work of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations, which had the necessary expertise and was assisted by the relevant Secretariat department. Progress might be accomplished by a joint session of the two committees or by soliciting written comments from the Peacekeeping Committee. Given the clarity of Charter provisions, the Charter Committee should carefully consider the implications of requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court on the use of force. By contrast, the General Assembly was the proper forum to order an in-depth study of the ramifications of collective action in addressing humanitarian catastrophes. Iran had no objection to adoption of the draft resolution on the Court.

He was pleased that the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions had given favorable consideration to the Court’s budgetary needs. He said the Trusteeship Council had played a historic role in the decolonization process and should not be abolished simply because it had accomplished its mandate. Finally, he endorsed the decision of the Charter Committee to improve its reporting mechanisms.

BUZO NIKOLAY (Belarus) said the application of sanctions should be preceded by examination of their effects on both the target State and third countries. International financial institutions should play a role in discussions of assistance to third States. Sanctions should not be unlimited in duration and their implementation should be reviewed regularly. International sanctions or other enforcement measures against a sovereign State should be applied only after all diplomatic and other means had been exhausted, following a determination that the actions of the target State represented a threat to international peace and security. Furthermore, sanctions should not be allowed to bring about financial harm or profit to others. The Security Council should be the only body to impose them; similar measures by individual States were unacceptable. Measures aimed at bringing about political and social changes in other countries should be viewed with concern.

The culture of prevention proposed by the Secretary-General should be reflected in the work of the Charter Committee at its next session, he said. He drew attention to a draft resolution that Belarus had sponsored, which had not received consensus in the Special Committee. The draft would have had the International Court give an advisory opinion on a number of legal issues, including whether a State or group of States had the right to use force without the authorization of the Council. The draft was not a threat to the competence of the Security Council. The Charter Committee had the right to consider proposals brought before it. He hoped that consensus could be achieved on the draft at the Committee’s next session.

He said matters relating to the Special Committee’s work methods were procedural and should be left to its discretion. The Committee’s report should reflect the full range of positions expressed by delegations. Belarus opposed any reduction of the duration of the Committee’s sessions.

WALID OBEIDAT (Jordan) took note of the findings of the ad hoc expert group on sanctions, underscoring its recommendation that practical and innovative ways be sought to lend assistance to third States affected by sanctions. Possible solutions had also been proposed and, given the importance of the matter, they needed to be examined as well. Iran interpreted Article 50 as not only giving States the right to consult and be consulted, but also the right to expect assistance. It was incumbent on the Security Council to consult with third States before imposing sanctions.

There was also a need for burden-sharing in respect of sanctions, he said. It was manifestly unfair to expect a State, just because it was a neighbour or trade partner, as a sanctioned State, to assume alone all the responsibilities and costs of implementing the sanctions. Sanctions should only be imposed after all other options had been exhausted; they should have a specific purpose and be limited in their time frame. Their effects must not be indiscriminate. He added that Jordan had suffered and was still suffering from the adverse effects of such sanctions, both economically and socially.

* *** *