NEGATIVE ATMOSPHERE DURING DISCUSSIONS OF INTERNAL OVERSIGHT OFFICE WORK MUST BE OVERCOME, FIFTH COMMITTEE HEARS

Press Release
GA/AB/3337

NEGATIVE ATMOSPHERE DURING DISCUSSIONS OF INTERNAL OVERSIGHT OFFICE WORK MUST BE OVERCOME, FIFTH COMMITTEE HEARS

The negative atmosphere during Fifth Committee discussions of the work of the Office of Internal Oversight Services must be overcome, the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) was told this morning, as it concluded its general discussion of the annual report of that Office.

To achieve this, an understanding of the necessary distinction between the different prerogatives of the Secretariat and Member States must be established, the representative of Cuba added. Clearly, the mandates of the Office must be clarified and the Assembly resolution mandating the Office needed to be further refined. That the General Assembly had determined its needs, and then set up the Oversight Office to meet them, should not be forgotten.

Oversight bodies played a very significant role, the representative of Turkey said, and the Office of Internal Oversight Services had contributed a great deal of value to the United Nations. The Oversight Office had found its role within the management culture of the Organization, and the rate of implementation of its recommendations by management was evidence of this.

At the meeting’s outset, the Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, Karl Paschke, addressed an allegation that he was the source of critical statements about Member States in an article published on the United Nations Foundation Web site. While he deplored the reluctance of some Member States to support the Oversight Office, he assured the Committee that he had never suggested that any of its Members were opposed to reform, nor that they routinely ignored the recommendations of the Office.

He believed Member States did not allow enough manoeuvring room for the Secretary-General to make changes and managerial improvements, but stated he had never said there was any systematic obstruction by specific Member States. Nor had he singled out any specific Member States in any press conference or off-the-record remarks.

The representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, asked the Secretary-General to look into the media report that accused certain Member States, identified by name, of obstructing reform efforts. The Group also repeated its

Fifth Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/AB/3337 31st Meeting (AM) 9 November 1999

request to the Secretariat for clarification about remarks, in the preface to the Oversight Office annual report, about Member States’ alleged “micro-management” of the United Nations.

The representatives of Pakistan, New Zealand, Algeria, Canada and Finland (on behalf of the European Union) also spoke.

The Committee will meet again at 3 this afternoon, when it will continue its part-by-part consideration of the United Nations programme budget for 2000-2001, starting with the Secretary-General’s proposals for resourcing regional cooperation for development activities.

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to continue and conclude its general discussion of the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services.

[For background on the activities of the Oversight Office, see Press Release GA/AB/3325 of 29 October.]

Statements

The Under-Secretary-General for Internal Oversight Services, KARL PASCHKE, replied to questions raised in previous discussions of the Fifth Committee, notably at a meeting on 2 November.

He provided the Committee with a written answer to the questions raised.

Responding to questions posed by a number of representatives, including the representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, Pakistan, Uganda, Syria and Algeria, he addressed an allegation that he was the source of critical statements about specific Member States cited in a media report published on the United Nations Foundation Web site.

He said that, while he deplored the reluctance of a number of Member States to support the work of the Oversight Office, he had never intimated that they were opposed to reform, nor that they routinely ignored the recommendations of the Office.

He added that while he had observed that Member States did not give the Secretary-General enough manoeuvring room to enact his programme of change and managerial improvements, he had not in any way hinted at systematic obstruction by specific Member States or groups.

He had not singled out any specific Member States in any press conference or in off-the-record remarks, he said. He noted that the statement referred to by Member States in which certain States were identified was attributed to “a United Nations observer”, and that he was not that observer. He could not be expected to correct or rebut statements which he did not make and he asked that he not be held responsible for incorrect media reports.

He understood that the Group of 77 and China had taken offence at certain statements he had made in the preface to the Oversight Office annual report, he said, and he assured them that no offence had been intended. He had always written the prefaces to those reports presuming that, in view of the independence the Assembly had given him, a certain measure of candour was permissible. He noted that an administrative instruction actually encouraged him to comment on the scope of the Office’s activities.

His comments were personal and subjective, in that they reflected his own thoughts about the Organization, he said. They were certainly not meant to mislead anybody or undermine the relationship between Member States and the Secretariat.

Responding to a formal request from the representative of Pakistan that the Oversight Office investigate the source of information in the media report on the United Nations Foundation Web site, he said such an investigation would be carried out, but warned that the unidentified person to whom the remarks were attributed was unlikely to be identified by the reporter or the Web site controller. The source of “leaks” was normally only revealed when the person revealed him or her self.

GARFIELD BARNWELL (Guyana), speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, thanked Mr. Paschke for his responses. He said the Group had never attributed remarks singling out members of the Group directly to Mr. Paschke. He wished to request the Secretary-General to look into this unfortunate episode and bring the facts to the Committee. The Group also repeated its request to the Secretariat for clarification about remarks in the preface to the report about “micro-management” by Member States.

FIKRET DEMIR (Turkey) said the efficiency of the United Nations was a priority for his delegation and oversight bodies played a very significant role. His delegation said the Oversight Office had contributed a great deal of value to the Organization which was now certainly better than it was five years ago. The Oversight Office had found its role within the management culture of the Organization, and the improved implementation rate was evidence of this. The Office had also saved the United Nations quite a lot of money. The independence of the Office had never been compromised.

EVA SILOT BRAVO (Cuba) said that, in general, the annual report of the Oversight Office was of good quality and important points had been made in it on the tasks carried out by the Office. Like other Member States, she had some concern regarding the preface. She was drawn to the reference that before the creation of this Office there was no tradition of scrutiny of management in the Organization. While the Office had made a contribution, experience or practice prior to the establishment of the Office should not be forgotten. The Office’s establishment was a response by the Assembly to its needs, and also to the needs of certain Member States.

She noted a rather optimistic outlook in the report, which she shared in principle, on the effect of the Office on the work of the Organization, she said. Reference in it to the link between the expectations of the Assembly when it set the Office up and the work of the Office might have enabled Member States to have a clearer view of the report.

The Assembly had determined its needs, and then set up the Oversight Office to meet them, she said, and that should not be forgotten. The environment that had been created during the examination of reports of the Office were a reflection of efforts of certain Member States to impose their vision on the Organization, with no attempt to even assess the views of other Member States. The views or all Member States were encompassed in the resolution of the Assembly that had established the Office.

She shared the concerns of others about a reference to micro- management by Member States in the report’s preface, she said. A clear understanding of the roles of the Secretariat and the Member States on oversight was needed. The mandates of the Office must be clarified. In this instance, matters of political sensibilities were aroused. The issue should not have been dealt with in the preface to the Oversight Office report, as it did not assist in the consideration of the issue on its merits.

She welcomed the information that a considerable number of Oversight Office recommendations had been implemented, she said, but would also have welcomed information on the status of the implementation of recommendations that affected mandates. Similarly, she noted a clear intention to point out progress in the work of the funds and programmes, which was welcome, but she would have liked information on pending issues. Clearly the resolution mandating the Office needed to be further refined.

She welcomed savings made, she said, but expressed concern about the Office’s regular attempts to find savings. The promotion of saving was welcome, but if it was part of an effort to bring the budget down to a certain level she would have trouble with that. Identifying savings was certainly not among the tasks the Assembly had given the Office.

She welcomed references in the report to ongoing investigations, she said, and also references to matters where investigations lead to the exoneration of those accused of wrongdoing. Further work in this area was required.

Member States had misunderstood the Oversight Office’s report, she said. It dealt with matters of budgeting and other related issues that were still under consideration by the Assembly. It also commented on electoral assistance, about which the Committee for Programme and Coordination’s observations were accurate. In addition, it seemed that Mr. Paschke felt that the Group of 77 was accusing him directly of wrongdoing but this was not the case.

The negative atmosphere in the Fifth Committee when discussion of the work of the Oversight Office occurred must be overcome, she said. To achieve this, an understanding of the necessary distinction between the prerogatives of the Secretariat and those of Member States must be established.

AMJAD HUSSAIN SIAL (Pakistan) said he failed to see how police officers could pass the tests conducted by United Nations teams by cheating. His delegation had requested information about the procedure for selection of police officers to carefully look into it to avoid repatriation of police officers in the future. This information had still not been provided. He said the Oversight Office statement to the effect that its recommendations on the Rwanda Tribunal had been upheld did not appear to be correct. If the recommendations had been upheld, why had a panel been constituted to further investigate the matter?

He said Mr. Paschke had not commented on Pakistan’s remarks on the preface to the Oversight Office report. He again asked for specific examples of what the Under-Secretary-General had called the “overly critical attitude of Member States towards the United Nations bureaucracy, resulting in numerous examples of micro-management by the legislative organs”. He was of the view that such remarks exceeded the mandate of the Oversight Office, which was responsible for internal oversight only.

He said the remarks of the Under-Secretary-General in the preface to the effect that “the constantly growing number of mandates where their reduction and a new definition of the United Nations priorities would be desirable,” also required further clarification and justification. He asked if the General Assembly, in its resolution 42/218B, had given a mandate to the Oversight Office to question the mandates and priorities set by the General Assembly. He asked for a formal response from the Under-Secretary-General for requests for an investigation into who was responsible for singling out Member States for criticism.

WEN CHIN POWLES (New Zealand) said she wished to thank Mr. Paschke for what must sometimes seem to him a thankless task. Strengthening the United Nations was an important priority and she seconded everything the representative of Turkey had said.

DJAMEL MOKTEFI (Algeria) said he had reservations about the personalized management of the Oversight Office. Doubts still persisted about Mr. Paschke’s press conference, despite the reply. There was still a moral responsibility somewhere along the line, and a careful reading of Mr. Paschke’s reply strengthened Algeria’s doubts. More than 80 per cent of the Office’s recommendations had been implemented so he did not see how Mr. Paschke could assert that Member States did not support the work of his Office. Mr. Paschke had confirmed that the comments in his preface were subjective and this had contributed to the personalization of management, which was not acceptable and could harm relations between Member States and the Secretariat.

JOHN ORR (Canada) associated himself with the remarks made by the representative of New Zealand. He congratulated Under Secretary-General Paschke on his tenure and for his endeavour. He said he hoped the Secretary-General would be able to find as talented and independent an individual to succeed Mr. Paschke.

ELIAS LAHDESMAKI (Finland), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the Union supported the work of the Oversight Office and its effect of the United Nations system. He associated the Union with remarks made by the representatives of New Zealand and Turkey. It also shared the views expressed by the representative of Cuba, when she had stated that she hoped some of the problems surrounding discussions of the work of the Oversight Office would be overcome by constructive cooperation.

He thanked Mr. Paschke and his team for their work and their efforts to lay a solid foundation for the Oversight Office in the United Nations system.

Mr. PASCHKE said he appreciated both the supportive and the critical remarks made by Member States. He valued the dialectic nature of the Fifth Committee, and believed that it was useful for the Oversight Office to be questioned. He said he had always made serious efforts to respond to all questions by Member States.

He was sad that he had not been able to respond satisfactorily to all questions asked during the discussion of the report, he said. He had not been able to respond immediately to all questions, notably those posed by the representative of Pakistan, but he assured Member States that he took all their questions seriously. Further responses would be forthcoming in the Fifth Committee’s informal consultations on the Office’s report. He assured the representative of Guyana, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 and China, that the Secretariat would also take his request seriously.

Friday was his last day in Office, he explained, and therefore this was probably his last appearance before the Fifth Committee. He thanked Member States for conducting a critical dialogue about the Oversight Office over the years of his tenure. He hoped that, contrary to the view expressed by the representative of Algeria, where communication problems existed they were not exclusively a result of his actions; he assured Member States that he had always tried to be responsive to their views. He hoped the Fifth Committee’s relationship with his successor was as good, or better, than its relationship had been with him.

The Fifth Committee Chairman, PENNY WENSLEY (Australia), then conveyed the Committee’s good wishes for the future to Mr. Paschke. It was always a bitter-sweet moment to say goodbye, she said, and in this case she was not sure whether the bitter or the sweet prevailed. However, she joined with the view expressed by the representative of Cuba that it was very important that a positive attitude be developed towards discussion of the work of the Oversight Office in the future.

* *** *