Financing of peacekeeping missions – Fifth Cttee meeting – Press release (excerpts)

Resumed Fifty-fourth General Assembly

Fifth Committee

61st meeting (AM)

FIFTH COMMITTEE DISCUSSES LEBANON, GOLAN HEIGHTS PEACEKEEPING,

BUDGET IMPLICATIONS OF MILLENNIUM SUMMIT

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) concluded its general discussion of the financing of several peacekeeping missions this morning, and commenced its discussion of the programme budget implications of a draft resolution on the Millennium Assembly.

Speaking on behalf of the Arab Group on the financing of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), the representative of Lebanon said for the past three years the Assembly had called on Israel to pay for the damage caused by its 1996 attack on UNIFIL's Qana headquarters, but the Secretary-General reported that it still had not done so. Israel’s failure to respect its obligations caused the Arab Group deep regret and consternation, he said, and it called for a similar demand to be made in a resolution this year.

The representative of Israel said he deeply regretted the loss of innocent life in Qana, but that the Hezbolah militia must bear full responsibility. Damages incurred by peacekeeping missions were a risk Member States took, and the attempt to place the financial burden for Qana on Israel alone was one-sided and political. It was time to change the annual resolution, he concluded.

The representative of Syria raised concerns about the working conditions of local staff in the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF). UNDOF’s administration and the Office of Human Resources Management must do more to ensure equity between local and international staff of that mission, he said, as good working conditions for local staff played a prime part in ensuring the mission's success.

The representatives of the United States, Nigeria (on behalf of the “Group of 77” developing countries and China), and France also spoke on peacekeeping financing. The Chief of the Department of Peacekeeping Operation's Finance Management and Support Service, Compton Persaud, answered Member States' questions.

/…

Committee Work Programme

The Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) met this morning to continue its general discussion on financing peacekeeping missions, and commence consideration of the programme budget implications of a draft resolution before the General Assembly on the Millenium Summit.

[For introductions to the various reports on financing peacekeeping missions, see Press Release GA/AB/3365 of 8 May.]

/…

Statements

HOUSSAM ASAAD DIAB (Lebanon), speaking on behalf of the Arab Group of States, said the Assembly had, for the past three years, called on Israel to bear all the costs of its aggression on the Qana headquarters of the United Nations force. The same resolutions called for the Secretary-General to take all steps to ensure Israel abided by the resolutions. The reports of the Secretary-General and the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) on the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) indicated that Israel had not abided by the resolutions, despite the Secretary-General’s attempts. No response had been received to three letters he had sent on the matter.

The Arab Group expressed its deep regret and consternation at Israel’s failure to respect its obligations, acquired because of its criminal aggression against UNIFIL in Qana, he said. The deliberate Israeli aggression against a United Nations mission headquarters led to a massacre of 102 civilians — mostly women, the elderly and children — who had come to seek refuge. There should have been no violation of those sites. The person the Secretary-General entrusted to investigate the bombing had stated that it was deliberate. The attack was really a violation of the United Nations, and the death of innocent civilians at that site should lead all Member States to call on Israel to shoulder its responsibility and to pay all indemnities and compensations, if only to ensure that such attacks did not set precedents.

The Arab Group demanded that the international community, through the United Nations, adopt a resolution similar to that adopted for the past three years to oblige Israel to pay for the costs of its aggression, and called on the Secretary- General to adopt stricter measures to force Israel to abide by its obligations. In addition, the Arab Group noted that, in previous reports, the costs of the aggression had been detailed in the report, and details of the incident in Qana had been provided. There was less detail in the current report. These details and costs should be mentioned, thereby giving the events the importance they deserved. The Arab Group thanked UNIFIL for its positive role, despite all the difficulties it faced. It also appreciated the sacrifices that had been made by that Force. ABDOU AL-MOULA NAKKARI (Syria) said he was satisfied that the Secretary- General had addressed some concerns his country had expressed last year in the discussion of the financing of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), in particular those relating to improving the working conditions of local staff employed by the Force. Those conditions needed to be improved, following the hardship that was experienced after the Force was transferred from Damascus. However, despite some responses, UNDOF’s administration and the Office of Human Resources Management must do more to ensure equity between the local and international staff of the mission. Good working conditions for local staff were of primary importance in ensuring the success of the mission. Local staff had not received the hardship allowance that was given to international staff. He did not understand why they were not given the allowances, since both types of staff enjoyed the same privileges and immunities.

The ACABQ had previously acknowledged that the mission was working in a high risk area, he said. The Secretary-General had reported the terrain was hilly and harsh. He was surprised that the Secretariat had not taken those circumstances into consideration, despite the Fifth Committee taking note of last year’s ACABQ recommendations on the mission and agreeing with all its recommendations.

Many logistic and administration facilities still needed improvement following the mission command’s move from Damascus, he said. The Secretariat had taken action to meet some concerns, however, many others had not yet been met. One full year had passed since the Assembly had passed its resolution 53/226, and it was already the beginning of summer, but air conditioning was not provided for some buildings occupied by local staff. That would make it more difficult to work in the area. He would have expected that all buildings would have air conditioners before the advent of summer.

He noted that the Secretariat had provided limited access to internal e-mail to local staff, he said. It was odd that the Secretariat would not allow them access to the Internet, when so many of the Assembly’s resolutions encouraged greater use of the Internet, not just use of internal e-mail. The Internet was now available in Syria, and he could not understand the reasons that might result in preventing local staff from having access to it.

The Assembly had also called for continued effort to use local staff in posts previously occupied by international General Service staff, he said. He noted that the Secretariat had again considered transferring General Service posts to local level posts, but that it had decided that, for operational reasons, that was not possible in UNDOF. Those reasons had not been provided in the report. At the same time, he noted the Secretary-General was asking for another General Service post for the mission. By failing to transfer General Service posts to local-level posts, benefits that could apply to local staff were lost. In particular, it inhibited local-level staff from undertaking temporary assignment to other missions, in accord with the mobility criteria which was a main aspect of the work conditions of United Nations staff. UNDOF local staff should receive all their entitlements without any discriminations, he concluded.

ROYAL WHARTON (United States) said the United States was a strong supporter of UNIFIL. However the use of General Assembly funding resolutions to pursue claims against Member States was not correct procedure. Thus, he had opposed resolution 53/227 and the previous resolutions on the matter, as they contained sections requiring Israel to pay the costs for the Qana incident. Those resolutions were not consensus resolutions.

The Secretary-General was the appropriate party to present and pursue the Organization’s claims against a Member State, he said. Using a funding resolution to legislate a settlement was inappropriate. It was also politicizing the work of the Fifth Committee, and that should be avoided. The United States would work for compromise on the matter, but could not accept any resolution that referred to the incident in Qana and to Israel using the same terms that were used in the resolutions that the United States had opposed in the past.

RON ADAM (Israel) said that, on the issue of UNIFIL, and after hearing the statement from the representative of Lebanon, he wanted to clarify a few facts about the Qana incident. That unfortunate incident occurred under certain circumstances. Based 300 metres from the United Nations camp, the Hezbolah decided to draw fire towards Lebanese civilians in the camp. Israel had officially warned the United Nations the same day of the dangerous situation. The Hezbolah fired dozens of rockets. Israel could not and would not tolerate bombs falling on its territory and would not stand by when people were being killed.

After three consecutive days of Hezbolah bombings, and numerous warnings, the Israeli Defence Force had to put a stop to the situation, he continued. It had to be re-emphasized that Israel had not been aware of the presence of civilians and deeply regretted the loss of innocent life. The Hezbolah must bear full responsibility. United Nations peacekeeping operations had incurred damages in the past and, in fact, still did, everywhere they had been deployed as a result of armed conflict. It was a risk Member States took when sending forces, including civilian police and civilians. The attempt to place the burden on Israel alone was a one-sided and political initiative of the General Assembly. It was time to change the annual resolution.

HASSAN MOHAMMED HASSAN (Nigeria), speaking on behalf of the "Group of 77" developing countries and China, said that he expressed the support of the Group for the UNIFIL mandate and the adoption of the resolution on financing UNIFIL with the proposed amendments. The Group also expressed concern that the Fifth Committee had to adopt a resolution yet again and reiterated its request to the Secretary-General to take measures to ensure the full implementation of General Assembly resolutions, and it requested the Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly at its fifty-fifth session.

Mr. DIAB (Lebanon) said that Israel was willing to finance the aggression that violated the UNIFIL post and killed civilians, which had cost it millions of dollars, but it refused to pay the amount the Assembly had called for in its resolutions over the past three years.

What the representative of Israel called a mistake, he said, was only one of many crimes and mistakes over the 22 years of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon. Israel’s history in Lebanon was all mistakes and crimes, and it was not enough to be sorry. What he wanted above all was that, in the United Nations and in this Committee, Israel came to understand Lebanon's position; why it was insisting on the full implementation of resolution 425 (1978), and why it insisted on general peace and a fair solution to the Middle East question.

Again, Israel had sought political debate on the issue, he said. Such debate was not within the mandate of the Fifth Committee. The bottom line was that the financial burden that members of the Fifth Committee had shouldered for 20 years was created by the Israeli occupation of Lebanon and its subsequent refusal to follow the Security Council's demand that it withdraw to internationally recognized borders. UNIFIL’s mandate was, in part, to confirm the withdrawal of Israeli forces. Israel’s refusal to withdraw in accordance with Council resolution 425 (1978) had prevented UNIFIL from implementing its mandate. Its task had been reduced to ensuring the peaceful character of its area of operations and, more precisely, that part not under Israeli occupation. In doing so, it also afforded a measure of protection to the civilian population.

Lebanon believed in the principle of collective responsibility, he said, and was committed to it. However, the Fifth Committee had stressed through the last three years’ resolutions on UNIFIL financing that it did not wish to create a precedent whereby a State carried out an aggressive act against a United Nations mission — obstructing the mission and killing civilians — and United Nations Members States assumed the cost of the damage caused. The resolutions confirmed that Israel must fulfil its responsibilities under international law. Ignoring the Assembly resolutions calling for it to pay for the damage it caused was a clear insistence on politicizing the issue, and ignored the financial burden that placed on Member States. Lebanon had confidence in the Secretary-General’s ability to ensure resolutions were implemented, and it would continue to monitor the situation. He hoped the next UNIFIL performance report would inform the Committee that the resolution had been fully implemented.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that every time the Fifth Committee discussed UNIFIL financing, Israel tried in vain to justify its act of aggression in targeting a symbol of peace — the mission’s headquarters. That act of aggression against innocent Lebanese had left a trail of blood and destruction. For the third year, Israel ignored the international community’s call that it bear the financial costs of its aggression. The act in 1996 was just more proof of its systematic policy of international terrorism. Israel claimed it supported peacekeeping operations, but he could not accept that claim as genuine when it had also bombarded a peacekeeping operation.

What was also ironic, he said, was that Israel claimed it possessed a right to self-defence that could be exercised anywhere in the world, but denied the same right to Lebanese trying to defend their land, their dignity and their people. The representative of the Israeli occupying forces had said Israel knew of a military presence close to Qana, but it nevertheless attacked the United Nations in flagrant disregard of the fact that it was the symbol of the international presence there. One hundred two civilians had been killed in Qana, but Israeli acts of aggression continued today. Very recently, there had been news reports of new attacks on the infrastructure of Lebanon, on civilian facilities in Lebanon, and on defenceless Lebanese. On 4 and 5 May, it had attacked and shelled Lebanese areas, killing and injuring innocent civilians and destroying vital infrastructure.

Mr. ADAM (Israel) said that his delegation agreed with the delegation of Lebanon that the Administrative and Budgetary Committee should not be drawn into a political debate. Unfortunately, he had done so. Israel called attention to the situation in Lebanon. Israel had decided to withdraw its forces in Lebanon by July 2000 in the framework of a peace agreement with Syria and Lebanon. So far, Israel’s efforts had not been met with reciprocal responses.

The withdrawal was set to take place, and Foreign Minister David Levy had officially informed the United Nations in a letter to the Secretary-General, he continued. The Foreign Minister had further informed that Israel intended to cooperate with the United Nations in implementation of its decisions. Israel would do its utmost to assist the United Nations in performing its tasks, including the restoration of international peace and security. Israel hoped that, instead of the preparation of annual ritual speeches to the Committee, his Syrian and Lebanese neighbours would be prepared with speeches to be delivered at a peace table. He hoped the call for peace would soon be answered.

Mr. DIAB (Lebanon) said that the representative of Israel had forced him to take the floor again. In response to what was said by Israel, Israel could avoid drawing a political debate into the Committee by paying the entire amount owed to Lebanon. The Arab countries had met in Lebanon and had supported Lebanon’s claims, urging Israel to implement Security Council resolution 425 (1978) and to carry out a full and unconditional withdrawal. It also affirmed the right of Lebanon for compensation for harm carried out by Israel on the people and infrastructure of Lebanon.

His delegation insisted that the United Nations discharge its responsibility for implementation of resolutions and that UNIFIL assume responsibility for safety. Israel would no longer be able to use the pretext that Syria and Lebanon were the reasons for the threat to peace and security in the region. Israel’s history was full of massacres and mistakes. Lebanon insisted that resolution 425 be implemented and rejected the idea that Israel remain on the borders. Israel must respect peace and security in the region.

Mr. NAKKARI (Syria) said that the rejected claims by the representative of the occupying State also made him take the floor again. It was not the first time Israel had claimed to withdraw from Lebanon. At the same time last year, Israel made a similar declaration and the situation had stayed the same. Words must be matched with deeds. Only then could the international community believe Israel’s claims.

It was not the first time a statement had been made by Israel indicating its intention to withdraw, he said. His delegation found it strange that a declaration of intention to withdraw would be made without working towards the conditions that would lead to the implementation of peace. Statements were not enough. Commitments must also be made to implement other resolutions and the Madrid terms of reference. Israel must be committed to peace.

COMPTON PERSAUD, Chief of Finance Management and Support Services, Department of Peacekeeping Operations, then answered questions raised by Syria on UNDOF. He said that working conditions of local UNDOF staff had been the subject of ongoing dialogue in the UNDOF Staff Committee. Many improvements had resulted from the dialogue, some of which were detailed in the Secretary-General’s report on UNDOF. Efforts to address the remaining issues were ongoing.

The issue of the air conditioning was among those, he said. All UNDOF buildings had not yet been provided with air conditioning because the camp needed electrical upgrading to accommodate the additional power load. Some of the upgrading had now taken place, and the remaining buildings would be air conditioned by mid June. He noted, however, that those buildings that still lacked air conditioning housed both international and local staff.

Regarding access to e-mail, UNDOF’s communication facilities had required upgrading to provide e-mail access to all staff, he said. The e-mail upgrade had been completed in January, and in March the system was reconfigured to provide internal e-mail to all staff, both international and local. International access would be completed in the next two months for all staff. Last year, when the matter was first raised, a decision had been taken to restrict local staff Internet access, but that had been reversed.

On the replacement of General Service staff with local staff, he explained that, prior to the preparation of the budget, detailed instructions had been issued by the United Nations Controller to all missions to carefully review the possibility of using local posts rather than General Service posts. In UNDOF, after a comprehensive review, it was determined that further conversions were not practical, based on the tasks the staff must undertake. However, the possibility would continue to be reviewed for all missions.

Regarding the assignment of local-level staff to other missions, he said a number of local staff had been assigned to other missions for the past several years. At the same time, the Secretariat must be cognizant of the needs of UNDOF and ensure that its activities were not disrupted. A reasonable balance must be achieved.

Regarding the hardship allowance paid to some UNDOF staff, he would ask the experts on the allowance to speak with Member States at their informal consultations. Following the Fifth Committee’s previous discussion on the remuneration of UNDOF local staff, the Office of Human Resources Management was asked to review local salary scales and to consult with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to see if there was any need for additional allowances in view of the move. The mission headquarters had only moved 45 minutes away from Damascus, he noted, and the United Nations provided transport to and from the new headquarters. The review was ongoing, but he expected the remuneration issue would be fully addressed this year. However, he noted, hardship allowance as presently constructed was an expatriate benefit, approved only for certain types of appointment under the staff rules and regulations.

/…

* *** *