Press conference on summit outcome document

Briefing correspondents on the second revision of the draft outcome document for the September High-Level Plenary Meeting of the General Assembly this afternoon, facilitator Christopher Hackett ( Barbados) and Acting Assembly President John Dauth ( Australia) said progress had been made in some areas, but further consultations were needed in other areas.

Mr. Hackett said that since the first revision of 26 July, Assembly President Jean Ping and his 10 facilitators had had more consultations in order to bring as many Members States as possible on board.  [President Ping is currently in Africa and will return on 22 August.]  Highlighting the progress made, he said the first part of the outcome document, “Values and Principles”, had been made sharper and clearer.

In the area of development, elements of the “Global Partnership” had been revised in order to present a more balanced identification of the responsibilities of national governments and the international community, he said.  There was also a greater focus on implementation of the Monterrey Consensus regarding financing for development.  Reference was also included to the upcoming December ministerial meeting on trade in Hong Kong, China.  Additional elements had been added in the environmental section, including on indigenous peoples, traditional knowledge and land degradation.

He said terrorism was one of the areas where progress had not yet been achieved.  Acceptable wording regarding the definition of terrorism had not yet been found.  There was also some way to go in the area of disarmament and non-proliferation, as the “ Norway document”, submitted by seven countries, had been received too late to be addressed in consultations.  Some 30 to 40 countries had come on board, but more time was needed.  Although progress had been made regarding the proposed peacebuilding commission, further discussions were needed, including on its composition.

Although there was support from a larger number of countries for a Human Rights Council, “the devil is really in the details”, Mr. Hackett continued, including on the Council’s size.  Providing parameters for the concept of “Responsibility to Protect” was another challenge.  A key point in the paragraphs on “Secretariat” and “Management Reform” was the amount of flexibility that should be given to the Secretary-General to manage the Organization without too much micro-management.

Mr. Dauth emphasized that the document represented a work in progress.  There was quite some work to do in a number of areas, and that work had to be done in a short span of time.

Asked by a correspondent who opposed more flexibility for the Secretary-General in managing the Organization, Mr. Hackett answered that he had the impression that countries from the “Group of 77” developing countries felt that the Assembly had a responsibility in oversight of the Organization and believed that if too many responsibilities were surrendered, it would jeopardize the Assembly’s high-level responsibility.  Mr. Dauth added that the Russian Federation also had difficulties with a greater authority for the Secretary-General.  Those who advocated for such a greater authority, however, equally advocated far stronger systems of accountability.

The Norway declaration had not come as an afterthought, Mr. Hackett answered to another question.  The document had simply been received too late to be incorporated in the second revision.  Mr. Dauth added that, as one of the seven co-signatories, he would have preferred that language from it would have been reflected in the draft, but that there had not been enough time.  There was certainly support for the declaration, but the co-signatories did not expect consensus.  The United States and a number of other countries had some difficulties with the text.

Any suggestion that the United States had not, from the beginning, participated in consultations was “absurd and unfair”, Mr. Dauth responded to a correspondent’s remark that late in consultations the United States’ representative had presented broad criticism.  The United States had vigorously participated in all discussions and had made substantive comments.

Mr. Hackett said that some points made in that criticism had been incorporated in the revision, particularly regarding a greater balance in the responsibilities of national governments and the international community regarding development and in staying closer to the Monterrey Consensus language.  The focus on the Monterrey Consensus was not a step back and did not undermine the results of the Gleaneagles Group of 8 meeting, Mr. Hackett said.  The current version was a successful balancing act to keep the Monterrey language and to build on it.

Addressing questions regarding difficulties surrounding a definition for terrorism, Mr. Dauth said that the text in paragraph 65 of the revision did not represent a definition that would deliver to the international community a comprehensive convention on the suppression of terrorism, but it contained many elements of it.  There were no substantive difficulties among member States with paragraph 65, but there was still the open question of whether a more comprehensive definition could be negotiated before September.  If that were possible, then a comprehensive convention could be concluded.  He was, however sceptical about it.  The Assembly’s Sixth committee (Legal) was addressing it.

Answering a question regarding Security Council reform, Mr. Hackett said there was a real concern that countries that did not see their wishes addressed might withdraw support for the outcome document.  The Assembly’s President was very conscious of that and had consultations with some key actors.  He emphasized, in that regard, that Council reform was important, but that it had to be done in such a way that it would not harm progress in other areas.  He was not aware of a specific plan the President was pushing.  Mr. Dauth added that the Security Council was not, to his knowledge, distracting the focus of any delegation from other issues.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record