Csaba Kőrösi, President of the 77th session of the General Assembly
—-
Ad Hoc Working Group on the Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly
15 March 2023
[Transcript]
Thank you very much Ambassador, dear Mitch [co-facilitator, Ambassador Mitchell Fifield of Australia], dear Egriselda [co-facilitator, Ambassador Egriselda Aracely González López of El Salvador].
It’s a great pleasure to be included into the band, and it’s a privilege to be allowed to play along with all of you to perform the same song.
The key questions were put on paper and circulated to the Member States, but let me remind ourselves some of these key questions are always meant, but very seldom asked:
What do we expect from the PGA?
What do we expect from his Office, particularly in a crisis time? Is it different from other times, or is there is something extra?
Should it be a merely, mostly procedural role, or to help also guiding, really guiding, the work of the GA?
What does it mean to lead, and let me underline lead, the number one deliberative organ of the United Nations? We very seldom discuss this issue.
What does it mean to put forward the PGA’s priorities and have them approved? What are the consequences of the approval of the priorities?
Is the public hearing, what each and every candidate has to go through, a test to verify the availability of basic knowledge on the UN and the GA – or is it something more?
Is it to help identifying strategic priorities, giving strategic clarity of the mission, focusing on immediate challenges and key elements of transformation?
How you are going to answer these questions will have a great bearing – and make a huge difference – on what the future PGA role and his or her Office could be.
It also has a great impact on the following: If you ask the PGA in a very eloquent manner, in a very formal manner, he or she will help creating platforms for joint thinking, creating common ground. He or she may provide more scientific, evidence-based support for the GA’s work. He or she may provide more support for the validation of the implementation of the decisions of the General Assembly – a mechanism which, basically, now is missing from our work.
And according to how you answer those first questions may have an impact on how to secure continuity among consequent PGAs and PGA Offices.
It goes without saying that each and every PGA will have to meet certain standards, like impartiality, compliance with the rules of procedure, the UN Charter, compliance with the Code of Ethics and financial disclosure. It’s all part of the Oath of Office. My basic questions were about what your political expectations are towards this Office and the President.
The two conductors of the band asked the question: what are the challenges? Let me mention to you some of the challenges, how I see them from inside the Office. Each and every PGA is and will face these challenges in the years to come.
On one hand, we have a system of approving the PGA’s priorities, the Presidential priorities. On the other hand, we have hugely set agendas. Does it contain any kind of contradiction? And if yes, to what extent? Let me reframe it: In the General Committee meeting a couple of weeks ago, we were discussing whether or not it was important to focus on key issues in times of crisis, or fully 100 per cent going along the so-called mandated procedures, events, actions.
The current agenda-setting is favouring the repetitive, routine exercise. For 95 per cent, the programme of the year is set before the PGA takes office. The GA agendas are mostly set without longer-term planning. The actions we take very seldom go beyond one year, despite the fact we know we are in the middle of crises that will stay with us for many, many years and require changes that must be seen through for quite a number of years, if we want to produce something different from where we’re coming from.
PGAs, in this case, resort to some kind of signature events, which usually are some kind of line events, once in a time, that call the attention to a certain issue – and then, go home. It may serve certain regional interests, even national interests. It may serve some communication purposes, but very seldom give a deeper reflection on the complex reality the world is in. Relationship, of course – linkages are done. But the impact is rather limited.
The next challenge I see is, according to our current system, how we operate, there is no real incentive to provide continuity between Presidencies. We used to talk about the necessity of improving institutional memory. That is true and that is very important. But it is not equal to strategic continuity. You may have administrative continuity, following the same procedures, same events – without having a clue where we are going.
So, PGAs in this case may opt for different avenues. Keep a low profile. Go for survival. Do whatever the agenda tells you to do. And the end of the year comes, without major problems. Or go for changes. But those changes might be beyond on the horizon of the Presidency, which is one year, without guarantees that your actions, your work will be continued for the next year.
Another type of challenge in my understanding is related to the staffing of the OPGA. It’s a job for 12 months – not only for the President, but for each and every member of his or her cabinet. It is limiting not only the institutional memory – it is the smaller issue in my understanding – but it is limiting to develop the institutional culture. You may start the institutional culture almost every year.
According to the present situation, we have OPGA members with four, five different legal statuses. It is not impossible to manage but it’s a challenge. And since the really vast majority of the members of the OPGA are seconded by Member States, in terms of quality, experience, skills of the seconded staff might be different. Sometimes might be very different. Sometimes you have to apply a very strict system of selection. That does not come without issues, without difficult moments.
A third issue which is on your questions as well – the funding of the operations and expenditures of the OPGA. Let me mention in advance: In my understanding, in practical terms, it is the least burning issue for the time being. Though when we talk about money, it used to be the number one issue, always and it is the real sticking point of the negotiations. But, for the time being it is still manageable – despite the fact that, as during the previous workshop with former PGAs, it was mentioned by more than one of them that a PGA has no salary provided, no residence, no social security and no health insurance. So, if he or she is coming from a country that is able and capable of providing it all with some additional funding, that is fine. Let me just mention you very briefly, what is really necessary from a country that is providing a PGA to secure funds, together with preparation and running the show, is about $2 million. If you don’t have it, then you will have to find other solutions that might be a little bit more fishy or more difficult.
As you know about 15 per cent of the expenses of the operations of the OPGA are funded by the regular budget, with the contribution of all Member States; 85 per cent is coming from the PGA Trust Fund. For the time being, it works.
But let me mention some detail which we seldom talk about: Currently the PGA is to make an oath of office not to seek or accept any instruction and not to give preferential treatment to any of the Member States. And then the next day, he or she will send out letters to each and every capital asking them for their contributions to the Trust Fund. We know that many countries are willing to contribute, but not all of them are able, and it ends up usually that 10, 10+ countries contribute to the PGA Trust Fund. Everything is on the website, by the way, in a very transparent manner. And for the time being it works well, with the very, very rare exception that donor countries do not attach any particular political or other commitments to their donations.
Let me also mention another type of financial issue which may not be familiar to most of you. When we operate in the OPGA, we very often resort to services purchased from providers in monopolistic positions in the UN. It is not going to be a stone to the garden of my very good friend, [Under-Secretary-General for General Assembly and Conference Management] Movses Abelian and the DGACM. They are doing a fantastic job. Without them, we would not be able to exist at all. We would not be able to operate even one day.
But as the system works, if you are a PGA and you want to use certain services – be it teleprompter or be it a press stakeout – you are bound to use those service providers who are in a monopolistic position. When we used to have the Friday morning discussions with ambassadors, very informal brainstormings, many of you mentioned that if we want to strengthen the profile of the GA, we have to make sure the world understands what the GA is doing and that the world is given the opportunity to look into the work of the GA. How do you do it? Through media. If you do a media outstake after an important event of the GA – when you took a decision, for example, that is going to change a lot in the world – if I would go out to make, with any of you, a stakeout – it has a prohibiting price.
[Ambassador Mitchell Fifield of Australia: It doesn’t sound like free speech.]
No, the technical price – because these are monopolistic providers – really, you would be surprised how much. But to make it short: we are spending your money. It’s your money.
Now some suggestions that might be considered in the future, first and foremost, let me mention the selection of the PGA. And taking into consideration the big political questions I mentioned at the beginning, the General Assembly may wish to consider a kind of vacancy announcement of the PGA post, with very concrete criteria, while preserving the regional rotation.
The General Assembly may also encourage Member States to put forward more women candidates. Out of the 77, four – four– were women, so far. In case of election, I would suggest that the General Assembly may wish to consider a mandatory suspension of all other positions held by the previous candidate. If I am a Minister, if I am State Secretary, if I am a chair of a company, and I have those functions preserved – and at the same time, I take the oath of office that I do not take instructions, that I do not take requests from anybody else except the General Assembly – then something is not really coordinated. If I suspend and announce that I suspended my previous functions and activities, that is a clear picture.
Concerning the tenure and timing of the PGA – and let me tell you in advance, I’m not seeking extended office for myself – but you may wish to consider the possibility of the re-election or the possibility of biennial Presidencies in case the GA’s political weight to be increased, to make it possible to see through projects and processes you ask the PGA to do.
You may also consider a kind of mandatory preparatory period for each and every PGA. Now, what you changed, actually it’s very important, you extended the time between the taking office and the High-level Week, by one week. But one week is very important. It’s like you need an operation of appendix and you get a small bandage. In my understanding, and my impressions, if he or she is elected, we may expect the elected PGA to stay in New York and work very hard from the day of election to the day of taking office, in New York in person. Because there will be a lot of meetings. A lot of consultations. A lot of ways for how to get prepared for the job the best.
On the mission of the PGA, which might be a part of the so-called vacancy announcement: In your questions and your background material, it comes out very clearly there should be good cooperation between the incumbent PGA and the elected PGA. It should be very, very close. Not only between the two persons but the two teams as well. To take over the issues and to run into the processes, to understand where we are and where we are heading. I would say that there is a need – or there would be a need – for early consultations on the would-be priorities or key projects of the PGA candidate with the Executive Office of the Secretary-General.
We are in the middle of reforming this Organization. The reforms are partly done by the General Assembly, partly by the Secretariat, with the help of the Secretary-General and the Executive Office. If we want this Organisation to go in harmony, in one direction, these early consultations must start at the latest on the day of the election – or even before – because the priorities should be shaped accordingly.
I would say it is very, very important to have regular consultations with the Member States on the would-be priorities. Because now, when you are sent the vision statement, it is pre-cooked material. Of course, you can ask questions. You will have the opportunity. There is a town hall and there are many, many other group meetings. But if you really want to make sure the vision statement is reflecting on the majority or the temperature of the room, then you may ask the candidates to go out as early as possible.
On the OPGA, some management issues and staff members: I believe that small is beautiful. You may wish to establish an upper limit of staff, but still letting the incoming PGA decide upon the composition, with whom he or she would like to work. But it makes a difference – financially, politically, socially as well – whether you have 30 or 60 or more people in the same office. I think the interest of the Member States is to see a very simple, transparent structure of the OPGA and it would be from the institutional culture better to avoid the overall proliferation of the high-level jobs. If you can make the integrity of the OPGA working well, that will count, not so much how many high-level posts do you have in the Office, but how the Office is performing for the benefit of the Member States. I understand that sometimes when Member States are seconding diplomats, they also make a reference that he or she will be available if would be called “Vice-King” or whatever. It is absolutely crucial, in my understanding, to ensure that the highest possible number of UN staff members and/or seconded personnel could serve in consecutive PGAs. It would serve the better transparency, it would serve the better institutional memory and it would help creating an institutional culture at the earliest possible time.
It would be also good to make some kind of harmonisation of staff management rules. As I mentioned, now we have in an average OGPA four or five legal statuses of colleagues, which is not impossible to manage. Sometimes it’s a challenge. But you may consider at least the possibility of introducing a specific category of UN badges for OPGA staff members. A very simple question: not all of them have the same access to the same places, while they are all doing the same job.
Now, as a completion of this very long-ish … let me mention some achievements, with your help, and with the help of your seconded diplomats and with the huge help of DGACM, we could so far achieve: we could secure a very close collaboration with the previous President and the previous OPGA. It went back to October of the previous year. Since then, there was a constant cooperation, a constant exchange of information. And I’m very much open to do the same with the next candidate, or candidates.
Frequent consultations at all levels were absolutely important. And there was a blessing from both the former PGA and the incoming or candidate PGA. Whenever the staff started taking shape, they started consulting one on one, team to team. It is absolutely crucial – and it was very useful and very important – to have the retreats and briefings. Many thanks to the DGACM, to UNITAR and to those missions — it was Finland, and if I’m not mistaken, Malaysia – who were sponsoring the briefings. Absolutely important. Very, very useful.
Let me mention that one third of the staff of my office have worked in previous PGAs. So, we tried to incorporate as many as possible, as many as willing, from the previous Offices. And two thirds of my staff members are women, including on the management posts as well. That’s why you never heard me saying and taking a promise that I am going to secure the gender parity in my Office, because I would hate to kick off some very talented ladies from the Office. They are extremely good.
Let me mention to you that why don’t I consider that the financing issue is the number one burning issue: thanks to your contributions, we could secure $1.8 million for the functioning and I think it will be enough for this year, unless something really extraordinary happens. Many, many thanks to all of you, including those who contributed directly to the PGA Trust Fund and those who made an earmarked contribution to the Fellowship Programme. It was a very generous contribution from many of you.
We started or restarted creating an informal platform for interactions with the Member States. As we hear you speaking, we understand that what is missing from the GA’s work is not so much the number of meetings, but those platforms where, without much obligations, without much formalities, you can really discuss freely the big issues – the deeper-going interconnected issues. We started in the autumn and we will carry on very soon.
We relaunched the civil society forums. And by now, science has become an integral part of our system of consultations with Member States. The next science briefing will be on 12 April. We also consider it as an important new stab that all Member States have been invited to open coordinating meetings of the General Committee. Actually, it helped revealing the necessity of strategic planning, which is now missing in the work of the General Assembly.
And last but not least, thanks to the cooperation of DGACM, now an oversight platform is created and managed for you to see if you mandate something new, where would it fall.
Thank you very much, Mr. Co-Chair.
