PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECURITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT

PRESS CONFERENCE BY SECURITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT

Briefing correspondents today on the Security Council’s calendar for December, its President for the month, Emyr Jones Parry ( United Kingdom), focused his remarks on the two main categories of Council business:  the planned mandate renewals, sanctions reviews and monthly briefings; and the protection of civilians in armed conflict, which was of particular importance to the United Kingdom.

In opening remarks, he said there was a particular interest on the issue of protecting journalists, on whom attacks had been higher than ever last year.  The United Kingdom would be open to the possibility of introducing that into the resolution on civilians in armed conflict.  The text was intended to codify what had happened since the adoption of the original resolution 1296 (2000).  He wanted the text to better tackle impunity, humanitarian access, sexual exploitation, and the implementation of recommendations made in the upcoming Secretary-General’s report.

The third category of Council business, of course, was “events, events, events”, he said.  Any presidency of any organization gets hijacked by the real world, and he could not, for that reason, see how it would be possible to comment today on, say, elections in Iraq, the planning of elections in Haiti, the planned constitutional referendum in the Democratic People’s Republic of the Congo and the situation there, or how to take Côte d’Ivoire forward. 

He said that one big question concerned what to do about Detlev Mehlis, the German prosecutor leading the United Nations investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister, Rafik Hariri, and his report.  A resolution of the Security Council would be required on Mr. Mehlis’ report, due out just before his mandate expires on 15 December.  The Council had scheduled a discussion with Mr. Mehlis on 13 December, and the report would be made public thereafter, followed by informal consultations with Mr. Mehlis.  Before that, it was difficult to know what he would produce, how his interviews would have gone, and whether the Council would extend his mandate and, if so, whether Mr. Mehlis would be able to continue.  There were no ready answers. 

Replying to a series of questions about the build-up of work scheduled for 13 December, which also included briefings by the International Criminal Court’s Prosecutor, and the strain on journalists, Mr. Jones Parry said he would pursue that concern to see what, if anything, could be done. 

Speaking in his national capacity to a question about whether he shared his American colleagues’ enthusiasm for Mr. Mehlis to stay on beyond the 15^th, he said he was inclined to respond positively to a request made for his extension.  As to whether he could do it, there might be a wish on the part of Mr. Mehlis’ bosses in Germany to get him back.  From the British point of view, given the continuity Mr. Mehlis would represent and his meticulousness, if the mandate was renewed, he had a strong preference for Mr. Mehlis to stay.

To the several questions concerning the United Kingdom’s and European Union’s position on the United Nations budget, he said that the word “crisis” might be overstating the situation at the moment.  On following up the September Summit, he was not drawing linkages between what he wished to see, namely progress made across the board.  His strong preference was to see, by the time of the holiday break, substantial progress, even moving towards adoption of a human rights council and a timetable set out for adoption of the peacebuilding commission, as well as substantial inroads on the management dossier. 

He said that the management reform was a United Nations interest, to which the European Union was “very attached”.  All efforts should include a modernized and transformed management culture.  That did not get done instantly, but was a permanent challenge, which faced all countries and companies.  He had argued consistently on the Union’s behalf for the following:  early, concrete decisions taken in terms of an ethics office, whistle blowing and oversight; the pulling together of all measures being undertaken by the Secretariat to obtain a clear sense of what had actually been done; and, in terms of the budget process itself, incremental gains to improve the management and flexibility of the way systems operate.  In adopting the budget, he was not advocating a linkage between following up the Summit, but the Union would not sign up for a budget that appeared to do one thing without progress elsewhere. 

A balanced approach was needed, and he explained he would look for a clear undertaking, a kind of note attached to the budget or a resolution of the General Assembly noting the three categories he had set out, and looking at what was intended in 2006 -- specifically, he was seeking a precise timetable by the General Assembly as to when certain things would be put in place.  Then, he would come back and review the budget.  He did not know, for example, whether mandate renewals would require more or less money, although the changes involved in realigning personnel policy and the whole management culture, would likely involve extra expenses.  That review should take place and he was open to that.  He did not draw a linkage, but he expected those things to be pursued, and the European Union was working hard to produce outcomes in that direction. 

Another correspondent asked whether, by transferring certain powers from the General Assembly to the Secretary-General, that would make it easier for big countries, especially the United States, to “twist the arm” of the Secretary-General and push him in whatever direction those countries wanted to go. 

He replied that there was a “myth” surrounding the notion that making the United Nations management culture more modern and basing the budget on priorities would somehow undermine the General Assembly’s authority.  He did not accept that.  In all of that, it would be up to the Assembly to take decisions.  Giving more authority to the Secretary-General simply made things more efficient.  The flexibility agreed for the Secretary-General would be determined by the Assembly, and the exercise of that flexibility would be “reportable and accountable” to the Assembly.  Putting in place better accountability of the entire Secretariat and making it answerable to the General Assembly was what that was all about.  So, he saw a genuine enhancement of the Assembly’s position.

Since the European Union agreed with the Americans on the need for a thorough management reform, but disagreed over the precise mechanism for the way forward put forth by the Americans, would the European Union come back with its own plan for how it should be done? another correspondent asked.

He said the Union’s position was well-documented; he had shared it in writing with the co-chairs on management.  There were no surprises.  It was a thought-out policy, which he was trying to develop.  The Union, at this stage, was arguing that the current process was not the normal budgetary process.  His assumption was that the issues would be taken forward in parallel, without a linkage, but in a real world, progress needed to be made across the board.  The United Nations had to function on 1 January, and that would require a budget. 

He added that, as he understood it, the early months of any year were not easy for the United Nations because of cash flow.  What would those who generally paid early do if there was no budget?  What if they said they would only give a quarter of what they owed, and if those who never paid in the early months, did not come forward –- the United Nations “would be quite strapped for cash”.  The policy answer was what he had sketched out today.  The political answer was that he did not see, within the General Assembly, very much support for a view that said, “let’s hold the whole thing hostage and see if we can deliver in items that are difficult, without knowing the precise timing”.  For the European Union, “that was more likely to lead to a train wreck than to progress”. 

Another correspondent, noting that United States Ambassador John Bolton had just said that he saw no inconsistency with adopting a three-month budget, and those who paid up front, paying up front for the whole lot, even though the Secretariat only had spending rights for three months, asked for a comment.

He could not anticipate what an aggregate reaction would be, he said.  A colleague from Latin America had said yesterday that, as a result of speculation about whether or not the budget would be adopted, his parliamentarians were bringing into question all financial payments to multilateral organizations.  In terms of the national willingness to pay on some transient temporary arrangement, the willingness to pay up front would be “much less”.  Some paid late as it was; very few actually paid up front.

Asked about the consequences, in that case, to the peace processes and all that the United Nations did, and how severe a crisis in international relations that would entail, he said he hoped that situation would not be a “train wreck”.  Mr. Bolton was talking about temporary arrangements.  He, personally, was not advocating a “train wreck”, but was trying to end up with a budget, which, once in place, reflected agreed realities.  There was an arrangement that stipulated that, if a budget was not adopted for a calendar year, then it would operate in the next month on one-twelfth of the aggregate from the previous year.  That would involve a whole set of disadvantages.  The Secretary-General’s argument was that, on day one, the United Nations had to operate, peacekeeping operations had to continue, and so on.  How the Organization faced the first of January, events would tell, but that depended on whether a budget was in place before business effectively adjourned on 22 or 23 December. 

To a question about whether the United Kingdom was conducting an investigation into some of the claims raised in the oil-for-food investigation concerning British firms and individuals, he said his country and the Security Council had welcomed Mr. Volcker’s efforts.  As to follow-up, a nation first looked at how individual charges and allegations “stacked up”.  He had been in contact with Mr. Volcker and had sought information.  In order to obtain the precise degree of technical detail, the individual authorities responsible for the different allegations in the United Kingdom, were now in direct contact with Mr. Volcker and were seeking information to help them move forward. 

He said that a separate issue was to what extent the United Nations should be following up.  He hoped the organs of the United Nations, and not just the Security Council, would accept that Mr. Volcker had delivered some serious messages warranting some serious attention. 

* *** *

For information media • not an official record