CHAIRMAN: We will continue taking the Draft Reports from Commission III. The Chairman of the Commission continues to sit on the platform and we will start with Draft Report C 93/REP/12. We will deal with C93/REP/11 during this session, but we will begin with C 93/REP/12.
Paragraphs 1 to 4, including Resolution, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 4, y compris la résolution, sont approuvés
Párrafos 1 a 4, incluida la Resolución, ciprobados
Paragraphs 5 to 6, including Resolution and Appendix, approved
Les paragraphes 5 à 6, y compris la résolution et l'annexe, sont approuvés
Párrafos 5 a 6, incluida la Resolución v el Apéndice, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 7 TO 11, INCLUDING APPENDIX
PARAGRAPHES 7 TO 11, Y COMPRIS L'ANNEXE
PÁRRAFOS 7 A 11, INCLUIDO EL APENDICE
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Pour rendre le paragraphe 8 un peu plus compréhensible, du moins dans la version française, il serait peut-être plus indiqué, à la première phrase, de biffer le membre de phrase "que la question doit faire l'objet d'une analyse technique plus approfondie" et de dire simplement: "Etant donné la nature de cette proposition, la Conférence a décidé qu'une étude approfondie de la proposition et de ses incidences...", le reste sans changement.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): I have a change proposed for paragraph 9. It is that we remove the phrase at the end of the paragraph "until the next Conference" and replace it with "any decision taken by Council to be implemented on a trial basis until the next Conference", which I believe is the decision we arrived at. The way the text is drafted now, it simply grants the decision to Council to take a decision until the next Conference, and I do not think that is what we decided.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I am not English mother tongue, so maybe I am having difficulty in understanding. For me, what is important is that the delegation of authority which we wish to give to the Council is a delegation which is only given until the next Conference and is not a permanent delegation. My reading of the text as it stands now is clear. The delegation is given until the next Conference and then it is up to the Conference to decide. I do not have a clear understanding of the Canadian proposal with respect to this concern.
- 689 -
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): In the discussion we had, we had -agreed that the Council would be delegated the right to take a decision on this matter, with the decision to be implemented as a result of that decision by Council to remain in effect only until the next conference on a trial basis. Consequently, whatever decision it takes, the decision itself will only be in effect until the next Conference, at which time we would review the matter and come to a more permanent solution. The way that it is phrased in paragraph 9, it simply provides the Council with the right until the next Conference to take a decision but nothing is said as to the duration of that decision. If the Council takes a decision, that decision is final. I think that is the difference in the emphasis that I have tried to introduce in the sentence.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I see a difference between delegation of authority and taking a decision. If I delegate authority, I can decide several times. I can decide next year and I can decide again after the next Conference. I think that we have to be precise on this matter, and I prefer the text as it stands.
Ashraf Mohsen Mohamed MOHSEN (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): I should like to second the amendment proposed by the delegate of Canada, which indeed reflects what happened when the proposal was discussed. I think it is a much better phraseology and would not give power to the Council beyond the next Conference.
Jan BIELAWSKI (Poland): This is an important point. I take the floor to support both the thinking and the language submitted by the delegate of Canada. Of course, the question remains of whether it is clear to everyone or whether it could be improved and made even more lucid than it is. For that reason I submit to you two simple suggestions. Perhaps it would be acceptable to the delegate of Switzerland to continue after the word "agreed" by saying "to delegate until the next Conference to the Council the authority", which probably shifts the emphasis. My second proposal is to delete the words "until the next Conference" and replace them by the words "subject to the approval of the next Conference". This is a tentative suggestion since what is very good in the Canadian proposal is the element that any decision is introduced on a trial basis, and I shall be supporting this proposal.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Un petit élément de clarification: si la décision du Conseil est prise sous réserve de l'approbation de la Conférence, comment va-t-on permettre, d'une manière pratique, aux Etats Membres, de profiter de cette facilité le plus tôt possible?
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): Since the Canadian proposal has found support, I suggest that we do as proposed by the delegate of Poland and move the part of the sentence "until the next Conference" to the third line so that it would read "to delegate until the next Conference to the Council the authority".
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I think everybody is in agreement on what is to be said here. The problem is in finding the terminology. Let me try a slight
modification to see if it catches the full essence of it I suggest that the paragraph reads as it is through "this was made", and that we then insert "such delegation to remain with the Council only until the next Conference and with any decision taken by Council to be implemented on a trial basis". It seems to me that that would clarify the matter.
CHAIRMAN: Would that satisfy the delegates of Canada and Switzerland?
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I think it should read "with any decision taken by the Council to be implemented on a trial basis until the next Conference". I think we need to keep that in.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: It is redundant, but you may have it in if you wish.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): I agree with the suggestion made by my Swiss colleague.
CHAIRMAN: It seems that the words proposed by Mr Hjort, but maintaining the four words "until the next Conference", meet with the approval of delegates.
Ray ALLEN (United Kingdom): I am not sure what we have now agreed. I think Mr Hjort was quite right that we do not need the second "until the next Conference" because it is said in the first part of the sentence he proposed, which was "such delegation to remain with the Council only until the next Conference". We do not need the second "until the next Conference". I do not understand where we are now.
CHAIRMAN: I would ask Mr Hjort to read paragraph 9 in full as he proposes it so that we can have a full understanding of how it reads.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The full paragraph would read as follows: "Furthermore, in order to allow Member Nations to avail themselves eventually of this facility at the earliest possible date, the Conference agreed to delegate to the Council the authority to decide on the issue of derogation from Financial Regulation 5.6 and on the criteria under which this was to be made, such delegation to remain with the Council only until the next Conference and with any decision taken by Council to be implemented on a trial basis". The suggestion from Switzerland is to add to the end of that "until the next Conference".
CHAIRMAN: That addition would not be necessary, in my view. I am sure the delegate of Switzerland would agree that the final four words would not be necessary in that phrasing. I see that the delegate of Switzerland agrees. Does each member of Conference agree that we can now adopt paragraph 9 as amended?
- 691 -
CHAIRMAN: We will go back to paragraph 8, on which there was a proposal from the delegate of Morocco to remove all the words after the word "proposal".
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: As I understand the proposed amendment from the delegate of Morocco on paragraph 8, it is simply to delete a set of words. As I understand it, it would read, "In view of the nature of the proposal, the Conference decided that an in-depth review of the proposal..." and so forth. In-other words, one could delete "the matter required further technical analysis and requested, therefore, that". All that could be deleted, so that it simply reads, "the Conference decided that an in-depth review of the proposal and its implications in the light of the questions raised in the debate be performed by the spring 1994 session of the Finance Committee", and so forth.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): In the opinion of my delegation, the second line justifies why an in-depth review is necessary, so we think this is an explanatory part, which should be kept in this paragraph.
Ray ALLEN (United Kingdom): I should just like to agree with what the Swiss delegation has said. I think it is important that this is made clear in the Report.
Franco F.G. GINOCCHIO (Italy): I wish to agree with what has been said by the Swiss delegate.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Je peux rejoindre les avis exprimés, mais je m'attendrais à avoir des éclaircissements pour comprendre parfaitement quel est le cheminement logique de la première partie de ce paragraphe 8. Je ne sais pas si cela est dû à la version française, mais je ne pense pas que ce soit dans le mandat du Comité financier de réaliser quelque étude que ce soit. Le Comité financier analyse, recommande, formule des avis. J'attends quelques éclaircissements là-dessus.
Jacques LAUREAU (France) : Il me semble que le délégué du Maroc a raison. Ce n'est pas le Comité financier qui réalise des études. Le Comité financier peut demander des études à quelqu'un, par exemple le Vérificateur externe des comptes. C'est ce qui avait été dit, si on relit les verbatims.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): I wish to support the delegate of France. In fact, the suggestion was made that the External Auditor would carry out the study, and the delegate of Morocco is quite right that it is not the Finance Committee which carries out the study; it is the Finance Committee which will consider a study.
DEPUTY-DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I would recall that during the debate there was a request from at least one, if not more Member Nations for some information to be provided to the Finance Committee on the practices of other bodies in the UN system, a further review of the matter and so forth. Maybe what one could consider here is, "In view of the nature of the proposal, the
Conference recommended that additional information be provided by the Director-General and requested that an in-depth review of the proposal", and so forth, "be provided by the Finance Committee". The point has been made by two or three delegations here, that the Finance Committee is not a body to do technical analysis. If the Conference wishes further analysis of the matter or additional information, I think that request should go to the Director-General. I have not given you an exact formulation there, but I gather that is the sense of what is being proposed here.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Monsieur le Président, si mon collègue et ami M. Marincek, délégué de la Suisse, ne voyait pas d'inconvénient à l'amendement original que j'avais proposé, je serais en mesure de proposer maintenant de remplacer dans la version française "soit réalisée" par "soit analysée".
Mohammed Rashid AL ABSI (United Arab Emirates) (Original language Arabic): I think that in the Arabic text we mean that the Conference has decided; given that the matter calls for more technical analysis, the Conference decided that the Committee - in other words, it is a question of pursuing a technical analysis of the whole matter. So, "the Conference decided"; it is the Conference that took the decision. I do not think there is anything wrong there.
Raphaël RASE (Madagascar): Je voudrais contribuer à la recherche d'une solution. Je voudrais proposer que l'on mette seulement un point après "réalisée". Et ensuite, on commencerait par "Le Comité financier examinera cette étude dans sa session". Donc, un point seulement après "soit réalisée" et ensuite on fait une autre phrase: "Le Comité financier examinera cette étude à sa session".
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Let us see if we can have a simple solution to this: leave the whole paragraph as it is and insert two words between "performed" and "by the spring": "be submitted to the spring 1994 Session of the Finance Committee". It says them that the Conference decided that it required further technical analysis and requested that an in-depth review... and its implications, and so forth, "be submitted to the Spring 1994 Session". In other words, this puts the onus on the back of the Director-General to do all of these things and to submit a document to the Finance Committee so that they can consider the matter and make their recommendations to the Council in May of 1994.
So the whole paragraph would now read, "In view of the nature of the proposal, the Conference decided that the matter required further technical analysis and requested, therefore, that an in-depth review of the proposal and its implications in the light of the questions raised in the debate be submitted to the Spring 1994 Session of the Finance Committee". We take out "performed by" and add "submitted to", "the Finance Committee and its conclusions be submitted to the additional session of the Council to be held by May 1994".
CHAIRMAN: Is there any further comment on this matter? I take it therefore, that Conference accepts the wording as read by the Deputy Director-General, Mr Hjort.
- 693 -
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Excusez-moi de revenir-encore à la charge. J'espère que la toute petite proposition que je vais faire ne va pas poser trop de difficultés. J'aimerais que l'on sépare les deux phrases, que l'on dise (je reviens sur mon amendement original): "Etant donné la nature de cette proposition, la Conférence a décidé que la question devait faire l'objet d'une analyse technique plus approfondie." Ensuite "Elle a donc demandé".
CHAIRMAN: I do not think we will have any difficulty in accepting that. Mr Hjort says that it means exactly the same thing. Do we accept paragraph 8 as the delegate of Morocco has insisted it be corrected to read? Paragraph 8 is now adopted.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Au paragraphe 10, à la deuxième phrase, après "(Annexe...)", ne pourrait-on pas ajouter "Elle a été informée qu'a la date du 19 novembre 1993, 79 Etats Membres n'avaient effectué aucun versement". Cela pour ne pas anticiper sur les 2 0 versements qui pourraient intervenir au cours du mois de décembre. "Elle a été informée qu'à la date du 19 novembre" (C'est la date qui figure sur le tableau à la page 12) "79 Etats Membres n'avaient effectué aucun versement".
CHAIRMAN: Have members heard the recommendation of the delegate of Morocco? Are there any comments? That recommendation, I think, is acceptable.
Ray ALLEN (United Kingdom): I am really sorry to take you back to paragraph 9. I was otherwise engaged whilst Mr Hjort read out the last part of paragraph 9 again. May I clarify what the last sentence in paragraph 9 will say?
CHAIRMAN: You can confer with the delegate of the United States who sits beside you. Conference has already adopted paragraph 9. We spent a considerable time on it. The Deputy Director-General read the amended version in a slow manner, as requested by the distinguished delegate of Malta.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): Again, I simply revert to what the United Kingdom representative has just said. I think there may be a misunderstanding as to what the final phrase in paragraph 9 is. I suggested a formulation. Mr Hjort suggested an alternative formulation to which was added a phrase by Switzerland which I seconded. Could I please have the formulation so that I understand exactly how it reads?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The phrase after the word "made" is "such delegation to remain with the Council only until the next Conference and with any decision taken by Council to be implemented on a trial basis".
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): I apologize but that was not the proposal to which we agreed. After "a trial basis" is the phrase" until the next Conference", as suggested by Switzerland and seconded by Canada should appear in the text. I think I explained on at least two occasions why this phrase is
important and in fact it reflected the actual debate that -we had. I would request respectfully that this phrase be included in the final text.
CHAIRMAN: Did Conference understand what phrase the delegate of Canada wishes to have included?
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): At the very end, it is the repetition of the phrase "until the next Conference"; so the end would read from the word "made", "such delegation to remain with the Council only until the next Conference, and with any decision taken by Council to be implemented on a trial basis until next Conference".
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Nous ne voyons aucun problème à accepter une répétition. Mais j'aimerais bien comprendre une chose, Monsieur le Président, avoir un éclaircisement: si la Conférence de 1995 revenait sur cette décision que prendrait probablement le Conseil, est-ce que la mise en oeuvre continuerait quand même?
Igor MARINCBK (Switzerland) : As you know, I defended the proposal which is now repeated by the delegate of Canada. You from the Chair, and there were other suggestions also from Mr Hjort, said that this would be redundant. It was with the impression that this was an opinion shared by the whole Conference; I admitted one could perhaps have the shorter version. My preference also goes for the repetition because, as I explained earlier, we have on the one side the delegation of authority and on the other side a decision. It makes things clear. It does not make a very nice sentence, I fully agree, and to some extent it makes it redundant but it is certainly very clear if you repeat it.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Permettez-moi d'insister. J'avais demandé un éclaircissement. Et là, il y a peut-être un aspect juridique de la question. Pour notre part, la délégation et la décision ne font qu'un. Par contre, le deuxième aspect, c'est le champ d'application de la décision, la mise en oeuvre. Et c'est pour cela que nous pensions que si la Conférence revenait sur la décision, automatiquement la mise en oeuvre serait arrêtée.
Chadli LAROUSSI (Tunisie): Je ne vois pas où est le problème. Et le Conseiller juridique peut peut-être mieux nous éclairer. Mais en tout état de cause, la Conférence étant l'organe souverain de l'Organisation, elle peut tout arrêter. Alors, c'est une réele redondance. Et sur le plan juridique, je ne crois pas que notre texte tiendra avec cette redondance. Mais de toute manière, je me rallierai à l'avis du Conseiller juridique.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): The addition at the end of the sentence has substantive impact in that it places a time limit on the extent to which the decision to be taken by Council will be in effect. Now, this is not made up. I would simply recall what the debate was all about and the decision that we took in the debate that we would implement a decision of this type respecting this measure on a trial basis and we would take a subsequent decision, if it was so deemed necessary for it, at the next
Conference. What this is attempting to reflect is, in fact, a decision that we reached in the debate. I do not understand the problem that we have with it. If we take out the fact of a qualifying "when the decision is to end by the next Conference", it means the decision stays in effect until such a time as it is repealed. I submit that it is not quite the same thing and it certainly does not accord with the decision that was taken, hence the argument that I make for the inclusion of "until the next Conference", we can say "pending final resolution at the next Conference". We can say that but I think we need the qualifier at the end; otherwise it is not the temporary-decision which was agreed in this room.
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): Out of an abundance of caution and not wanting to repeat what happened this morning, I merely want to say I understand the decision of Conference exactly as Canada has put it, even without those last four words. If it would advance the work of Conference, then let us put the last four words in and let us proceed. I would urge we do that.
CHAIRMAN: I think we should try and get this matter brought to a conclusion after this very lengthy debate. Can Legal Counsel help us?
LEGAL COUNSEL: It does seem, if I approach this legally, that there is a slight difference between the period during which the Council is authorized to take a decision - in other words it can be delegated the authority for a certain period of time - and the length of time for which the decision that the Council takes is valid. I think this is the point that is being made. May I suggest that at the end of the sentence instead of saying "until the Conference", one just uses the words "until then". Basically the power to take a decision is delegated to the Council until the next Conference and the decision is to be implemented on a trial basis until then. I think it makes it perfectly clear that there are two distinct legal aspects, the length of time for which the decision is delegated and the length of time for which a decision taken is valid.
CHAIRMAN: I hope this clarifies the situation and satisfies all delegates.
Soumaila ISSAKA (Niger): Je voulais justement vous prier de donner la parole au Conseiller juridique pour qu'il donne les éclaircissements que le délégué du Maroc a demandés. En effet, il faudrait être précis sur la durée de la délégation à donner au Conseil, d'une part - et sur cela, nous sommes tous d'accord - et, d'autre part, sur le terme de l'effet de la décision que prendrait le Conseil. Il me semble que tout le monde est d'accord sur ce que le Conseiller juridique a dit.
Francis Montanaro MIFSUD (Malta): I hesitate to prolong this debate. It is getting very scholastic. I thought the original wording by Mr Hjort was clear enough because it would require the next Conference to decide one way or the other but, if we had these last words in, do we mean that at the beginning of the next Conference any decisions made on a trial basis would cease to have effect or at some other stage of the next Conference? Some of the payments tend to come in during the Conference. Do we have to say "by?
the end of the next Conference"? This is the trouble. If one tries to be too precise, one ends up by not being all that precise.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I would suggest then, instead of saying "until then" or "until the next Conference", we say "until the matter has been further addressed by the next Conference". Then at that time the new decision of the Conference takes over, and supersedes the delegated decision taken by the Council.
Moomi TE AVELELA SAMBA (Zaire): Je voudrais juste proposer un petit mot. Je crois que cela pourrait nous aider. Au lieu de dire "jusqu'alors", nous pourrions dire "jusqu'à nouvel ordre".
Raphaël RABE (Madagascar): Je voudrais seulement appuyer ce qu'a dit le délégué de la Tunisie. En fait, à sa vingt-huitième session, la Conférence sera souveraine et prendra les décisions opportunes.Nous ne pouvons pas, à la vingt-septième session, décider ce que fera la Conférence à sa vingt-huitième session. Je crois donc inutile de préciser que la vingt-huitième session de la Conférence marquera la fin de la délégation donnée au Conseil. En effet, à sa vingt-huitième session, la Conférence prendra les décisions qui s'imposent.
Julio César LUPINACCI (Uruguay) : Creo que la última sugerencia que hizo el Doctor Moore soluciona a mi juicio el problema de mi delegación. Quizás la redacción podría hacerse más estricta, hasta que la próxima Conferencia tome una decisión definitiva, que es casi lo mismo que dijo el Doctor Moore, pero a lo mejor, mejor explicado que la palabra definitiva pudiera calmar algunas inquietudes, propongo concretamente así señor Presidente, "hasta que la próxima Conferencia tome una decisión definitiva".
Michael KIMA TABONG (Cameroon): I thought we had almost reached a solution with the little phrase that the Legal Counsel added, "until then". Now we seem to be falling apart again. I suggest we keep to this. When a proposal is made and is supported, I think you should seek for more supporters rather than opening it up again.
Now let me speak on something else quite different. It would appear to me that this House now has a quorum, so if we can move on to the roll call before the House begins to thin down again, that would be a good idea.
CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate wish to propose another phrasing of this paragraph?
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): My delegation would like to support the suggestion that we take one of the two phrases proposed by the Legal Counsel. Both are sufficiently good for us. We cannot bind into our Report all eventualities for the future. We have to give directions here.
- 697 -
CHAIRMAN: The proposal before the House is that at the end we insert the words "until then" - "until the next Conference" - and this will satisfy all the delegations assembled here at this time.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Notre collègue de la Suisse vient de dire qu'il était prêt à accepter l'une ou l'autre des propositions du conseiller juridique. Pour ma part, je préfère nettement la deuxième, qui a fait suite à la proposition de l'Ambassadeur de Malte.
CHAIRMAN: Do we take a vote on this matter? I am proposing that we use the phrase given to us by the distinguished Legal Counsel, "until then". Mr Hjort, will you kindly read the phrase that Conference is being asked to adopt.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I am not exactly sure of the precise terminology used. I think it was "until the Conference addresses the matter".
LEGAL COUNSEL: My second wording was along those lines. I do not have it written down. I think it was, "until the matter is taken up by the next Conference". "Until a final decision is taken by the Conference on the matter".
CHAIRMAN: We have to move on. We cannot spend the entire day discussing how to include one phrase. It is possible for every single delegate to rephrase the sentence in a particular manner.
Ms Teresa D. HOBGOOD (United States of America): I wanted to clarify the second formulation of the Legal Counsel. I believe he said, "until the matter has been addressed by the next Conference."
CHAIRMAN: I am grateful to the distinguished delegate of the United States of America. Do we accept those words as representative of the words that were put to Conference? I am getting a positive response all round. Conference therefore adopts paragraph 9.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Sur le tableau des contributions ordinaires des Etats Membres au budget, à la page 12 du document, il y a la note 4 de bas de page au sujet de laquelle j'aimerais avoir un tout petit éclaircissement. Peut-être devrions-nous effacer cette note du tableau car la Conférence a pris la décision de passer par pertes et profits le montant de cette contribution - je ne me rappelle pas exactement à quelle date.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I understand that the suggestion is to include the date of the Resolution in the footnotes. Is that right? If that is it, we certainly can do so.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Il s'agit de la note de bas de page 4 de la page 12, qui parle du recouvrement de la contribution.
S'agissant de la Tchécoslovaquie, vous vous rappelerez que la Conférence, suivant la recommandation du Bureau, avait décidé de faire passer ce montant par pertes et profits. Je crois que cette décision a été prise le 17 novembre. Or cette situation est datée du 19 novembre 1993. J'aimerais que l'on égalise les choses.
CHAIRMAN: That matter will be taken care of when the Secretariat finalizes this matter.
Paragraphs 7 to 11, including Appendix, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 7 à ll. v compris l'annexe ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 7 a 11, incluido el Apéndice así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 3-14 (continued)
PARAGRAPHES 3-14 (suite)
PARRAFOS 3-14 (continuación)
LEGAL COUNSEL: We have a technical problem, a formal problem, at the moment, and that is first of all getting a quorum to take this decision. The quorum is a majority of the Member Nations. I should point out that in the work of the Commission and the discussions on the Flagging Agreement, everybody spoke in favour of the Flagging Agreement. There did not seem to be any difficulty with it. Everyone seemed to be very enthusiastic about it.
The formal problem I have now is that we are hovering round about a quorum the whole time. However, our rules require that we have not only a two-thirds majority of the votes cast - I think there is no difficulty on that - but also that the votes for or against should be more than one-half of the Member Nations of the Organization.
Francis Montanaro MIFSUD (Malta): Before we have the Roll-call Vote might I request that a rallying cry is sent round the house to bring the stragglers into this hall.
CHAIRMAN: We will ask that the bell be rung. Before us is the Resolution appearing on page 10 under paragraph 14.
Vote
Vote
Votación
If a vote is equally divided on a matter other than an election, a second vote shall be taken at a subsequent meeting to be held not less than one hour after the conclusion of the meeting at which the equally divided vote occurred. If the second vote is also equally divided the proposal shall be regarded as rejected.
En cas de partage égal des voix lors d'un vote ne portant pas sur une élection, on procède à un deuxième vote en cours d'une séance ultérieure, qui ne peut avoir lieu moins d'une heure après la fin de celle à laquelle s'est produit le partage égal de voix. Si les voix restent également partagées lors de ce second vote, la proposition est considérée comme repoussée.
Si hubiera empate en un asunto que no sea una elección, se repetirá la votación en una sesión subsiguiente la cual noedeberá celebrarse hasta que haya transcurrido una hora, por lo menos, desde la conclusión de aquélla en que se produjo
Carlos ARANDA MARTIN (España): Quisiera aclarar, señor Presidente, que esta mañana algunos de los puntos que se han discutido, y que son previos al Acuerdo, no han quedado definitivamente aiprobados puesto que había algunas cuestiones importantes que estaban en discusión.
Quisiera, igualmente, y por una cuestión que entendemos de justicia, con relación al párrafo 6, desearíamos mostraír la satisfacción de nuestra delegación con este párrafo, en el sentido de que todos estamos de acuerdo en reconocer al Director General y al personal a su cargo los extraordinarios esfuerzos para lograr un consenso en tan breve plazo. Ahora bien, creemos que este párrafo en su actual redacción queda incompleto por el hecho de que no se reconoce en el mismo la labor desarrollada por los integrantes del Grupo Técnico que trabajó intensamente en esta actividad. Muy especialmente de los Presidentes de este Grupo, que como muy bien saben, fueron el Representante de México en el Comité creado por el COFI, y el de Chile, en los dos Comités Técnicos de los dos últimos Consejos.
Nuestra propuesta, por tanto, es que se reconozca expresamente esta labor. En segundo lugar, y en relación con el párrafo 10, quisiera insistir y aclarar el planteamiento que ya hicimos en la sesión Plenaria de la mañana. Nuestra opinión es que el texto en español del párrafo, al final de la página 9, después del último punto y seguido, que dice textualmente: "En cualquier caso, la Conferencia subrayó que la labor de la Organización respecto del Código, debería ser complementaria y en apoyo del trabao de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas". Es correcto en su actual formulación; es decir, con el verbo en forma adicional: "debería", y no en forma imperativa: "deberá", como propone el Representante de Canadá. Quisiera recordar que el texto en inglés también está redactado en este sentido.
Abundando en esto, quisiera dejar de manifiesto que en el documento C 93/REP/1, es decir el correspondiente al Programa de Labores y Presupuesto para 1994-95, y que ya fue aprobado por la Plenaria, dice en su versión en español en su párrafo 14 a la mitad del mismo: "A la vez que refrendaba esta propuesta, la Conferencia insistió en que tales actividades deberían complementar y apoyar otras iniciativas conexas realizadas en el sistema de las Naciones Unidas y realizarse en estrecha colaboración con ellas".
Asimismo, el informe aprobado por la Comisión III, que, en definitiva es el que tratamos de refrendar en esta Sesión Plenaria, se aprobó igualmente tanto en la versión en español como en la versión inglesa, en los mismos términos que ahora se nos presentan para su aprobación.
En consecuencia, señor Presidente, no sería lógico que ahora el Plenario de esta Conferencia adoptara un acuerdo que se contradice manifiestamente con lo que se acaba de aprobar la pasada semana.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): Having taken part in the Drafting Committee of Commission II, and having participated in the adoption of the Report of Commission II on the very point just cited, I think there is no question of what the agreed conclusion of Commission I was on the particular phraseology. The phraseology was not "should", the phraseology was "must": "there must be complementarity and this work must be supportive of...” That was accepted on two occasions by Commission I, first when the Report was accepted by the Drafting Committee and was put before the Conference and subsequently when we amended that paragraph to take account of some
additional considerations introduced by the Spanish delegation. I think there is no question as to what was agreed in Commission II, and our proposal earlier this morning was to bring this particular phraseology into conformity with that. I am not sure that the conditional form is acceptable to most of the people who accepted the idea of fast tracking. I think the objective was to avoid any conflict with work being conducted in the United Nations. Either we intend to avoid conflict or we do not intend to avoid conflict. I think we should be unequivocal in saying that we have every intention of doing so and therefore that we must avoid such conflict. I believe that that is the formulation that should hold.
Julio César LUPINACCI (Uruguay): Más allá de lo que se haya dicho en el Grupo de Redacción o surja de otros documentos, yo me pregunto ¿qué es lo que debe decir la Conferencia en esta materia? Si debe señalar que la labor de preparación del Código de Conducta debe ser coordinada con el trabajo de las Naciones Unidas, debe ser complementario y en apoyo del trabajo de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas, o simplemente la Conferencia hace una indicación de la posibilidad de trabajar en esa forma.
Yo creo que la Conferencia tiene plenos poderes para disponer, para decir que debe hacerse una cosa así. Como dice el delegado de Canadá, y que yo comparto, debemos estar coordinados y ser coherentes con el trabajo que realiza la Comisión de la Conferencia de Naciones Unidas. Por eso yo creo que la Conferencia tiene suficiente capacidad, y debe ejercerla en esa forma, de señalar el deber de coordinar la labor de preparación del trabajo del Código de Conducta con los trabajos que realiza la Conferencia de Naciones Unidas sobre especies transzonales y altamente migratorias. Yo creo que en ejercicio de las funciones, de la competencia que tiene la Conferencia, debería decir "deberán". Eso es lo que cree mi delegación, pero no quisiera crear una gran polémica sobre esto y podría aceptar la otra solución, pero creo que es más débil y que podríamos asumir directamente la competencia de disponer que deba existir esa coherencia, ese apoyo y esa complementariedad de un trabajo con el otro.
Francis Montanaro MIFSUD (Malta): My delegation would much prefer to maintain the present text in the English version. We think that in its present form it is sufficiently persuasive to ensure that the work of FAO is complementary to, and supportive of, the work of the UN Conference. I do not think we should adopt a form of words, which could imply or suggest that there is any subordination of FAO to any other forum.
Ms Turid KONGSVIK (Norway): Without going into the substance of this question, I feel we have decided upon this, since in C 93/REP/1 we have stated that the work in this Conference must be complementary. Should the Conference now modify this? Even if we talk about the activities of different Commissions, it is still the Conference in Plenary which decides. It has decided once. This work must be complementary in c 93/REP/1. We should be consistent, whatever we think of the substance. When it has once been decided, it has been decided for all and we should stick with "must".
Carlos ARANDA MARTIN (España): Aclarar que el documento C 93/REP/1 en el texto español está aprobado en los términos condicionales, en los términos de "debería" y no "deberá". Igualmente vuelvo a recordar y vuelvo a insistir en que en los documentos y tanto en la versión en inglés como en
español de la Comisión III, que en definitiva, y tengo que recordarlo, es lo que tratamos de refrendar en estos momentos, están también en esos términos, en condicional.
Por otra parte, creo que es muy importante lo que acaba de decir el representante de Malta, en el sentido de que en la actual formulación del acuerdo podría parecer en ese tono impersitivo que la FAO no es una Organización soberana, que es una Organización que está supeditada a otras organizaciones del sistema de Naciones Unidas y creo que esto no sería lógico. Sería crear un gravísimo antecedente. No creo que ningún acuerdo se apruebe en estos términos de supeditación, de jerarquización, lo ha explicado perfectamente el representante de Malta.
No obstante, y en aras a no tener una discusión interminable como ha ocurrido en el documento anterior, propondría una redacción alternativa que creo que podría dar satisfacción a las paLrtes en el sentido de que esa jerarquización, esa subordinación de la c[ue ha hablado el representante de Malta, no estuviera explícita tal y como está si cambiamos el texto. Porque para nosotros lo mejor sería mantener el texto tal y como está. No obstante, en aras a un acuerdo y de no alargar indefinidamente estos debates, la propuesta que haría mi delegación estaría en los siguientes términos. Más o menos podría ser, y la dicto despacio. Hablamos siempre del párrafo 10. Al final del último punto y seguido decir más o menos que: "La Conferencia reconoció que los trabajos de la Organización y de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas deben complementarse y apoyarse", porque en definitiva estamos totalmente de acuerdo con el principio de complementariedad y de apoyo, pero sin que exista una subordinación. Quedaría clarísimo si admitimos la modificación que propone Canadá al texto.
Samuel FERNANDEZ ILLANES (Chile): Respecto al tema que está en discusión, mi delegación llama la atención sobre la primera parte del propio párrafo 10 en que habla de los principios generales del Código que se habían propuesto diciendo "La Conferencia reiteró que esta labor debería llevarse a cabo en plena coordinación con la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas etc. etc.". Más abajo se refiere a la misma Conferencia y la idea es mantener o debería ser mantener este espíritu de coordinación y de complementariedad. Al mismo tiempo, creo que de ninguna manera las propias delegaciones representadas en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas de Nueva York, que son las mismas que están ante la FAO, estarán entre si descoordinadas, no complementarias y teniendo una actitud en una parte y otra en otra. Somos los mismos estados los representados en ambas.
También pienso que la Conferencia de la FAO tiene la jurisdicción, por decirlo así, y la capacidad para decidir sobre sus labores de manera absolutamente independiente, más allá de la responsabilidad de la que podría muy eventualmente suceder entre posiciones diversas en la FAO y en otros organismos, cosa que no me parece justa, de tal suerte que en aras simplemente de no dramatizar el estado de una palabra en "debería" o "deberá", creo que hay que salvar por encima de ello la competencia e independencia de esta Conferencia. Al mismo tiempo preservar lo que es soberanía de los Estados en cuanto a que no vamos por unas simples palabras a hacer algo en un foro y algo distinto en otro y dejar la redacción como está o simplemente en los términos en que ha sido propuesta por la distinguida delegación de España que, entre paréntesis, en relación con el párrafo 6, agradezco muy sinceramente su mención.
- 705 -
Ms C. BOGLE (New Zealand): We would like to support the suggestion made by the delegate of Canada to use the word "must" in this paragraph.
José ELIAS LEAL (Mexico): Solamente para expresar nuestra satisfacción por los comentarios hechos por el distinguido delegado de Chile y a la vez también comentar que estamos de acuerdo, como alternativa, con el párrafo que ha expresado el distinguido delegado de España.
Julio César LUPINACCI (Uruguay) : La propuesta última que ha hecho el distinguido delegado de España, creo que es una buena solución al problema que se ha planteado y, en lo que se refiere a mi delegación, es plenamente satisfactoria. Queremos decir que en ese caso debería sustituirse, no agregarse, lo propuesto por España como una frase adicional al párrafo 10, sino sustituir la frase que dice: "En cualquier caso la Conferencia subrayó que la labor de la Organización respecto al Código debería ser complementaria y en apoyo del trabajo de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas" por esta otra que diga: "La Conferencia reconoció que los trabajos de organización y de la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas deben complementarse y apoyarse". Si se trata del temor de una subordinación, evidentemente es mejor esta solución. Nosotros no tenemos inconveniente ninguno. En ese caso, a mi juicio debería de sustituirse esa frase anterior por la propuesta por España y a continuación decir al respecto para ligarlo: "Los resultados de la reunión del Grupo de Expertos deberían comunicarse oficiosamente a las delegaciones presentes en la Conferencia de las Naciones Unidas". Yo propongo concretamente esta pequeña reforma y pido a la delegación de España, si es posible, que estuviera de acuerdo con esta solución.
Carlos ARANDA MARTIN (España) : Unicamente para manifestar que la delegación española está totalmente de acuerdo con la matización que ha hecho el representante de Uruguay. En definitiva era eso lo que proponíamos. No era un añadido, que no tendría sentido. Es la sustitución de ese párrafo que él ha leído por la propuesta que acabamos de hacer. Creo que esto saldaría totalmente el problema.
Ms Turid KONGSVIK (Norway): I should like to make a remark of principle. I think many of us may have second thoughts and would like perhaps to have been stronger in our statement and in what we advocated when we discussed these issues in the Commission. In respect to that Spanish phrase which has been suggested to replace "must", I do not recall that anyone made an intervention in the Commission which would be reflected by this phrase, pointing to instructions, as it were, to the UN Conference which I believe has a different membership. So I do not think that we could give such instructions. In addition, nobody ever suggested that when it was discussed in Commission II or III. I do not think it is appropriate to discuss such amendments which do not reflect the interventions which were made.
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Je voulais faire une observation dans le même sens que celle de la déléguée de la Norvège. A la Conférence, nous ne devons pas trop modifier ce qui a été longuement discuté en Commission.
Je voulais également faire une remarque concernant le style en français. Si l'on devait reprendre le terme "appuyer", il ne faudrait pas le laisser seul mais il faudrait dire "s'appuyer mutuellement".
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada) : I wish to support what was said by the delegate of Norway. Reflecting for a moment on what seems to be suggested in this particular debate, that there is somehow a subordination of this entity to other entities, I believe the governments represented in this room have made a signifcant effort to coordinate our activities within the UN system. Coordination of activities almost invariably means that certain organizations must take the lead in respect of any particular issues. In addressing this particular question, the governing bodies of these individual entities have a responsibility to give clear instructions as to what they intend the secretariats in their particular bodies to do in respect of giving substance to the objective of better coordination within the UN system. All that we are doing here, in fact, is saying that the Conference wishes this body to act in a manner, which is fully supportive and fully complementary with work being conducted elsewhere in the UN system. That is described as a "must". Frankly, I don't see that that is taking in any way from the jurisdiction, which this particular body has. I think the formulation proposed by Spain weakens very significantly the degree of commitment that this Organization does have to the expectation that we will act in a complementary and coordinated fashion with what is happening in the UN system. Consequently I do not think I can accept that particular formulation.
Carlos ARANDA MARTIN (España): En relación con la última parte de la intervención del Representante de Canadá, quisiera aclarar que la propuesta de España, según nuestra opinión, debilita en absoluto la formulación que él pretende, puesto que se añade en los términos incluso propuestos por el Representante de Canadá, que deben compl€»mentarse y apoyarse, pero insisto, no en una situación de subordinane ion ni de jerarquización que éste es un aspecto importante, es decir, que nosotros en aras a ese acuerdo, incluso estábamos dispuestos a admitir su propuesta en el sentido más imperativo. Con relación a la intervención de la Representante de Noruega, empiezo a estar preocupado de que la interpretación no sea correcta, puesto que he dicho hasta la saciedad, que tanto en la Comisión II se aprobó en esos términos condicionales de "se debería", y en la Comisión III, que insisto, es lo que ahora tratamos de refrendar, se apoyó exactamente en esos términos, tanto en el texto español como el inglés, por consiguiente, no teníamos por qué hacer ninguna observación, puesto que estaba de acuerdo con nuestra satisfacción, de acuerdo con nuestros principios y así lo ha presentado la Secretaría en este informe que tratamos de aprobar aquí : insisto una vez más, que tanto en la Comisión II como en la Comisión III, estaba aprobado correctamente los términos que hemos dicho hasta la saciedad.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I will try to assist. It does seem to me that in the discussion there is some distinction between "complementarity" and "supportive". Perhaps that could be captured and as a compromise solution to the matter the sentence could say the following: "In any case the Conference underlined that the work of the Organization on the Code must be complementary to and should be supportive of the work of the UN Conference". I say it that way because "must" obviously is implying in the minds of some members of the Conference a subordinate or an
inferior/superior position and I do not think this Conference would want to send that kind of signal. The neutral phrase "should be supportive" is suggested. With respect to complementarity I do not expect anybody believes other than the fact that these matters should be other than complementary. That would be my suggestions. Could you accept "must be complementary to and should be supportive of"?
CHAIRMAN; I thank Mr Hjort for that suggestion. I think what everyone should be -trying to do at this stage is find a solution to this embattlement rather than seeking to hold onto their point of view. I thank you very much for that suggestion.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): In the spirit of compromise I can accept that formulation.
Robert S. THWALA (Swaziland): Swaziland would like to thank the Legal Counsel for coming to our rescue. We think this is a better compromise.
CHAIRMAN: Actually, it was the distinguished Deputy Director-General who spoke.
Carlos ARANDA MARTIN (España): Efectivamente en aras a un acuerdo rápido, aceptamos la propuesta del señor Hjort.
CHAIRMAN: I wish to assure you that with respect to the point raised about including other persons who have been very supportive of the Director-General and his staff, that the Secretariat will include words to reflect the opinion that you have expressed so well.
Paragraphs 3 to 14, including Resolution and Appendix, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 3 à 14, y compris la résolution et l'annexe, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 3 a 14, incluida la Resolución v el Apéndice, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 15 to 19, including Appendix, approved
Les paragraphes 15 à 19, y compris l'annexe, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 15 a 19, incluido el Apéndice, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 20 TO 29 INCLUDING RESOLUTION AND APPENDIX
PARAGRAPHES 20 A 29 Y COMPRIS LA RESOLUTION ET L'ANNEXE
LOS PARRAFOS 20 A 29 INCLUIDA LA RESOLUCION Y EL APENDICE
Jacques LAUREAU (France): Je voudrais faire remarquer qu'au paragraphe 24, dans la version français, les termes "double représentation" ne sont pas exacts. Il s'agit de la double voix. Je souhaiterais qu'une bonne fois pour toutes - parce que nous avons eu ce problème au CQCJ et au Conseil - le vocabulaire soit ajusté.
- 708 -
Gian Paolo PAPA (CEE): Il s'agit du même point. C'est un problème d'interprétation qui se poursuit; l'erreur continue.
Raphaël RABE (Madagascar): Cette proposition ne présente pas de problème pour moi. Pour être absolument exact, je voudrais proposer qu'à la sixième ligne du texte français, on mette: La Conférence a aussi pris note de l'opinion de la CEE et de certains de ses Etats Membres" car il ne s'agit pas de tous ses membres.
Gian Paolo PAPA (CEE): Nous avons pris la parole au nom de la Communauté et de ses Etats Membres. Il s'agit donc de la totalité ses Etats Membres.
D. CANGY (Mauritius): My remark is on paragraph 23. My delegation is in full agreement with paragraph 23 as it is. However, it was agreed in Commission that with reference to this paragraph 23 a footnote would be added at the bottom of page 32 referring the reader to the statement delivered by the Mauritius delegation in the Commission on Monday 22nd instant and which appears in the verbatim report. Therefore, my delegation insists that this footnote should appear at the bottom of page 32 of the document referring to the statement delivered and noted in the verbatim report. I am sure the Chairman of the Commission would agree with this.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, we have approved paragraphs 20, 21, 22, 23 with a footnote to be added, 24 with an amendment to the French version, 25, 26, 27 and 28. This has taken us to paragraph 29, which requires a vote on the resolution. I am going to ask the Deputy Director-General, Mr Hjort, to come in here.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: In view of the situation, it may be well to amend paragraph 29, to let it read basically the way it is: "The Conference expressed its deep satisfaction that, thanks to the extensive efforts which had been deployed by the FAO Secretariat, consensus had now been reached on all aspects of the draft Agreement and, accordingly, referred the following Resolution to the 105th Session of the Council for action." That is the 105th Session of the Council, which will be held tomorrow. We would refer the resolution to the 105th Session of the Council for action. We will leave the text as it is, "... referred the following Resolution approving the Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) to the 105th Session of the Council for action."
Conference will recall that the matter was before the Council; the Council referred it to Conference; the Conference can now refer it back to the Council.
CHAIRMAN: You have heard the Deputy Director-General. Are there any comments? There being no comments, Conference has approved paragraph 29 in the terms set out by Mr Hjort.
Paragraphs 20 to 29 including resolution and appendix approved
Les paragraphes 20 à 29, y compris la résolution et l'annexe, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 20 a 29 incluida la resolución y el apéndice son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary, Part 11, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Plénière, onzième partie, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El provecto de informe de la Plenaria, parte 11, así enmendado, es aprobado
Mrs Maria GALVOLGYI (Hungary): On this part of the Report, C 93/REP/13, my delegation would like very much to put forward the idea of accepting it en bloc if it is possible.
Mrs Hannelore A.H. BENJAMIN (Dominica): My delegation would like to support what has been said by the Hungarian delegate
CHAIRMAN: The proposal before us is that we accept Draft Report 13 contained in document C 93/REP/13 en bloc. Any comments? All appear to be in agreement.
Paragraphs 1 to 23 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 23 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 23 son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary, Part 13, as amended, was adopted
Le projet de rapport de la Plénière, treizième partie, ainsi amendé, est adopté
El provecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte 13, así emendado, es aprobado
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 10
PARAGRAPHES 1 A 10
PARRAFOS 1 A 10
Sra. María E. JIMENEZ DE MOCHI ONORI (El Salvador): Quiero referirme muy brevemente a todo este documento C 93/REP/14.
El día de ayer por la tarde, cuando se estaba aprobando el informe en la Comisión III, mi Delegación había solicitado el uso de la palabra. Lamentablemente tenía un compromiso con mi grupo Regional y tuve que ausentarme de la sala. De ninguna manera es mi intención reabrir aquí un debate, deseo únicamente, señor Presidente, por una cuestión de principio, y comprendiendo las razones del consenso expresadas por el Presidente de la Comisión III y, repito, comprendiendo las razones del consenso, manifestar la preocupación de mi Delegación por la eliminación de una buena parte de
nuestro informe, la relativa al debate llevado a cabo en la Comisión III con relación al tema 23.
Creemos que de esta forma no se ha cumplido a cabalidad con el objetivo fundamental de nuestro informe, que es el de reflejar con justicia y equidad los resultados de nuestros debates.
Ivan MARULANDA GOMEZ (Colombia): Sólo para decirle, señor Presidente, que la Delegaeión de Colombia respalda a la distinguida Representación de El Salvador en la declaración que acaba de hacer.
Sra. Concha Marina RAMIREZ DE LOPEZ (Honduras) : Solamente, señor Presidente, para respaldar lo expresado por la Delegación de El Salvador.
Robert ANDRIGO (Canada): Paragraph 8 yesterday was the occasion for much to-ing and fro-ing in debate. We have since had an opportunity to consider it further with those who took a different point of view. I should like to propose a formulation for the last sentence, which I think, captures something all of us can agree.
In the last sentence of paragraph 8 I would put a full stop after the words "interested parties". I would then remove the two words "which also" and replace them with the following phrase: "Many members who spoke also stressed the need to . . . ", and then we continue with the phrase as it is. So the last sentence would read, "Many members who spoke also stressed the need to take into account the potential benefits of a unified approach in the UN system."
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): We had quite a long discussion in Commission III on this paragraph and on this very particular question, so I support what the delegate of Canada has said. This perfectly reflects the discussion we had in the Commission itself and also the different drafting we had yesterday in the Commission.
Herald HILDEBRAND (Germany): May I request that the text be read once again in English?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: The way I had the formulation is as follows. The last sentence of paragraph 8 would read as it is through the phrase"... that more time be given to work out solutions acceptable to all interested parties", and then we would stop that sentence there and a new one would be added as follows : "Many members who spoke also stressed the need to take into account the potential benefits of a unified approach in the UN system." The new words are, "Many members who spoke also stressed the need to...".
Paragraphs 1 to 10 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 10 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 10 son aprobados
Juan NUIRY SANCHEZ (Cuba) : Antes de finalizar este 27° Período de Sesiones de esta Conferencia, la Delegación de Cuba entiende necesario dejar constancia de algunas breves consideraciones en relación al desarrollo de este evento.
Sólo el tiempo podrá dictaminar sobre si esta Conferencia puede calificarse de histórica o no. Con el tiempo los historiadores, investigadores o analistas que evaluarán este acontecer hará necesario disponer de los elementos precisos para realizar el balance. Creo, señor Presidente, que con los que disponemos son de tal envergadura que su repercusión se escapa de lo que puede considerarse una reunión normal.
Son muchas las emociones en que todos hemos participado en estos intensos días: la despedida de un respetado Director General como el doctor Edouard Saouma, luego de un período ininterrumpido de 18 años al frente de la Organización; luego un brillante proceso de elección de un digno representante africano, el Dr. Jacques Diouf como nuevo Director en la proyección de la FAO; despedir también a un dirigente de las cualidades del Embajador Antoine Saintraint al frente del Consejo Independiente, sustituyéndolo también tras una clara elección un joven prometedor y conocido representante mexicano al frente de este importante cargo, el licenciado José Ramón López-Portillo.
Sólo hacemos señalamientos destacados tratando de sintetizar, pues han sido más amplios. Están en las referencias escuchadas al respecto en los que se incorporan la ampliación de nuevos ingresos en la Organización, como además que se han sentado bases importantes para fortalecer la estructura y la dirección de la FAO y, de este modo, desde el pasado día 6, dentro de una programación en la que naturalmente han existido criterios encontrados y posiciones distintas, ha primado un ambiente amplio y armonioso, en definitiva constructivo, bajo el propósito y reto de que la FAO constituya un instrumento de progreso que conduzca a hacer realidad el principio fundamental de que el hombre tiene derecho a su alimentación en medio de un mundo desigual e injusto, dentro de una controvertida esfera internacional.
Toda esta introducción, en síntesis, sin entrar en pormenores, es para arribar a una realidad y resaltar que todo esto fue posible por la manera armoniosa y destacada actuación en su conducción en estas sesiones bajo su presidencia, señor Seymour Mullings. Su presencia en la conducción de estos debates ha sido eficaz, elegante, con una gran paciencia, a pesar de la exquisitez y precisión que le ha querido alguno dar a los matices, con un gran equilibrio y flexibilidad. Ha sido usted un verdadero presidente a tiempo completo. No se ha dejado llevar por los encantos de esta maravillosa ciudad eterna y su valioso tiempo lo ha consumido en la responsabilidad encomendada. Qué decir del Comité General, al que tuvimos el privilegio de pertenecer también, bajo su sabia presidencia, sino destacar y enaltecer su presidencia que fue de un trabajo serio, constante y lo apreciamos más cerca y en un entorno más limitado.
Tal vez esos historiadores que estudiarán todo este proceso tengan como referencia que destacar, como un elemento significativo de esta Conferencia, su hábil y destacada conducción. Para nosotros, como representantes de un país latinoamericano y del Caribe que le propusimos
como candidato, destacamos y respaldamos, vemos hoy como el líder del hermano y cercano Jamaica nos ha hecho quedar bien. Satisfecho, primero por su elección y como consecuencia de sus notables resultados después tal como hemos expresado ante esta muestra de eficaz conducción e imparcialidad, bajo el principio de una política multilateral de la FAO, de la igualdad de derechos de cada Estado soberano de manifestarse con plena garantía y oportunidad, razón por la cual nuestra delegación entiende que estas referencias sean recogidas en las consideraciones finales de la Conferencia y mejor aún, en el sentimiento y agradecimiento de todos los participantes de esta magna reunión que llega hoy a su destino final. Gracias por su conducción, señor Presidente.
Finalmente, no podríamos terminar sin hacer referencia al eficiente trabajo de la Secretaría de la FAO.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
CHAIRMAN: We are ending this Conference one day ahead of the scheduled time. It may be that when the historians come to examine this Conference and take a look at all that has taken place, all that has been said - particularly today when a great deal of time was spent on discussing whether we should have Conference limited to a shorter period than usual, the historians certainly will have a lot to say about this particular Conference and will take note of the fact that we have ended one day ahead of the scheduled time.
I thank the delegate of Cuba very much for his most kind remarks concerning my stewardship as Chairman of this Conference.
As we bring the curtain down, I express my deep appreciation to all delegates who placed such confidence in me even before the start of the Conference, when they made possible my nomination for election as Chairman of the Conference.
I feel that you have honoured me greatly. I have tried to learn from day one. It has been a tremendous experience for me to sit in the Chair and try to lead the Conference in a manner befitting this great Organization. I believe that as of the opening day, Saturday 6 November, the tone and tempo of what has turned out to be a very good Conference was set.
Delegates will recall that we were graced with the -presence of the Presidents of host country Italy and of Lebanon, the country that gave birth to our distinguished Director-General, Dr Saouma. We shall, of course, remember the speeches delivered by those two eminent personalities.
The Cuban delegate asked whether this Conference would be regarded as historic. Many opinions will be offered on this particular matter. They will probably vary from person to person. For my part I should like, even as of now, to regard this Conference as being historic. I do so because many events took place at this Conference, which are hardly likely ever to be repeated.
It is hardly likely that there will be a Conference in which we shall be saying farewell to one who has served FAO for such an extended period as
Director-General Saouma has. The elections to fill the post to be vacated by Dr Saouma were held in a spirit of conviviality, which I think was remarkable. It was an election, which had ten candidates of immense worth and capabilities; it was an election in which the campaign had been fought very strenuously; it was an election, which was conducted in this room in a most amicable manner. For my part, I shall always remember the acceptance speech of Director-General Elect Dr Diouf. I shall remember his taking the oath of office. I shall never forget that most gracious speech made by Mr Geoff Miller of Australia, who contested the final ballot. I think that when we recall those speeches of Dr Diouf and Mr Miller we in FAO can feel a great sense of pride at the dignity, which was displayed that day.
The election of the Independent Chairman of the Council, Mr López-Portillo, was also significant. Mr López-Portillo, at very short notice, gave a clear account of what his policy will be, of what policy will guide his actions as he takes over this office. I think every one of us who heard Minister Ibrahim Adam of Ghana conceding victory will remember him for that very mature and gracious speech accepting defeat and conceding victory to Mr López-Portillo.
I do not know whether in our time we shall have a repetition of Wednesday last week, 17 November, when delegates spoke from their hearts, giving an outpouring of tributes to Dr Saouma on the eve of his retirement from office. We heard many excellent interventions that morning. Every delegate who spoke did so from the heart. For my part I shall forever remember many of those expressions of thanks, appreciation and respect for Dr Saouma.
It may be that there will not be another Conference in which we admit as many as ten new Member Nations to this Organization.
I believe that those events - the speeches from the Presidents, the manner in which the election of the new Director-General was conducted, the manner in which the election of the Independent Chairman of the Council was conducted, the moving speeches of acceptance and concession which were made, the admission of so many new Member Nations and the many excellent speeches from the Heads of Delegation who ascended the platform and spoke of their countries - add up to make the Conference a historic one.
In expressing my thanks to delegates for having elected me Chairman of the Conference, may I say that I believe that the three Vice-Chairmen who were elected to assist me also appreciated the confidence that was placed in them. I should like to thank all three of them - Majid-Ul-Haq of Bangladesh, Ambassador Jacques Laureau of France and Waleed A. Elkhereiji of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - for the supporting role they have played as Vice-Chairmen of this Conference. It is very clear that, while we sat in the many plenary sessions, the three Commissions were busy at work. They had the good fortune, obviously, of having three distinguished persons chairing those Commissions. I think it is to the credit of the Commissions that the Reports, which they sent to Plenary, were for the most part accepted without too much debate. I should like to take this opportunity to express my own personal commendation and congratulations to the Chairmen of the three Commissions and to all the delegates who apparently took their tasks seriously and dealt with the issues before them with due diligence, care and thoroughness.
As Chairman, I made every possible effort to ensure that all delegates who wished to speak and to take an active part in the deliberations were able to do so. Obviously I was not one hundred percent successful. It was always
possible for me to be looking into the eyes of the delegates from the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Cuba, Croatia, Cote d'Ivoire or indeed Costa Rica. I have been reminded by the delegate of Ethiopia that I did not at all times cast my eyes in that direction, at the far side of the Conference. However, we tried, and I believe that most delegates had ample opportunity to say their piece.
If I have made a success of chairing this Conference, it is due in no small measure to the fact that I received the support and cooperation of all delegations in this room. All delegates sought to observe the rules. I believe it is because they did so, and because they were for the most part non-controversial, that, even if they did at times display a penchant for details, they kept the spirit of the Conference alive. I should like from the bottom of my heart to thank every delegation, which has been in this room from 6 November for the most invaluable support they have given me whilst I sat in the Chair.
May I close by thanking all the members of the Secretariat, who were my right hand and my left hand. I want to say a special word of thanks to the Director-General himself, Dr Saouma, and to the Deputy Director-Generals, Mr Hjort and Mr Shah, and to Mr Mehboob, to Mr Alessi, to Mr Tedesco, to Legal Counsel, Mr Moore, and to all those from the Secretariat who gave me the fullest possible support. I should like to include in my thanks to the Secretariat all those persons who have worked behind the scenes, the secretaries who must have worked late hours to prepare all the journals which have come before me in the morning. I should also like to thank that group of beautiful young ladies who served as messengers. They were part of my right hand and part of my left hand. I thank you all very much.
We will meet in another two years. It is my hope that many delegations, which had to leave before today, will be able to remain until the end of Conference. I hope that in the next two years countries which are members of this Organization will make an all-out effort to make it possible for their countries to be represented at the very important biennial Conference. I feel confident that once they make an effort they can succeed.
I do not wish to close without expressing once again my best wishes for a very successful term of office to the new Director-General Elect, Dr Diouf, and to the newly elected Independent Chairman of the Council. I hope all who have been elected to serve on the different committees and on the Council will have a very fruitful period of time until we meet again in Rome in November 1995.
Thank you very much, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
Winston RUDDER (Trinidad and Tobago): Mr Chairman, far be it for me, at this hour on this day, to take advantage of the time we have won, the extra day, to prolong the session extensively; neither it is my custom as a good civil servant to speak after an honourable minister and, indeed, a chairman, but I had hoped to catch your eye before you summed up, Sir. However, you beat me to the draw.
May I say that we fully support and endorse the comments by the honourable delegation of Cuba, and I end by saying that your masterly summation of the past three weeks' work, the way you have handled our affairs, is a true vindication of the competence that all member delegations bestowed on you when we elected you to office. We thank you very much for the way you have handled our affairs, Sir.
Mustapha-Menouar SINACEUR (Maroc): Je vous assure, Monsieur le Président, que ce sera ma dernière intervention dans cette salle. Vous n'avez peut-être pas eu le privilège de connaître un de nos collègues qui nous a quittés et qui m'a laissé un lourd héritage en partant, celui d'être le dernier à s'exprimer au cours d'une réunion: Monsieur l'Ambassadeur Bula Hoyos. Tous ceux qui l'ont connu se rappelleront qu'il a toujours clôturé, après le Président et avec sa permission, les réunions de la FAO.
Je voulais simplement vous dire, Monsieur le Président, combien nous avons été fiers de travailler sous votre conduite. Cependant, je ne suis pas d'accord avec vous lorsque vous dites que vous n'avez pas réussi à cent pour cent. Je m'inscris en faux: vous avez réussi votre tâche à cent pour cent.
Je voulais également vous remercier pour les mots sincères et aimables que vous avez eus à mon adresse, en tant que Président de la Commission II, et à l'adresse de mes autres collègues présidents de Commissions. Je voulais vous dire, encore une fois, merci pour tout.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I have the privilege and honour, on behalf of the Director-General, to say to you, Mr Chairman, how pleased he was to be able to work with you. He appreciated very much your style, your humour, your democratic manner and, of course, your efficiency in conducting the affairs of this Conference. As you have noted, this Conference was especially full of emotional moments. You handled those in a very dignified manner. The Director-General wishes you to know that, in his view, you have been one of the very best Chairmen with whom he has had the privilege to work throughout his long career.
I wish briefly to go on to express appreciation to the full team of leadership of this Conference: your Vice-Chairpersons, the Chairpersons for the Commissions, their Vice-Chairpersons, and also to the Chairpersons of the drafting committees who sometimes worked extra hours but worked very well, as was obvious in their products coming back to the Commissions and being received by the Plenary. Of course, none of that could happen, those leaders could not be successful, were it not for the rest of you. So I express appreciation to all of the members of this Conference. Best wishes for a safe journey home and may you enjoy the holiday period, which is upon us.
Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
- 716 -
Ato Assefa YILALA (Ethiopia): Thank you, Mr Chairman. While you were making your very eloquently-presented statement, you made me feel guilty for having made a remark which carried a message which I did not wish to convey. Since the democratic leadership which you demonstrated in leading the deliberations of the Conference was superb and outstanding, I should like to thank you for that outstanding performance, and also to express my reactions to the achievements that you made during the whole of the Conference. When I talked about not being seen, I was not referring to you; I was referring to the difficulty of the lighting system rather than to yourself, Mr Chairman. I do not wish you to carry home such a message as I conveyed, when you have achieved such a success here.
Allow me to add my voice to that of the Ambassador of Cuba and wish you a safe return home. Thank you, Mr Chairman.
CHAIRMAN: Distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, this Twenty-seventh Session of the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations comes to an end. This meeting stands adjourned.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
The meeting rose at 18.30 hours.
La séance est levée à 18 h 30.
Se levanta la sesión a las 18.30 horas.
