Fifth Committee Approves $3.4 Billion Programme Budget for 2023, Permanent Shift from Biennial to Annual Cycle, Concluding Main Part of Seventy-Seventh Session
Drafts to Approve Increased Resources for Human Rights Council Mandates Sparks Heated Discussion, Introduction of Oral Amendments
The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) today wrapped up the main part of its seventy-seventh session by sending the General Assembly a 2023 budget of nearly $3.4 billion while deciding to make the annual budget cycle a part of the Organization’s financial framework.
Nearly $200 million more than the $3.22 billion budget figure unveiled by Secretary-General António Guterres in mid-October 2022, the $3.4 billion was approved by consensus after technical updates provided by Chandramouli Ramanathan, Assistant Secretary-General for Programme Planning, Finance and Budget, in the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance, and the United Nations Controller.
By sending the Assembly another budget resolution, “Shifting the management paradigm in the United Nations: review of changes to the budgetary cycle”, the Committee confirmed the end of the three-year trial period that began with the 2020 fiscal year when the Organization shifted from a biennium to an annual budget cycle.
When he presented his budget to the Fifth Committee in October, Mr. Guterres said the move to an annual exercise improves the accuracy of resource estimates and lets the Organization adapt more quickly to mandate changes. It also gives Member States an opportunity to provide more frequent direction on resource allocations and align decisions with recent or sudden events, such as the global pandemic.
The move to approve additional resources to support Human Rights Council mandates sparked heated discussion among delegates, including the introduction of various oral amendments. For example, the introduction of an oral amendment by the representative of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the European Union, to provide additional resources drew criticism from China. That country’s representative said the amendment would impose a financial burden on Member States and undermine the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). In addition, by using these resources to support mandates derived from controversial Council resolutions, it would exacerbate disagreements among members.
Other delegates voiced more direct opposition to additional funds for the Geneva-based Council. The representative of Sri Lanka said his delegation does not support the financing of politically motivated country-specific mandates through the United Nations regular budget. Sri Lanka has rejected Human Rights Council resolution 51/1, to which resources have been allocated through a text tiled “Special subjects relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023”.
He noted that information provided by the Secretariat has shown that previous such mandates have already consumed $5.46 million in invaluable resources that have not brought any tangible benefits and serve the political agendas of a select few. He put on record his delegation’s categorical rejection of resolution 51/1 and disassociated it from the entire budget for that text.
A draft resolution proposed by Ethiopia’s delegate, by which the Assembly would not approve any resources under revised Council estimates resulting from Human Rights Council resolution 51/27 of 7 October 2022, was defeated by a recorded vote of 32 in favour to 71 against, with 50 abstentions. In introducing the resolution, Ethiopia’s delegate said the text did not recognize the Ethiopian Government’s cooperation with the Council to conduct investigations regarding the actions undertaken after the November 2020 attack on the Ethiopian National Defense Force. The Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia was established for a political purpose and issues deficient reports, she added.
The representative of Syria stressed his rejection of the Council resolution and disassociated himself from the adoption of texts on this item by the Committee. He rejected the use of United Nations mechanisms to target specific countries in the interests of some influential countries and States under different pretexts, noting that reports issued by the Council are subjective when it comes to the situation of certain countries.
While not prompting a vote on the budget as it did in 2020, the decision to include financing for the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria in the regular budget again drew opposition from some Member States, as it did in previous years. The Committee rejected an attempt by the Russian Federation to remove references to the Mechanism from the programme planning resolution by a recorded vote of 83 against to 19 in favour, with 49 abstentions. The Committee also rejected an attempt by the Russian Federation to remove references to the Mechanism from the proposed programme budget for 2023 by a recorded vote of 82 against to 18 in favour, with 54 abstentions.
In closing remarks, the representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China, called this day an important historical event in which the Fifth Committee considered important items that will profoundly impact the way the Organization functions. The effects will be observed for decades. Celebrating the fact that the Committee displayed full confidence in the Secretary-General’s reform agenda in reviewing the budgetary cycle, he stressed that the direction adopted today has been deeply thought out by the Committee.
Yet the representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, said that closing negotiations this late in the session clearly shows the Fifth Committee’s inability to rally together on common priorities. Delayed discussions have put intense pressure on the Organization and its staff, and he encouraged the Committee to take a hard look at the reasons for such a dysfunctional way of working and commit to improving its methods.
The ACABQ should also take stock of the very difficult debates the Committee faced on some of its recommendations, he continued, as several were not a driver for consensus. Several delegations, he pointed out, were unable to see in the ACABQ recommendations on the revised estimates for the Human Rights Council an acceptable way forward and compromise.
The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the African Group and aligning himself with the Group of 77 and China, reaffirmed the need to ensure the Committee’s smooth functioning and effective discharge of mandated programmes and activities. He was disappointed that the Committee could not agree on the peacebuilding agenda item, despite delegations’ expressed interest and flexibility, and disappointed by the unusual yet consistent outcome on the budget for special political missions. Special political missions need financial and human resources as much as they need proper guidance from Member States through the Assembly, he reiterated, stressing that existing agreed-upon language of the Assembly continues to apply to these missions unless decided otherwise by the Assembly. Adopting a skeletal resolution for special political missions is not a precedent, he emphasized.
Also speaking were the representatives of the Russian Federation, Switzerland (also on behalf of Liechtenstein), Qatar, Belarus, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Eritrea, Israel, Australia, Netherlands, Costa Rica (on behalf of a group of countries), Switzerland (in its national capacity), United States, Egypt, United Kingdom and Botswana, as well as the observer for the State of Palestine.
Opening Remarks
Philippe Kridelka (Belgium), Fifth Committee Chair, opened the meeting and said that since most proposals before the Fifth Committee were agreed upon within the last 24 hours, the majority of the draft resolutions and decisions are provisional versions and subject to editorial review and quality control. They will be issued in the six official languages as quickly as possible. He recognized the various General Assembly resolutions on multilingualism and thanked all delegations for their flexibility to proceed exceptionally with these documents in English only to facilitate the end of the Committee’s work for the main part of the seventy-seventh session.
Action on Drafts
The Fifth Committee first approved, without a vote, a draft on the financial reports and audited financial statements of the Board of Auditors (document A/C.5/77/L.16).
Next, the Committee turned its attention to two draft resolutions titled “Programme planning” (documents A/C.5/77/L.7 and A/C.5/77/L.13).
By the terms of “L.7”, the Assembly would decide to delete all narratives and references regarding the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011 from programme 6, Legal affairs, of the proposed programme budget for 2023.
The representative of the Russian Federation, introducing “L.7”, said the creation of this Mechanism is carried out in such a way that it violates the Charter of the United Nations, the Assembly’s financial issues and the adopted rules and regulations regarding programme planning. The Secretary-General has been driven to invest in this illegal Mechanism. He said the Mechanism is invalid and trusted that Member States would vote in favour of the resolution.
The representative of Switzerland, speaking also on behalf of Liechtenstein, voiced regret over the submission of “L.7” as the text intends to undermine the expressed will and authority of the Assembly. That organ, she stressed, has repeatedly and by a wide margin affirmed its intention to finance the Mechanism through the regular United Nations budget from the time of its establishment to the inclusion of the necessary funding in the regular budget in 2020. By now, it is an integral part of the regular budget, she stressed, while expressing further regret that a small group of countries continue to challenge the expressed will of the membership, thereby setting a bad precedent for the Committee. Switzerland and Liechtenstein will call for a vote on “L.7” and will vote against it and “L.8”, she said.
In explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the European Union, stressed that the Committee’s duty is to ensure that the Organization’s mandates in other legislative forums are fully executed. It must refrain from engaging in discussions pertaining to other United Nations forums. As the mandate related to the Mechanism was approved by the Assembly, its provisions must be respected and executed. The proposed deletions of “L.7” are a direct violation of the Assembly’s decisions and in breach of the Committee’s goal of decision-making by consensus, he said, while regretting the introduction of “L.7”, noting he would vote against it and calling on others to do the same.
The representative of Qatar, highlighting the importance of the Mechanism, commended it for applying the highest level of professional standards and technology to maximize its effectiveness. As the Mechanism must be funded through the regular budget to enable it to execute its mandate, he said he would vote against “L.7”.
The Committee then rejected “L.7” by a recorded vote of 83 against to 19 in favour, with 49 abstentions.
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Syria pointed out that the Assembly resolution establishing the Mechanism is a violation of Article XII of the Charter of the United Nations. As the Security Council, he noted, continues to be fully engaged on Syria, the Assembly’s interference on Council matters is an egregious violation. His Government is fully capable of administering justice and accountability without destructive interference, he continued. This Mechanism could become a precedent used in other countries, he warned, while regretting the outcome of “L.7” and calling on Member States to detach themselves from the illegal Mechanism.
The representative of Belarus, stressing that issues related to the establishment of such a structure fall within the responsibility of the Council and not the Assembly, rejected the Mechanism’s financing especially in light of the Organization’s significant financial challenges.
The representative of Iran, in noting that he does not recognize the Mechanism’s legal and political creation, stressed that its establishment under the regular budget is a violation of the Charter and the Assembly’s rules of procedure.
Turning to “L.13”, the representative of Qatar proposed an oral amendment to that text, which reads, “further approves the programme plan for programme 6, Legal affairs, of the proposed programme budget for 2023, as contained in the report of the Secretary-General (A/77/6/Sect.8)”.
The representative of the Russian Federation requested that the amendment be put to the vote and urged delegates to vote against it.
Echoing his stance, the representative of Syria supported the request of the Russian Federation to hold a vote and called on delegates to vote against.
A recorded vote was requested on the oral amendment proposed by the representative of Qatar.
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the European Union in explanation of vote before the vote, reiterated his unwavering support for the Mechanism. The robust mandate and actions the Mechanism undertakes are key in achieving accountability for the most serious international crimes committed in Syria since March 2011, he stressed, calling on delegations to vote in favour of the inclusion of the proposed amendment.
The Committee then approved the amendment by a recorded vote of 88 in favour to 18 against, with 46 abstentions. The amendment thus becomes a part of the draft as operative paragraph 15bis.
The representative of Cuba, speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, said the inclusion of sections on the Mechanism in the programme budget attacks the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Syria.
The representative of Venezuela underscored that the funding of the Mechanism is illegitimate and not subject to any norms. It illegally replaced the role of the Security Council, contravening the Charter of the United Nations and the principle of non-interference in domestic affairs of other States. He disassociated himself from the section of “L.13” concerning the investigative Mechanism for Syria.
The representative of Bolivia rejected the Mechanism against Syria as it affects that country’s sovereignty. She disassociated herself from all provisions relating to this Mechanism in “L.13”.
The Committee then approved “L.13” as a whole, as orally amended, without a vote.
The representative of the Russian Federation disassociated himself from the section of the resolution concerning the investigative Mechanism for Syria.
The representative of Nicaragua also disassociated himself from the section on the illegal Mechanism.
The representative of China disassociated himself from the elements of the resolution related to the Mechanism.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea also disassociated himself from the paragraph relating to the funding of the Mechanism, expressing concern about funding it from the regular budget.
The representative of Syria disassociated himself from the reference to the Mechanism in the 2022 programme budget, adding that it has nothing to do with his country. The Mechanism is a pawn for interfering in the internal affairs of Syria, he said.
The representatives of Belarus, Eritrea and Iran also disassociated themselves from the references to the Mechanism.
The Committee then adopted that text as a whole, as orally amended.
Turning to the draft resolution titled “Pattern of conferences” (document A/C.5/77/L.17), the Committee approved it without a vote.
Next, it approved without a vote the draft “United Nations common system” (document A/C.5/77/L.21) and draft resolution II, “Review of the jurisdictional set-up of the United Nations common system” (contained in document A/C.5/77/L.22).
The Committee then approved without a vote the draft resolution “United Nations pension system” (document A/C.5/77/L.14).
Turning its attention to the draft “Report on the activities of the Office of Internal Oversight Services” (document A/C.5/77/L.15), the Committee approved it without a vote.
Next, approved without a vote was the draft titled “Administration of Justice at the United Nations” (document A/C.5/77/L.11).
The Committee then approved the draft resolution “Financing of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals” (document A/C.5/77/L.18) by consensus.
Next, it took up a draft decision titled “Programme budget implications relating to the programme budget for 2023” (document A/C.5/77/L.19), which contains implications for 10 draft resolutions, submitted by the Secretary-General.
The representative of Israel, noting that programme budget implication D contains the request of an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, described this as part of a wider campaign of systematic discrimination against her country at the United Nations. The Palestinians, she stressed, are once again using the Organization to advance and further an anti-Israel agenda. During the discussions of the Fifth Committee, her Government proposed the full absorption of costs from existing resources and zero-funding of this programme budget implication. As her country’s position remains unchanged, she called for a vote on section D.
The representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said he would vote in favour.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Israel indicated she would make an explanation after the approval of the entire resolution.
The Committee then approved the draft decision contained in section D of “L.19” by a vote of 105 in favour to 13 against, with 37 abstentions.
The representative of Australia, explaining her country’s abstention, said she does not support a referral to the International Court of Justice and opposes the resolution’s clear bias against Israel. Referring the matter to the Court would be unhelpful in bringing the parties together for negotiation and should not be used to address bilateral disputes, she elaborated. However, Australia respects that the mandate for this resolution has been agreed by the Fourth Committee (Special Political and Decolonization) and consistently supports human rights resourcing even for mandates such as this, she said.
The representative of the Netherlands, explaining his country’s vote in favour, stressed that the Fifth Committee should refrain from political discussions belonging to other United Nations forums. Once a resolution has been approved, it has the responsibility to ensure necessary funding for full and adequate execution, he said.
The observer for the State of Palestine emphasized that the vote reflects the view of the overwhelming majority of Member States that the right of the Assembly to request an advisory opinion shall not be obstructed by manipulating the financial process and attempting to deny the Court the resources it needs to uphold its mandated duties. For many countries, this vote is also a reflection of the principled support for the State of Palestine and its people. He then said he trusts that all international law-abiding States will honour the opinion of the Court whenever it is issued.
The Committee then approved the draft decisions contained in sections A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I and J of “L.19” without a vote.
The representative of Israel, disassociating herself from “L.19” due to the inclusion of the programme budget implications on Israeli practices, rejected this budgetary implication as well as the request for an advisory opinion.
Next, the Committee took up a draft resolution titled “Proposed Programme Budget for 2023: Section 8. Legal affairs” (document A/C.5/77/L.8). By its terms, the Assembly would decide to delete all narratives and references regarding the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011 from the proposed programme budget for 2023. Further, taking note of paragraphs III.59, III.61, III.62 (b), III.64, III.65, III.66, III.67, III.68, III.69, III.75 and III.76 of the report of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ), it would decide not to approve any resources for the Mechanism.
The representative of the Russian Federation presented on behalf of a group of States an amendment not to allocate and finance from the regular budget the narratives and refences to the Mechanism as it has no regular mandate. The General Assembly has illegitimately carried out the role of the Security Council, in violation of the Charter of the United Nations, in particular the principle of non-interference in internal affairs of States. The Government of Syria did not consent to the conduct of this Mechanism that is engaged in a politically biased investigation, he asserted, calling on delegations to vote in favour of the amendment.
The representative of Syria rejected the Mechanism as the General Assembly resolution which created it contains shortcomings with respect to the prerogatives of the United Nations bodies. Further, it contains non-consensual principles that were approved under this text. States that called for the establishment of this Mechanism include Governments that have provided assistance — both directly and indirectly — to terrorist groups in Syria, he recalled, noting that this has destabilized the situation in his country.
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the European Union, voiced deep regret over the introduction of the draft and requested a recorded vote. The requirement to fund the Mechanism is unequivocal, he stressed, calling on delegations to vote against the draft.
A recorded vote was requested.
The representative of Qatar, speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, stressed the need to finance the Mechanism under the United Nations regular budget for 2023. His delegation would vote against the draft, he added.
The draft “L.8” was rejected by a recorded vote of 82 against to 18 in favour, with 54 abstentions.
The Committee then turned to draft resolution A/C.5/77/L.6 on “Revised estimates resulting from resolutions and decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council at its forty-ninth, fiftieth and fifty-first regular sessions, and at its thirty-fourth special session: Human Rights Council Resolution 51/27, Situation of human rights in Ethiopia”. By its terms, the Assembly — having considered the Secretary-General’s report A/77/579 and the report of ACABQ A/77/7/Add.27 — would decide not to approve any resources under revised estimates resulting from Human Rights Council resolution 51/27 of 7 October 2022.
Introducing that text, the representative of Ethiopia said it proposes allocation of no resources for the Commission of Experts established under resolution 51/27. Reaffirming her country’s commitment to human rights, she said her Government has been working cooperatively with the Human Rights Council to conduct investigations regarding the actions undertaken after the November 2020 attack on the Ethiopian National Defense Force. However, resolution 51/27 does not recognize this positive path. The Commission of Human Rights Experts on Ethiopia was established for a political purpose and issues deficient reports, she said, requesting delegations to vote in favour of “L.6”.
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking for the European Union, said his delegation requested the recorded vote on “L.6”. Noting that the Fifth Committee’s duty is to ensure that mandates given by the Organization’s legislative forums are adequately resourced, he said that it must adhere to the resolutions establishing mandates and must not renegotiate them.
The Committee then rejected “L.6” by a recorded vote of 32 in favour to 71 against, with 50 abstentions.
The Committee then considered the draft resolution “Revised estimates resulting from resolutions and decisions adopted by the Human Rights Council at its forty-ninth, fiftieth and fifty-first regular sessions, and at its thirty-fourth special session, in 2022” (document A/C.5/77/L.20).
The representative of the Russian Federation, on behalf of a group of States, urged the Committee to reject the allocation of funds from the United Nations regular budget for implementation of politically biased human rights resolutions against his country as well as Belarus, Venezuela, Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Syria and Eritrea. Noting inconsistencies and double standards in the work of the Human Rights Council, he reiterated his delegation’s rejection of financing from the regular budget of amendments to Council resolutions 49/1, 34/1 and 51/25.
The representative of Syria underscored that human rights issues should be dealt with on equal footing. However, some Western States politicize and apply double standards to human rights matters, he said, noting that Council resolution 49/27 is a model of politicized practices funded from the United Nations regular budget. Stressing that countries co-sponsoring the resolution failed to address the root causes and solely accused his Government of wrongdoing, he recalled that the co-sponsors “propagate the embargo and loot natural resources and wealth” from Syria. He thus rejected the Council’s resolutions, calling upon other delegations to reject the policy of double standards and refrain from politicizing human rights.
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking for the European Union, expressed concern with the introduction of “L.20” and requested a recorded vote, recalling that it is the Fifth Committee’s duty to ensure that mandates are adequately resourced. Noting that the draft would lead to defunding part of the Council’s mandates, he said that this cannot be executed, noting that his delegation will vote against the resolution.
The Committee then rejected “L.20” by a recorded vote of 80 against to 15 in favour, with 57 abstentions.
In explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Qatar said his delegation voted against the resolution as it is committed to the Human Rights Council and firmly convinced that the Council plays an important role. Qatar is a current and active Council member and respects and supports the Council’s mechanisms. It supports the programme budget and the providing of resources for activities to protect human rights, an important pillar of the Organization.
The representative of Nicaragua reiterated his delegation’s rejection of the double standards and policies on human rights shown by Western countries. Such policies, which attack the sovereignty of developing countries that do not follow their agenda, are illegitimate.
The representative of Belarus reaffirmed his delegation’s position that it does not recognize Council resolutions pertaining to Belarus leading up to his country’s 2020 presidential election. His delegation consistently opposes the use of country-specific mechanisms and opposes the reports of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) concerning Belarus.
Taking up its agenda item on the proposed programme budget for 2023, the Committee considered a draft resolution titled “Questions relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023” (document A/C.5/77/L.23).
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the European Union, proposed an oral amendment which would provide for the full funding of the Mechanism for Syria. It would insert two operative paragraphs, stating: “Takes note of paragraphs III.64, 65, 66, and 67 of the report of the Advisory Committee” and “Decides that regular budget resources for the International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism to Assist in the Investigation and Prosecution of Persons Responsible for the Most Serious Crimes under International Law Committed in the Syrian Arab Republic since March 2011 under section 8, Legal affairs, for 2023 amount to 17,129,200 United States dollars before recosting”. With these resources, the Mechanism will be able to fully deliver on its mandate, he said, while calling on other States to provide their support.
The representative from the Russian Federation requested a recorded vote on the oral amendment and encouraged delegates to vote against its inclusion.
The representative of Syria, expressing support for the Russian Federation’s request, reiterated his country’s principled and unwavering position rejecting the Mechanism’s recognition. Member States should vote against the amendment and refuse and resist any attempts to fund this mechanism through the regular budget, he stressed.
The Committee then approved the inclusion of the oral amendment by a vote of 84 in favour to 19 against, with 53 abstentions. The additional paragraph, including the related subheading, for the time being, shall be inserted in draft resolution I, contained in document A/C.5/77/L.23, as operative paragraphs 39bis and 39ter.
The representative of Israel disassociated herself from the resolution due to the Secretary-General’s level of resources that have been included for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) alongside the recalling of the Fourth Committee’s resolution granting that Agency additional resources from the regular budget. Despite numerous reports and condemnations from the international community, UNRWA has not shown the will or practical steps to amend its educational system, which indoctrinates Palestinian children with textbooks containing incitement, hatred and antisemitism, she said, objecting to additional funding for the Agency. Under no circumstances should UNRWA receive a blank cheque and use it to indoctrinate children. She then called on the Agency to start taking responsibility, stop the one-sided propaganda and immediately end the incitement and hatred that fills its curricula.
The representative of the Russian Federation disassociated himself only from the section pertaining to the Mechanism for Syria.
The representative of China opposed the amendment concerning the Mechanism and its forced inclusion through voting. Voicing his regret, he disassociated himself from the part regarding the Mechanism.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea disassociated himself from the programme budget relating to the Mechanism. The operation and funding of this illegal Mechanism cannot be accepted under any circumstances, he stressed.
The representative of Cuba disassociated himself from the references and the resources allocated to the Mechanism, which is harmful to Syria.
The representative of Syria, disassociating himself from funding the illegitimate and illegal Mechanism through the regular budget, said his country will satisfy its responsibilities to the Organization’s budget on this basis. The Mechanism, he reiterated, has nothing to do with his country and is just a pretext for certain countries to burden his Government with the resources for this Mechanism. In noting that he would like the United Nations to disassociate from funding the Mechanism, he also stressed the importance of coordination with his Government on the distribution of aid.
The representative of Belarus, reminding all that his country does not support country-specific approaches towards the promotion and protection of human rights, disassociated himself from the section related to the Mechanism.
The representative of Venezuela disassociated himself from the references to the Mechanism.
The representative of Bolivia, noting her country’s support for the approval of the 2023 budget, said she could not agree with the resources being allocated to the Mechanism since it does not have the agreement of the State concerned and affects its sovereignty. In that regard, she disassociated herself from all provisions relating to the Mechanism.
The representative of Iran, joining his colleagues, disassociated himself from any resources allocated to the Mechanism.
The representative of Eritrea disassociated himself from the references to the Mechanism.
The representative of Nicaragua disassociated herself from the portion of the budget related to the Mechanism against Syria.
Next, the Committee turned to draft resolution II, “Special subjects relating to the proposed programme budget for 2023” (document A/C.5/77/L.24).
The representative of Cuba proposed an oral amendment to section V of the text, which “decides to eliminate the narratives, functions, strategy and external factors, results, performance measures, deliverables and other information related to the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Responsibility to Protect, as contained in the strategic framework and related narratives of the Office of the Special Adviser to the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide (A/77/6/(Sect.3)/Add.2)”.
He stressed that for more than a decade, there has been no legal basis for the “responsibility to protect” as the concept lacks a legislative mandate granted by Member States. Also, resources have been allocated from the regular budget, he said, adding that a considerable number of States express reservations about this issue. The amendments proposed do not undermine the function of the Special Adviser on genocide prevention, he noted, reiterating his country’s principled position against genocide. The budget estimates presented by the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect should be removed until the General Assembly decides on the concept, its scope and implications. He called on delegations to vote in favour of the amendment.
The representative of the Czech Republic, on behalf of the European Union, underlined that the duty of the Fifth Committee is to ensure that mandates given by United Nations membership are fully executed and adequately resourced. The mandate of the Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide was approved by a Security Council resolution, he recalled, underscoring the need to ensure that this Office is able to effectively implement its mandate. The proposed amendment would greatly reduce the Office’s capacity to do so, he emphasized, calling on delegations to vote against.
The representative of Bolivia voiced support for the amendment as there is not a clear mandate from Member States regarding the creation of this post and no intergovernmental agreement reached on defining it. Her delegation would vote in favour, she added.
The representative of Belarus, noting that his delegation will vote in favour of the amendment, recalled that the concept of the responsibility to protect does not enjoy universal support and lacks legal bases for its functioning.
The representative of Iran, stressing that there is no internationally agreed definition of the concept, voiced support for the amendment.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, noting his delegation would vote in favour, reiterated that the budget allocated to the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect should only be considered when the General Assembly decides on the concept by consensus.
The representative of Nicaragua, noting that resources should not be assigned to the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, stressed that the responsibility to protect could be manipulated by interventionist forces to destabilize and overthrow Governments. Her delegation would vote in favour, she added.
The representative of Syria described the concept of the responsibility to protect as one of the most controversial due to the lack of intergovernmental consensus on its scope and implications. Certain countries might use it as a pretext to intervene in the internal affairs of other States, he cautioned, stressing the importance of the principle of non-interference.
The representative of China, whose delegation would vote in support of the amendment, described the concept as highly controversial.
The representative of Venezuela, voicing full support for the amendment, highlighted a lack of clarity as to which posts would come directly under the charge of the Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect.
The representative of the Russian Federation expressed support for the amendment.
A recorded vote was requested.
The Committee rejected the oral amendment by a recorded vote of 77 against to 22 in favour, with 56 abstentions.
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking on behalf of the European Union, proposed an oral amendment to Section XIV of “L.24”. Introducing that text, he said that the amendment proposes additional resources to support Human Rights Council mandates and called on all delegations to support this proposal.
The representative of the Russian Federation requested that this amendment be put to a vote and called on delegates to vote against it.
The representative of China said the amendment would not only impose a financial burden on Member States but also undermine the recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ). Further, by using these resources to support mandates derived from controversial Council resolutions, it would exacerbate disagreements among members.
The representative of Ethiopia also called for a recorded vote on the amendment and asked delegations to vote against it.
The representative of Belarus said the amendment is an unacceptable undermining of the Advisory Committee. It is unfortunate that it was proposed despite substantive discussions earlier, he said.
The representative of Iran voiced support for the Russian Federation’s request.
The Committee then decided to put the amendment to a vote.
Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of Costa Rica, speaking on behalf of a number of countries that were in favour of the amendment, highlighted the essential role of the Human Rights Council and the need for adequate funding of the mandates that emanate from its resolutions.
The representative of Switzerland said his delegation will vote in favour of the amendment because it will ensure sufficient funding for the mandates adopted by the Council. Future discussions on the resolution should be consensus-oriented, he said.
The Committee then approved the amendment in a recorded vote of 84 in favour to 19 against, with 15 abstentions.
Speaking in explanation of vote after the vote, the representative of Qatar, who noted that his country is a member of the Council, said his delegation voted in favour due to its commitment to its important work.
The representative of the United States applauded the passage of this amendment, which will provide full funding for the Council’s mandates. Noting the long-standing practice of the Fifth Committee to take decisions on the basis of consensus, he said there are times when consensus is impossible. The proposed funding cuts would have undermined the Council, he said.
The representative of the Russian Federation requested a vote on the section relating to the Human Rights Council.
The Committee decided to retain Section IV of “L.24” by a recorded vote of 112 in favour, to 12 against, with 26 abstentions.
The Committee then adopted “L.24” as orally amended, as a whole, without a vote.
The representative of Sri Lanka said his delegation does not support financing politically motivated country-specific mandates through the United Nations regular budget. Sri Lanka has rejected Human Rights Council resolution 51/1, to which resources have been allocated through “L.20”. He noted that information provided by the Secretariat has shown that previous such mandates have already consumed $5.46 million, valuable resources that have not brought any tangible benefits. The resources approved for the so-called “external evidence gathering mechanism”, as per Council resolution 51/1, will unfortunately be a similar waste, contributing to neither post-conflict development nor reconciliation. It serves the political agendas of a select few. He put on record his delegation’s categorical rejection of resolution 51/1 and disassociated it from the entire budget for that text.
The representative of Iran said that establishing an independent international fact-finding mission is a patent example of instrumentalizing the Human Rights Council for political gain, and disassociated himself from all resources allocated in the resolution, specifically those allocated to the mission set up to investigate alleged human rights violations in Iran related to the protests that began on 16 September 2022.
The representative of Ethiopia also disassociated herself from “L.24”.
The representative of Syria stressed his rejection of the Council resolution and disassociated himself from the adoption of texts on this item by the Committee. He rejected the use of United Nations mechanisms to target specific countries in the interests of some influential countries and States under different pretexts, noting that reports issued by the Council are subjective when it comes to the situation of certain countries.
The representative of Nicaragua disassociated herself from the resolution and the revised estimates for the Council, recalling that the text against her country is illegal and violates the country’s sovereignty.
The representative of Venezuela rejected and disassociated himself from the mechanisms established without his country’s consent that manipulate and politicize human rights. He called for people to be held accountable for the funds allocated in the past for the independent fact-finding mission in Venezuela.
The representative of China said that he does not object to the adoption of the text as a whole; however, he disassociated himself from consensus on increasing resources related to Human Rights Council resolutions, while also expressing concern.
The representative of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea rejected allocating funds for the implementation of the Council’s resolution and disassociated himself from the parts of the programme budget related to Human Rights Council resolutions.
The representative of the Russian Federation disassociated himself from financing the Council’s decisions, which are “specifically anti-Russian” in nature.
The representative of Eritrea rejected politically motivated country-specific mandates and disassociated himself from the allocation of resources arising from the Council’s resolutions.
The representative of Belarus disassociated himself from financing of programme activities directed towards country-specific mandates.
The Committee then turned its attention to draft resolution III, “Proposed programme budget for 2023” (document A/C.5/77/L.25), which is divided into three sections: Section A concerns the budget appropriations for 2023, Section B pertains to revised income estimates for 2023, and Section C concerns the financing of appropriations for the year.
Chandramouli Ramanathan, Assistant Secretary-General for Programme Planning, Finance and Budget in the Department of Management Strategy, Policy and Compliance, and Controller, introduced several technical updates to the draft resolution. He said oral amendments to “L.23” would add $137,900, under section 8 Legal affairs, to the 2023 budget, while oral amendments to “L.24” would add $5.21 million. The latter amount would be distributed as $4.6 million under section 24; $36,400 under section 28 Global communications; $19,400 under section 29e Office of Information and Communications Technology; $65,800 under section 34 Safety and security; and $491,000 under section 36 Staff assessment, offset by an equal amount under Income from staff assessment. As a result, the programme budget for 2023 will total nearly $3.4 billion, or $3,396,308,300.
The Committee Chair said a technically updated version of the oral amendment will be circulated within one hour of the meeting’s end. The resolution was approved, as technically updated, without a vote.
The representative of Israel said her delegation disassociated itself from any decisions that included budgeting derived from anti-Israel resolutions and decisions, including sections 24 and 26, and from the programme budget implications of the text on Israeli practices.
The Committee then turned to draft resolution IV, titled “Unforeseen and extraordinary expenses for 2023” (document A/C.5/77/L.9), and approved the resolution without a vote.
On draft resolution V, titled “Working Capital Fund for 2023” (document A/C.5/77/L.10), the Committee approved the resolution without a vote.
The Committee then adopted the draft report on the proposed programme budget for 2023 (document A/C.5/77/L.26), parts I and II, as technically updated.
Taking up its agenda item on the review of the efficiency and the administrative and financial functioning of the United Nations, the Committee approved the draft resolution titled “Shifting the management paradigm in the United Nations: review of changes to the budgetary cycle” (document A/C.5/77/L.12) without a vote.
The Committee then turned its attention to the draft decision titled “Questions deferred for future consideration” (document A/C.5/77/L.27).
Mr. Kridelka (Belgium), Fifth Committee Chair, recognized the tremendous efforts made by all delegations to conclude items, even in the final hours before the start of the meeting. In sharing that there is consensus to defer the reports of the Peacebuilding Fund, he noted that consensus has not yet been reached on the question of considering the item under section A of the draft decision at the first or second part of the resumed seventy-seventh session of the Assembly. At the same time, delegations have been emphasizing the importance of the matter and the need to put in place an arrangement that will allow the Committee to successfully come to an agreement. As the Committee must conclude its work today to prevent the Organization’s shutdown, he proposed that it continue to consult on the matter over the coming weeks before the start of the first resumed session.
The representative of Egypt, speaking in his capacity as Chair of the African Group’s peacebuilding group and in his national capacity, introduced an oral amendment on the proposed text which would insert in section A after “defer”: “to the first part of the resumed seventy-seventh session”. Appealing to all delegates to undertake a constructive look at this amendment, he agreed on the need to continue consultations and stressed that the African Group has gone very far in the spirit of compromise.
The representative of China, stressing the importance of peacebuilding financing, pointed out that next year’s resumed session will be short and discuss important human resources issues. Adding this issue will significantly squeeze the time for original agenda items, he emphasized, before noting that his country does not support the issue’s postponement to the first resumed session. In underscoring that China respects the Chair’s proposed text as the basis for further consultations, he noted that the Committee still has a heavy workload and added that proposing amendments at this time would seriously undermine the Chair’s authority. While China will respect the Chair’s final decision, it will nevertheless disassociate from the consensus on the proposed amendments, he said.
The Committee then approved the draft decision as a whole, as orally amended, without a vote.
As the Committee has concluded this stage of consideration of its items during the main part of the seventy-seventh session, the Committee Chair then requested that the Committee Rapporteur report directly thereon to the Assembly.
Closing Remarks
The representative of Pakistan, speaking on behalf of the Group of 77 developing countries and China, said that this day is an important historical event in which the Fifth Committee considered items of paramount importance which will have a profound impact on the way the Organization functions and whose effects will be observed for decades. Celebrating the fact that the Committee displayed full confidence in the Secretary-General’s reform agenda in reviewing the budgetary cycle, he stressed that the direction adopted today has been deeply thought out by the Committee.
On the 2023 programme budget, he noted that this agenda item could not receive the proper time and attention it demanded due to the Committee’s diverted attention on the reform of the annual budget. While there was the possibility of realizing and fostering agreements that could have been favourable to everyone, he noted that the Group of 77 and China had to let go of many important items in the 2023 budget out of the commitment to engage constructively and in the spirit of concluding the agenda item. He then acknowledged the Board of Auditors and Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) for their invaluable contributions to the Organization’s work, as well as those of the Committee’s Chair, Bureau and Secretariat. As always, the Group of 77 and China stands ready to engage with all colleagues to build a more accountable, effective and fit-for-purpose United Nations that works for the interests of all Member States in bettering the lives of people, he emphasized.
The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the African Group and aligning himself with the Group of 77 and China, reaffirmed the importance the Group attaches to the Organization’s work and the need to ensure its smooth functioning and effective discharge of mandated programmes and activities. While he was pleased that the Fifth Committee was able to conclude its deliberations on several important agenda items, he nevertheless voiced his disappointment that for the second time running, the Committee could not agree on the peacebuilding agenda item despite delegations’ expressed interest and flexibility.
He expressed further disappointment regarding the unusual yet consistent outcome on the budget for special political missions. Adopting a text, regardless of the level of financial resources, and depriving Member States of the ability to adopt policy paragraphs that give guidance to the Secretariat sets a bad precedent, he cautioned. Special political missions need financial and human resources as much as they need proper guidance from Member States through the Assembly, he reiterated, stressing that existing agreed-upon language of the Assembly continues to apply to these missions unless decided otherwise by the Assembly. Adopting a skeletal resolution for special political missions is not a precedent, he emphasized.
The representative of the European Union, in its capacity as observer, said that closing negotiations this late is a clear sign of the Fifth Committee’s inability to rally together on common priorities. In more than 50 years, this is only the second time it has negotiated beyond Christmas, he pointed out, adding: “We have no excuse this time and clearly haven’t heard our lesson: this cannot become the new norm.” As delayed discussions have put intense pressure on the Organization and its staff, he encouraged the Committee to take a hard look at the reasons for such a dysfunctional way of working and commit to improving its methods. Spotlighting several exogenous factors, he underscored the importance of timeliness and strongly urged the Secretariat to issue their reports and the Advisory Committee to provide its recommendations more expeditiously. The ACABQ should also take stock of the very difficult debates the Committee faced on some of its recommendations, he continued, as several were not a driver for consensus. Several delegations, he pointed out, were unable to see in the ACABQ recommendations on the revised estimates for the Human Rights Council an acceptable way forward and compromise. He welcomed the ACABQ Chair’s appeal for a feedback loop on the Committee’s sessions.
At the same time, States must recognize that they are the main cause of their predicament, mostly because they are departing from traditional working methods, he underscored. Consensus needs to remain the guiding principle in the Committee’s work. It is alarming that a number of votes are calling to defund entire mandates, especially regarding human rights, he said, before voicing his concern over the narrative that the Committee should address mandates depending on how other United Nations fora have adopted them. It is the Committee’s duty to ensure that all mandates are fully executed and adequately resources, to comply with the resolutions defining mandates and not to question them, he stressed. He expressed additional concern over the increasing trend to either defer agenda items, take no action or adopt skeletal resolutions when divergences are too difficult to overcome. States must start their substantive engagements earlier during the sessions and in a more constructive manner, he added. Time is not the critical factor but rather trust, he emphasized.
The representative of Egypt, associating himself with the Group of 77 and China as well as the African Group, supported the resolutions adopted by the Fifth Committee relating to the legal opinions on the illegal practices of Israel and reiterated the need for an independent Palestinian State with East Jerusalem as its capital. However, he expressed disappointment with the inability of the Committee to reach consensus on important agenda items. The political commitment shown by Member States in the plenary should be matched by actions in the Fifth Committee, he asserted. The seventy-seventh session was able to deliver consensus on the annual cycle review, he noted. The resolutions adopted may not be perfect; yet, it was the best possible outcome considering the circumstance, he added. Regarding the annual cycle review, he stressed that consensus in the Fifth Committee does not entail veto powers, which are limited to the Security Council.
The representative of Japan said one of the biggest achievements of this session was the lifting of the annual budget cycle’s trial period. This lets the Organization keep effectively addressing the international community’s changing needs with a more responsive, nimble programme budget. “We look forward to seeing continuous improvement of the process and content of the budget, as the annual budget cycle enables the budget to be more predictable, transparent, and based on a more accurate budget assumption,” he said. Noting the Fifth Committee’s unique place in the United Nations system, he said its methods and languages are unique, along with its long-established practice of achieving agreement by consensus. “This has been the spirit of the Fifth Committee, and while it may take longer, it may require tough decisions, and it may enforce hard-fought push and shoves and sacrifices, we never exhaust our efforts to reach an agreement that is agreeable to all the Member States,” he said, adding “let us cherish and continue to uphold that.”
The representative of the United Kingdom encouraged the Secretariat to consolidate and further build on the gains of an annual budget cycle and ensure an even more results-oriented, agile and responsible Organization. His Government looks forward to seeing the impact of these permanent changes on the intergovernmental budget review process, United Nations operations and mandate delivery. Not all has been positive this session, he noted, expressing regret over the growing inflexibility, disengagement and polarization which caused the Committee’s late completion of work and unprecedented number of skeletal adoptions, especially in the case of special political missions. The increased frequency of skeletal decisions in this session serves as a symbol of failure to work together effectively to achieve consensus, he stressed. On the adoption of a 2023 programme budget, he voiced his profound regret that it did not include the consolidated resources for certain Human Rights Council mandates and that the resources for these mandates could only be secured by a vote. Partial responsibility lies with the ACABQ as its recommendations have served to undermine stable and predictable funding for human rights. This situation once again underscores the importance of high quality, evidence-based and technically sound reports and also of the near-universal support needed to better the ACABQ and enable it to best support the evolving needs of the Organization, he added. Member States must learn from this session and find their way back to the traditional culture of compromise and cooperation on which the Committee depends, he emphasized.
The representative of the United States said that this fiscally responsible budget will enable the Organization to maintain peace and security, foster economic development, promote universal human rights and uphold the rules-based international order. Most notably, by funding the Black Sea Grain Initiative, this budget helps to address the humanitarian crisis caused by food insecurity, he lauded. He also commended the annual budget as an important reform which advances the values of transparency and accountability while creating a more agile United Nations that is better able to address the global challenges of the twenty-first century. In spotlighting his country’s work to improve the functioning of the Organization and on a number of issues which included strengthened workplace harassment protections and the elimination of different cost-of-living adjustments and treatment of its public servants, he voiced his concern over the concerted effort of a small number of countries to undermine human rights, which is a core pillar of the Organization. These countries have resisted efforts to guarantee more predictable funding streams for recurring mandates of the Human Rights Council, despite an Assembly resolution last year calling for such predictability. Turning to the inefficient and dysfunctional budget process, he called for a serious examination of how the Committee conducts its work. As its current practice has brought it within 32 hours of shutting the Organization down, he stressed that this is not good for the institution, Member States, nor the people around the world who depend on the Organization’s assistance.
The representative of China, aligning himself with the statement of the Group of 77, expressed support for the Secretary-General’s reform agenda. While his delegation showed flexibility in the consultations with a view to promoting consensus, he said there is still no settlement regarding the issue of compatibility between the annual budget and sequencing of the consideration of agenda items. Further, if it is necessary to support peacebuilding with assessed contributions that should be handled in accordance with the relevant budgetary rules. Recalling that his country proposed a solution early on, he expressed regret that the parties have not yet been able to achieve consensus. The United Nations should support the economic development of all countries and respond to the concerns of developing countries to ensure adequate resources in the field of development. Calling on the Secretariat “to make good use of every penny from the Member States”, he expressed support for Cuba as the incoming chair of the Group of 77.
The representative of Botswana, aligning himself with the Group of 77 and China and the African Group, pointed out that his country placed greater interest in protecting the development account; the regular programme of technical cooperation; and the budget for the Office of the High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States; Office of the Special Adviser on Africa; Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs; UNRWA; Economic Commission for Africa (ECA); Department of Global Communications; and the Office of Information and Communications Technology. For his Government, a budget commensurate with the mandate of the Organization is most important, especially for the above departments serving the development pillar. He then noted with pleasure the Assembly’s agreement to see the United Nations and Africa’s regional and subregional organizations engage in partnerships, coordination and collaboration on the most pressing development, humanitarian and peace and security issues related to the continent. It only makes sense to work together as one, avoid the duplication of efforts and maximize gains, he stressed.