|
||||||||||||||||
Statements by Ambassador Terry Miller Statement requesting a vote on the resolution Mr. President, When a delegation does something unexpected or which perhaps goes in a different direction from actions in previous years, it is incumbent on them to explain to the Council why they are taking the actions they are. That is why I have asked for the floor. First, I want to thank you for the text you have presented and the distinguished representative of Switzerland for facilitating negotiations. The fact that these negotiations have not produced a consensus text is no reflection on the effort involved. Mr. President, My delegation and my government have read the text in L.28 with the greatest care. The issues involve the very heart of the United Nations’ development process, its operational activities for development. The matters concern organizations, such as UNDP and UNICEF, which are strongly supported by the United States both in principle and with significant financial support. These operational activities are important to us, and that is why the resolution before us is such a disappointment. To start with, it is too long, over 50 operative paragraphs. Many say the same things but in different and sometimes conflicting ways; fully 20 of them start with the words “notes,” “takes note,” “recalls,” or “recognizes,” and thus do little more than offer commentary or recollection of actions already taken. How does this move the development process forward? In addition, Mr. President, the resolution contains a number of conclusions, assertions, or policy prescriptions that my delegation believes are distorted or inaccurate. Some of these include language previously agreed in other contexts or other resolutions. While that means that delegations must accord such formulations the respect of very serious consideration, it cannot mean that we are bound to go on repeating things that we believe are wrong. Let me give you a few examples of areas that have caused my delegation concern: OP 6 distorts and misrepresents funding trends. Core resources have been rising for the past several years, and continue to rise for many operational agencies; for example, the latest figures show that UNICEF’s core resources increased from $540 million to $780 million between 2000 and 2004; and UNDP’s core increased from $645 million to $921 million between 2000 and 2005, surpassing its core resource targets in both 2004 and 2005. UNFPA’s core resources went up 13% in 2004 and 7% in 2005. Given these trends, why does this resolution highlight what it calls a fall in “some parts” of the system. We need an honest look at where we are before we can decide how best to get to where we want to be. There are also several places where the resolution misrepresents or does not represent clearly the responsibilities of various parties and actors, for example in OP 13, OP 25, and OP 31. In a resolution intended to provide operational guidance to the UN system, sweeping and unclear statements generate confusion rather than clarity. It is well accepted that national development strategies require national ownership to be effective. It does not follow that program countries should exercise ownership and leadership over all external assistance, that the Resident Coordinator system, a UN management and implementation mechanism, should be subordinate to national ownership rather than the governing bodies of the UN agencies, nor that the evaluation process of UN operational activities should be subordinate to national ownership, and thus subject to political influence. Yet all three of these assertions are contained in this resolution. Finally, the resolution’s treatment of technology transfer fails to recognize that most technology is privately owned, and that governments cannot and should not compel technology transfers. The most effective means of promoting technology transfer is a sound investment climate to give owners of technologies the confidence to make their assets available on mutually agreed terms and with adequate protection and compensation. For all of these reasons, Mr. President, my delegation calls under rule 59 for a vote on this resolution. Statement of Explanation of Vote Mr. President, The United States has voted against this resolution principally for three reasons: first, the resolution misrepresents trends in funding for operational activities for development; second, in a number of key areas, it distorts or is unhelpfully ambiguous on the respective roles and responsibilities of donors, program countries, and the UN system; and third, it promotes a misinformed view on technology and technology transfer. The United States remains committed to working with all member states in the Economic and Social Council, the General Assembly, and the governing bodies of the funds and programs, to make the UN’s operational activities for development more effective in addressing the needs of people in developing countries. We will continue to work towards this goal on the basis of the voluntary participation of all countries, and the responsibility, ownership and leadership that developing countries assume for their own development. Mr. President, I request that the text of this statement be reflected in the records of this meeting. |