FIFTH COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT DECISION ON JOINT INSPECTION UNIT

Press Release
GA/AB/3328

FIFTH COMMITTEE APPROVES DRAFT DECISION ON JOINT INSPECTION UNIT

Committee Continues Discussion of Internal Oversight Office

The General Assembly would take note of the report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) for 1997-1998, its programme of work for 1999 and the preliminary listing of its potential reports for 2000 and beyond, by a draft decision approved this morning by the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). The draft decision was approved without a vote, as the Committee concluded its consideration of its agenda item on this Unit.

Criticisms of the role of Member States by Secretariat officials, such as those made in the annual report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services, were unacceptable, the representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, told the Committee when it returned to its discussion of that Office’s activities.

Member States had been described as ‘micro-managing’ the United Nations decision-making processes, the representative explained. However, Member States had a critical role in the sound management of the United Nations, and the Group of 77 was fully committed to financial discipline.

The representative of Syria told the Committee that the introduction to the Oversight Office’s report painted an inaccurate rosy picture of the Office, and he asked whether the Office’s recommendations were always in accordance with the Organization’s financial rules and regulations. He noted, however, that the role of the Office in preventing waste and overpayment was important.

The representative of the United States said the Office’s annual report showed how it had improved the United Nations, and he was pleased with it. The Fifth Committee’s consensus decision to establish the Oversight Office had been wise, he added. Its establishment was the most important United Nations reform measure of the last five years.

The representatives of Uganda, Algeria, Australia, and Egypt also made statements, and the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, Karl Paschke, responded to Member States’ questions and comments. Under other matters, the representative of Tanzania and the Acting Chairman of the Committee. Under other matters, the

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3328 22nd Meeting (AM) 2 November 1999

representative of Tanzania and the Acting Chairman of the Committee, Amjad Sial (Pakistan), spoke.

The Committee will meet again at 3 this afternoon, when it will continue its general discussion of the United Nations programme budget for the 2000-2001 biennium.

REVISED

Programme of Work

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to take action on a draft decision under its agenda item on the Joint Inspection Unit, and to continue its general discussion on the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

By the terms of that draft decision (document A/C.5/54/L.13), the General Assembly would take note of the report of the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU) for the period 1 July 1997 to 31 December 1998, its programme of work for 1999 and the preliminary listing of potential reports for 2000 and beyond. It would also note the report of the Secretary-General on the implementation of the recommendations of the JIU.

It would request the Secretary-General to further improve the quality -- including conciseness and clarity -- of the reports on the implementation of the recommendations of the JIU.

[For background on the Office of Internal Oversight Services’ activities, see Press Release GA/AB/3119 of 25 October.]

Action on Joint Inspection Unit

The Acting Fifth Committee Chairman, AHMED SIAL (Pakistan) introduced the draft in the absence of the coordinator of informal consultations of the issue, and recommended, given that the draft decision had been adopted by consensus in informal consultations, that the Committee approve it by consensus.

The draft decision was approved without a vote.

Statements on Oversight Office Activities

A. PETER BURLEIGH (United States) said this Committee’s consensus decision to establish the Office of Internal Oversight Office was a wise one, and he shared the view that it was the single most important United Nations reform measure adopted in the last five years. The Office’s annual report was filled with examples of how the Office had improved the work of the Organization. The confidence-building campaign conducted by Under-Secretary-General for Internal oversight Karl Paschke had paid off, and the implementation rate of the Office’s recommendations was testament to this. The implementation of 73 per cent was the most important performance indicator as it meant managers took the Office’s recommendations seriously.

The United States was also impressed with other indicators, he said. Savings of $23.5 million in the last year made a total of $70 million in savings and recoveries in the last five years. The Office had also served as a significant agent of change throughout the United Nations system.

None of this would have been possible without the dedicated staff and managers who worked with Mr. Paschke, he said. They had served the Organization well and he applauded them. He also appreciated that, over several years, the Office’s reports had set a standard for clarity and readability, with their concise formats, their executive summaries and their graphics.

The United States noted the Office’s additions to the original list of review areas, including human resources. This area was important, as personnel management needed to be more responsive. He was also pleased that greater attention would be paid to information technology management.

The United States was concerned with reports of mismanagement and waste reports in the United Nations Angola Verification Mission (UNAVEM III), he said. He noted the Oversight Office’s report that overpayments had been made to a contractor, and he would like to be informed as to whether those overpayments had been recovered, and what action had been taken to prevent such overpayments in the future. He had also been following the news about fraudulent activities by a transportation officer in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was curious to know whether additional savings could be made in other missions through the internal controls that had been introduced in that mission to avoid such a situation in the future.

Regarding the discussion of the audit of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), he said it complemented the Board of Auditors comments on that organization. Among other things, he was pleased about the establishment of a checklist for financial monitoring of implementing partners, and would like to know more about its status.

He noted that $5 million had been spent by the UNHCR on housing units, he said, but that only two of 152 units assessed had been completed, and that only 20 per cent of rehabilitated houses were occupied. This was a poor record of accomplishment, and he would like to be informed how the UNHCR had changed its monitoring to avoid such problems.

The United States was pleased to read the Oversight Office’s assessment that improvements had been made in procurement, he said, but he also believed that continuous improvement was necessary in this area. He was surprised to read that the United Nations had overcharged individuals and departments for long-distance phone calls, and asked what steps had been taken to address the Oversight Office recommendations on that matter.

One broad area ripe for improvement was programme evaluation, he said. This was currently “very spotty” throughout the Organization, even though it was required by the rules. The Oversight Office report on this was an important step, but the United States was disappointed that the Committee for Programme and Coordination had not paid more attention to the matter. As the Office had stated, in the absence of knowing where a programme was going, it was impossible to tell whether it had arrived at its destination.

He thanked Mr. Paschke, who, he said, had helped establish a strong oversight presence where none had previously existed.

GARFIELD BARNWELL (Guyana), speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said he noted with deep concern the contents of a media report posted on the United Nations Foundation Web site, which had references to the press conference by Mr. Paschke, in which the Group was mentioned as having “often opposed suggested reforms.” The Group strongly and categorically rejected such unfounded charges and found them totally unacceptable.

The Group also rejected the references in the annual report of the Oversight Office (document A/54/393) and media reports to the role of Member States in the decision-making process as “micro-management,” he said. The Group was of the view that the Organization should not accept such criticism of Member States by Secretariat officials. The Group was fully committed to financial discipline and had a critical role in the sound management of the United Nations.

He reaffirmed the Group’s commitment to the process of reform, but this should be implemented in accordance with the decisions of the General Assembly.

NESTER ODAGA-JALOMAYO (Uganda) said that year in and year out the budget of the Oversight Office had not only been exempted from the usual arbitrary cuts in the economic and social sectors, but had been substantially increased in successive programme budgets. Uganda, he said, would therefore have expected that the Oversight Office should have done better in terms of its programme delivery. The Office had tended to concentrate too much on auditing and investigation with less attention to evaluation and monitoring of programmes.

He requested clarification on a number of references in the report by the Oversight Office –- including a statement that there was “an overly critical attitude of many Member States towards the United Nations bureaucracy resulting in numerous examples of micro-management by the legislative organs.” He also noted with concern the growing tendency of some senior Secretariat officials to discuss the work of the Organization in the press. While Uganda had no problem with this in itself, it was deplorable that some official should use the forum of their press briefings to attack Member States.

His delegation had also seen a media report which quoted the outgoing head of the Oversight Office, Mr. Paschke, as accusing some Member States of thwarting the Secretary-General’s efforts to cut staff, eliminate waste and streamline the world body. During the course of this briefing, aspersions had been cast on his country among others as being opposed to the Secretary-General’s reform effort.

He wanted it to be known for the record and for the avoidance of any doubt that his country’s commitment to reform was total and unflinching. He supported budget discipline and measures to ensure that the resources of the Organization were used effectively and efficiently. However, he also wished to stress that the role of the Secretary-General and his staff was to facilitate the process of reform as instructed by Member States, and not to give instructions on it to them.

TAMMAM SULAIMAN (Syria) said the introduction to the Overight Office’s report had painted a rosy picture of the Office which was not an accurate representation of the reality. He would like to know whether the Office’s recommendations were always in accordance with the Organization’s financial rules and regulations. Syria felt the role of the Office in preventing waste and overpayment was important and that the trust of Member States was placed in it. As to its independence, this really belonged to the review process performed by the Fifth Committee, under Assembly resolution 48/218B.

Regarding the Oversight Office’s recommendations on the recruitment of retired persons for language services, he said that Mr. Paschke’s recommendation that such retirees be used locally was not in keeping with the Assembly decision on this matter contained in its resolution 51/480 on the use of retirees. Syria believed that the use of retirees should not be strictly local.

As for observations made by Mr. Paschke in a press conference, at which he accused Member States of putting obstacles in the way of the reform process, he said those comments were a breach of the rules of the international civil service. They were a form of interference in the work of Member States, which adopted political decisions.

Syria had discussed United Nations reform responsibly and effectively in the political considerations of the General Assembly, he said. The statement had been made that Syria supported decolonization despite the small number of colonies that remained. He was proud that Syria was among the countries that were against colonization. The remark had been made by an international civil servant, who was supposed to follow the Assembly’s instructions. It was dangerous, and constituted interference in the legislative process by a civil servant. It could be seen as proof that other violations of its mandate had been made by the Oversight Office. The Oversight Office should not be used as a source of information which portrayed a picture that had nothing to do with reality. States had equal sovereignty under the Charter. No- one should cast doubt on that.

Mr. Paschke’s statements were not in line with the principles of competence and integrity set out in Article 101 of the Charter, he said. He hoped that Mr. Paschke’s replacement would learn from the Office’s mistakes.

DJAMEL MOKTEFI (Algeria) recalled that when decision to accept the establishment of the Oversight Office was adopted, the Fifth Committee was under the chairmanship of Algeria. At present, the Committee was reviewing resolution 48/218B to remove ambiguities, so the Oversight Office could work tranquilly and so its work could have full legitimacy.

In the preface to the Oversight Office report, he noted a sense of disappointment and frustration, he said, where Mr. Paschke indicated he had tried to have a dialogue with Member States but was unable to obtain their approval. Perhaps Mr. Paschke had not understood the concerns of Member States, and so had been unable to construct the dialogue, which had therefore become a unilateral conversation.

He noted with concern that Mr. Paschke had stated that legislative bodies micromanaged, and said he would like to be given examples of the behaviour on which this judgement was based. It was the role of legislative bodies to adopt decisions in any way they wished. The Oversight Office should not become involved in judging the behaviour or role of Member States.

He also regretted a statement made by Mr. Paschke in a press briefing, which had provoked articles that were pure disinformation, he said. He asked how it could be stated that Member States had opposed the Oversight Office, when its recommendations did not require prior agreement from Member States and when there was such a very high implementation rate of those recommendations.

Algeria supported the Secretary-General’s reform efforts and would always have a constructive position on efforts to improve the Organization, he concluded.

HENRY FOX (Australia) said he strongly supported the work of the Oversight Office and he wished to associate himself with the positive comments made so far in connection with its work.

The Under-Secretary-General of Internal Oversight Services, KARL PASCHKE, then took the floor in order to reply to questions raised during the general discussion and make concluding remarks.

He said that he begged to differ with an allegation that there was an over-emphasis on auditing in the Oversight Office. He had made a number of statements on this in the past and auditing was the footwork, the infantry of oversight, and the auditors were the foot soldiers of this activity. He also called to the attention of delegates the fact that the Office had been born “within existing resources”, which meant that he had initially found himself with a sizeable number of auditors, and smaller groups of evaluators and investigators. He had tried to adjust the four or five oversight activities and he believed the right balance had now been struck. But it was important to note that the internal audit function was still the best way of providing oversight to the Organization.

He agreed with the representative of Pakistan that monitoring of programmes and legislative mandates was still important, but was first and foremost the responsibility of the individual department head -– in other words, it was a managerial function. The Oversight Office monitored implementation twice a year by liaising with programme managers and providing guidance as required. Where there was potential for the non-attainment of objectives it was then his duty to conduct inspections of the unit concerned, focusing on three areas: programme delivery, resources management and management controls. Practical solutions were then recommended. All of this was reflected in the annual report and in the inspection reports.

The representative of Pakistan had made a number of comments on the Evaluation Report, he said. The Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC) had debated those issues and adopted its report on the session, which contained the range of views in the Committee. The report was before the Committee as part of its documentation. The Office would insist that the relevant departments implement their work in accordance with the recommendations of the CPC.

The representative of Pakistan had also commented on the early repatriation of international police task monitors from the United Nations Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Paragraph 22 of the Oversight Office report pointed out that some police officers had cheated in the language test. That was based on various pieces of evidence, some of which he read out to the Committee.

In response to the representative of Pakistan’s comments on the United Nations Observer Mission in Angola (MONUA) and the recovery of money from the host governments, he said this was based in part on General Assembly resolutions, which he then read out to the Committee. The principle of off-setting claims by the United Nations against government claims was well established. It was on the basis of this that Oversight Office made the recommendation cited in paragraph 29 of the report on the recovery of sums by MONUA. Management had been actively negotiating with the government and those discussions were still going on.

On the comments made by the representative of Pakistan on Oversight Office observations about a legal adviser to the Rwanda Tribunal, he said that private financial transactions had taken place. The Oversight Office noted that the registrar’s panel included witnesses to the matters under inquiry, which was not regular practice. The registrar had made comments to his staff during which he questioned Oversight Office findings, thus making known his own views of the matter. The panel had interpreted matters differently than the Oversight Office and had concluded that the legal adviser should not be transferred. This was surprising to Mr. Pasckhe.

On the question of the re-employment of retirees, the Oversight Office finding took the various General Assembly resolutions into account, he said.

He strongly and categorically rejected allegations that he had singled out five Member States from the “Group of the 77” developing countries as having opposed suggested reforms and for opposing changes to their pet projects, he said. In a previous incarnation he had been Spokesman for the German Foreign Office, and he was reasonably mindful, aware and experienced in dealing with the media. He repeated that once again he had not made such statements. Far be it for him to identify and discuss at a press conference or in conversation with a reporter the positions of individual Member States.

Regarding the statement made by the representative of Algeria that remarks he had made might have provoked certain articles, he said he was appalled by the suggestion that he should be held accountable for media reports that referred to him. He had given assurances that the statements attributed here to him had not been made by him. While he understood the irritation of the representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, he would also expect the Group to be relieved by his statement that he had been misquoted by the article referred to on the United Nations Foundation Web site.

Turning to the statement made by the representative of Uganda, he said he believed he had already addressed most of that representative’s observations, but he wished to assure Uganda he had not made reference to Uganda or any other Member States in his press conference or in comments to the media.

He noted that the representatives of Syria and Uganda thought his description of the achievements of the Office was rosy, he said. He did not think he had painted a rosy picture. Rather he had tried to be realistic and matter of fact, but he would not dispute the right of Member States to disagree with him. It should be considered legitimate for Secretariat officials to describe their efforts as successful rather than as failures.

He then offered to provide the Group of 77 with written responses to the questions members of that group had posed, if they so desired.

AHMED DARWISH (Egypt) said he joined those Member States who had commended the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services for the work he had done. He also thanked Mr. Paschke for the clarification he had given in the meeting, but he believed this clarification should have been made at the beginning of the discussion of the issue. He officially requested the Oversight Office to investigate how those misquotations had come to be posted on the United Nations Foundation Web site.

Mr. MOKTEFI (Algeria) thanked Mr. Paschke for the clarification, but said the statement had not erased the misgivings Algeria had. He said he assumed Mr. Paschke had been aware of the existence of those articles prior to this meeting, and asked why he had not issued a formal rebuttal to a report that used his statement as a basis for such comments. Since Mr. Paschke was not responsible for the comments in the article, the best response would have been a formal rebuttal to avoid the kind of discussion that had taken place today. The Acting Chairman, Mr. SIAL (Pakistan) then proposed the Committee hold an additional formal meeting on this agenda item to allow the Committee time to consider Mr. Paschke’s written answers to question raised.

MUHAMMAD YUSSUF (Tanzania) asked if another meeting was really necessary to discuss Mr. Paschke’s answers.

Mr. SULAIMAN (Syria) said a meeting was necessary in order to clarify the picture. He hoped the Committee would go into the item properly.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN said the “Group of 77” and China had requested not to conclude the general discussion on the item until he had received the relevant answers. Mr. Paschke also wished to return to the Committee at a later stage.

Other Matters

Mr. SULAIMAN (Syria) said there had been difficulties with Secretariat staff not returning the calls of missions, and even asking for the rank of the person calling.

Regarding the Committee’s programme of work for the week, he believed some of this could be moved to next week in order to give time to prepare statements on various sections. He pointed out that there had not been a single meeting on the pattern of conferences and he hoped the bureau would take this into consideration.

The ACTING CHAIRMAN said the Bureau would try to accommodate the agenda item on pattern of conferences.

* *** *