Keynote address by
H.E. MR. HARRI HOLKERI
President of the General Assembly
at the Forum of Small
States (FOSS)
The Role of the General Assembly President
In reforming and revitalizing the United Nations
15 November 2000
It is a great pleasure for me to address the Forum of Small States today. Coming
from a relatively small state myself I can well understand the rationale for
this Forum in the United Nations context. It is also fitting that I should discuss
the revitalization and reform of the UN with this group of countries, given
that it is many times the smaller delegations that bear the larger burden if
things do not function effectively.
Throughout my Presidency I have emphasized that the Millennium Summit provided
a momentum for the strengthening of the United Nations. It generated a high
measure of collective political will in support of the central role of the United
Nations to tackle the new challenges of the 21st Century. The Millennium Declaration
constitutes an authoritative mandate for our work and for my Presidency. The
Declaration reaffirmed the central position of the General Assembly as the chief
deliberative, policy-making and representative organ of the United Nations.
Furthermore, at the Summit the Members States resolved to enable the General
Assembly to play this role effectively. It is in this context that I would like
to share with you some thoughts on how I see the role of the President in revitalizing
and reforming the United Nations with particular attention to the work of the
General Assembly.
In my acceptance speech I stressed that in order to add value and make a difference,
the General Assembly must address, in a focused, meaningful and timely manner,
the challenges of rapid change and globalisation. In doing so, it must respond
to the current priorities of its Member States. This requires courage, by the
Member States, to look back at the original legislative intent of the General
Assembly. But it will require more than courage to decide on how this could
be best reflected in the practical work of the Organisation today. This will
need political will and compromises by all parties. Unless Member States accept
that to achieve the so-called common good they need to let go some of their
own individual priorities, nothing will move.
In my discussions with Member States and in listening to the statements made
so far, I sense that there is a renewed acknowledgement that we need to reinforce
our efforts and equip the Organisation with appropriate tools to achieve the
goals we have set.
I have from my part tried to give some impetus to this process in my earlier
statements. On my web page I have posted a lay out on 'progress so far in the
reform of the work of the General Assembly'.
When one goes through the work done so far, it is striking how many decisions
have been already taken by the General Assembly to improve the work of the Assembly
and that of its main Committees. The real challenge for the Member States is
in implementing these decisions.
My office and I have discussed with several delegations the effectiveness of
the work of the GA on many occasions. During these discussions some new ideas
have been expressed on how the implementation of these decisions could start.
Many have stressed that despite some successes in the rationalization and streamlining
of the agenda, the General Assembly has not achieved a reduction of its overall
workload. The fact remains that the total number of items on the agenda increased
from 164 at the forty-ninth session to 183 at the present session. Furthermore,
the number of resolutions adopted by the General Assembly has increased, from
328 at the forty-ninth session to 341 at the fifty-fourth session.
I am pleased to note that work has already been undertaken by the Main Committees
to review their respective agendas, and this should continue. Some have suggested
that we should focus now on the review of the agenda of the General Assembly.
If the Assembly and the Main Committees are to take further steps to rationalize
and streamline their agenda, it has been suggested by many that greater use
of clustering, biennialization or triennialization of agenda items should be
made. Agenda items of closely related substance could be merged within a single
agenda title or be incorporated as sub-items. Items that cover related matters
or issues could be considered in clusters.
Furthermore, it has been proposed that to rationalize the agenda we could try
to apply a system similar to that of the Security Council, that is 'active and
non-active' agenda items. The practice has shown in the Security Council that
some items can, indeed, be removed from the agenda through this system (refer
S/1996/603* and S/1996/704, latest note A/55/366).
Many have pointed out that the division of labour between the Plenary and the
Main Committees has been blurred. Whilst the Plenary should be the place where
issues of high importance are debated in the presence of all Member States,
it is in fact often discussing issues of a routine character, often with only
a half full audience. Surely, this is not what was foreseen as the role of the
Plenary.
One of the important issues is the continuity of the work of the General Assembly.
Some delegations have suggested a form of 'GA troika' with the present, previous
and next Presidents of the General Assembly, or at least representatives of
those States from which the President came/comes/would come, to be involved
in major issues of reform and of planning the work of the General Assembly.
Another suggestion that has been made to the same effect is to arrange joint
meetings of successive General Committees.
How to move ahead? It has been suggested that the General Committee could be
used as a 'business committee' to oversee the smooth and effective functioning
of the General Assembly. This of course is an idea that the Member States need
to consider and discuss. I intend to call an informal 'brain storming' session
of the General Committee to discuss this idea with the Committee members.
The experience of the round tables at the Summit has inspired some to suggest
that maybe we should make the annual general debate more interactive and focus
on issues of particular importance each year rather than cover the whole of
the global agenda.
My own experience in life is that it is often the practical and small things
which count and ultimately add up to a change in any process. One such small
step that I have introduced is to always start the plenary meetings of the Assembly
on time. Another small step that I have introduced was the amendment to the
Rules of Procedure to allow for certainty as far as the closing and opening
dates of the main sessions of the General Assembly are concerned.
So now you might ask, what is the role of the President in this process? As
I have said, I see the role of the President, as one of a facilitator, conciliator
and consensus-builder. He must lead, but without the Membership on board, that
leadership will fail. In the reform and revitalization of the General Assembly
this is of utmost importance. It is for this very reason that I have 'thrown
the ball' to you as the Member States and I have urged you to engage in discussions
to implement decisions taken and make new initiatives to further the reform.
I will in turn be very happy to support and implement initiatives emerging from
discussions amongst Member States. It is my firm belief that reform of the United
Nations is not an option, but a necessity.