PRESS CONFERENCE BY ‘GROUP OF 77’ DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

PRESS CONFERENCE BY ‘GROUP OF 77’ DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

The voice of every Member State, irrespective of contributions to the Organization’s budget, must be heard in the process of United Nations reform, Dumisani Kumalo, South Africa’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and Chairman of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, told correspondents at a Headquarters press conference this afternoon.

Reading out a statement on behalf of the Group, he stressed that reform of the United Nations was a collective agenda that served the common interests of all.  The Group had always supported the Secretary-General’s efforts to ensure greater accountability of staff, and had called for the strengthening of the accountability framework of the United Nations and reforms to the Organization’s systems of administration of justice and human resources management.

Clarifying the Group’s position regarding the reform process, he said the Group expected the Secretary-General to take immediate action in cases of corruption, fraud or any wrongdoing within the Organization.  Staff should be held accountable for any wrongdoing, regardless of nationality or seniority.  At the same time, it was important to ensure that disciplinary actions met due process and were in line with the principles of justice and the Organization’s rules and regulations.  The Group was pleased that the Secretary-General agreed with it on the importance of ensuring accountability at all levels, and that staff under investigation was entitled to due process.

The General Assembly had a Charter-mandated role of oversight on matters affecting the Secretariat and the Organization’s resources, he continued.  The Secretariat had an obligation to inform Member States, through the General Assembly, of instances of serious corruption and wrongdoing.  That did not prevent the Secretary-General from taking decisive action or disciplinary measure against any staff member of the Secretariat.

Interaction between the media and the Secretariat did not replace the Charter requirement for the Secretariat to report to Member States through the General Assembly, he added.  The Group was pleased that the Secretary-General agreed that the Secretariat should refrain from any action that would infringe upon the prerogatives of Member States and the General Assembly.

He said the Group was committed to working with the Secretary-General and the General Assembly President to achieve the reform of the United Nations within the intergovernmental framework that the Organization provided.  Reform should be meaningful, strengthen the ability of the Organization to implement its mandates effectively and enable it to serve the interests of the collective membership.

Given the fact that the Security Council was going to go through with the debate on peacekeeping procurement tomorrow, what was his position, especially in light of the letter sent to him by two United States Congressmen? a correspondent asked.

Responding, he said he had stated, in his letter to the Council’s President, United States Ambassador John Bolton, that the Group did not believe the Council was the right forum for tomorrow’s debate.  Procurement issues belonged to the General Assembly.  However, since the Group had been embroiled in the debate, he had requested that it be invited to address the Council, and “set the record straight”.  He had done so, not because the Council was the right venue to discuss the issue, but because the Council was determined to discuss the issue anyway.  The Council’s 15 members could not be allowed to discuss an issue of such importance, without the Group’s views.

Asked about the letter from United States Congressmen Hyde and Lantos to Ambassador Kumalo, in his capacity as Chair of the Group of 77, he said the Group had decided, at an emergency meeting last Friday, not to respond to the letter.  The United States Congress was only one of the 191 parliaments represented at the United Nations.  The Group would deal with the Secretary-General and the President of the General Assembly.

Two things must be understood, he added.  The first was that the report of the Office of Internal Oversight Services on peacekeeping procurement, to be discussed in the Security Council tomorrow, had been called for by the Group, which had asked that it go to the General Assembly.  The second was the notion that developing countries tolerated corruption.  That was very far from the truth, as fraud and corruption hurt developing countries more than the developed world.

To what extent had the issue become an unveiled rift between the powerful countries and the developing world, and to what extent was China active in the Group’s position, as to which issues would be taken before the Assembly or the Council? a correspondent asked.

Mr. Kumalo said China was a good member of the Group.  The Group took its decisions collectively.  It had been a collective decision not to respond to the letter from Washington.  The decision to go before the Council tomorrow, even though the Council was not the right venue to discuss procurement, had also been a collective one.

The Group believed that the voice of every Member State must be respected, irrespective of budget contributions, he said.  No one owned “class A or class B” stock in the Organization.  It was an intergovernmental body.  All Members were assessed and paid their contributions based on their ability to pay.

Asked whether he saw a concerted campaign to discredit the Group of 77 as the reform moved into an important phase, he said the Group had a vested interest in United Nations reform.  The procurement report had been called for by the Group.  The Group was accredited to the United Nations in New York.  The United States Congress was represented by Ambassador Bolton.  The Group had decided not to respond to the letter, as it had not come through the representation of the United States at the United Nations.  It was not in the Group’s ability to respond, as it would only provoke other such letters.  The Parliament of South Africa might also want to start writing letters, for example.

There seemed to be implicit criticism of the way in which some of the legal inquiries were being handled, regarding people who had been accused or detained in connection with the procurement investigation, a correspondent said.  Was he trying to say that the Group opposed any cooperation between the Secretariat and the United States Attorney’s Office?

Mr. Kumalo said the Group expected the Secretary-General to take immediate action in cases of wrongdoing.  The Secretary-General did not have to consult the Group before uprooting any wrongdoing.  The Secretary-General should be equally harsh in any case of wrongdoing, irrespective of the nationality of the person involved.  However, the Group would never concede the oversight role of the General Assembly.  The Assembly’s oversight role was in the Charter, and the Charter would not be amended.  He did not want to interfere with the Secretary-General in carrying out his duties, in demanding accountability or taking disciplinary action.  All such things should be done, however, according to the rules of the Organization.

Regarding the status of negotiations on the Human Rights Council, he said the Group did not have a position on the Council, as it was a political issue.

Asked whether the Assembly been informed of actions taken regarding the “oil-for-food” programme, he noted that oil-for-food was a programme of the Council, not the Assembly.  Procurement, however, was a General Assembly matter.

Many things were discussed in the Council that could be discussed in the Assembly, a correspondent noted.  Why was the Group choosing procurement fraud to make its stand?  And, if the Group was so concerned about the issue, why had no one from the Group asked the General Assembly to debate it?

Issues such as sexual abuse and HIV/AIDS affected the entire United Nations membership, he said.  The Group was raising the issue of procurement, because it did not believe the matter should be discussed in the Council.  His understanding was that the Council had asked the Secretary-General to brief it on the issue.  That was encroachment.

The Group had not yet received the report, he added.  It had not asked to discuss the report because it was still waiting to receive it.

The decision to hold a Council meeting was a consensus decision, which included China, a correspondent said.  How could Mr. Kumalo account for the fact that the Group was now objecting to it?

Responding, he said there were other members of the Group of 77 in the Council.  The Group had always respected how the Council worked and had never interfered in its business.  This time, however, the Council had interfered.  It was the position of the Group of 77 that the Council was encroaching on an area that did not belong to it.  Tomorrow afternoon, the Council would probably come up with a statement.  That statement would be taken as “gospel” on procurement.  He was going to the Security Council very reluctantly, as the Group did not believe the Council was the right venue to discuss the matter.

Asked whether he thought United States Ambassador John Bolton was following instructions or acting on his own, Mr. Kumalo said he worked under the assumption that every ambassador followed instructions from his capital.  He assumed that, whenever Mr. Bolton spoke, he was expressing the view of the United States.  There was no other way of judging it.  Mr. Bolton was a wonderful colleague, as had been the other United States Ambassadors before him.

Asked whether he would recommend that the General Assembly hold a similar debate, he said the Assembly would discuss the report, once it received it.  The Group had asked for the report.  It then showed up on the evening news.

Was it a matter of procurement or part of a wider concern of the Security Council discussing such issues as Zimbabwe? a correspondent asked.

The Group had over the years watched the Council encroach on matters belonging to the Assembly, he said.  Procurement did not belong to the Council.  There were issues, belonging to the Assembly, requiring the input of all 191 members.  The Council was not doing the issue a favour by restricting it to 15 members.

Asked whether powerful countries were trying to encroach on the developing world within the Secretariat, he said the Group was concerned that the Secretariat was not as representative as it wished it to be.  The Outcome Document of the 2005 World Summit did include language on the need for equal representation.  The developing countries had the influence on the development agenda and they would fight to defend it.

Security Council reform was not on the Group’s agenda, he said in response to another question.  As representative of South Africa, he expected that the issue of the Council’s expansion would come up this year, as it was an important matter contained in the Summit Outcome.  For the Group, however, the debate was about other matters.  There was a development agenda and the reform of the Economic and Social Council was being held up.  At least there seemed to be progress on the Human Rights Council.  Security Council reform was a part of the debate, but no part of the reform of the Organization could be seen in isolation.  The Summit Outcome could not be implemented selectively, he said.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record