We have only one point on our agenda. I hope that we can dispose of it quite speedily, depending on your cooperation. I think it would be proper to ask the Chairman of the Drafting Committee if he whishes to express his ideas on the criteria that have preceded the completion on the Draft Report.
Temei ISKIT (Chairman, Drafting Committee): The Drafting Committee had three sessions over the past two days, and the result of our work is before the Council in the documents CL 92/REP/1, REP/2, REP/3 and REP/4.
Our group cannot claim to have had long and arduous discussions and to have struggled through long night meetings. The spirit of cooperation and harmony in the group was such that we were able to finish our work very smoothly and within reasonable time limits.
If I may add a personal comment here, I believe the fact that members of the Council will have ample opportunity to express their views at the Conference played a role in the smooth conduct of our business.
Of course, I am duty bound to thank again all the members of the drafting group, and my special thanks go to the Secretariat which prepared an excellent first draft which facilitated our task.
The report before you has no reservations and no square brackets. The report was unanimously agreed in our group. I stand at your disposal to answer any factual queries regarding the conduct of our work.
You will notice that in the reports before you the sequence of the items is not followed in order. Of course, the Secretariat had some time constraints, and because of some technical obstacles we had to present this report in this order.
CHAIRMAN: From the reading of this report of the four parts I gather the impression that you did an excellent job, and I am heartened to hear that there were no reservations and that it was unanimously passed. That will help all of us to go over it quickly. I thank you for standing by in case any delegate may wish for an explanation.
May I propose to delegates that we go through these paragraph by paragraph, because if we take the whole section it might lead to confusion; Is there any objection to that procedure? It is so decided. Let us take Part I.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Nos causa gran satisfacción, Sr. Presidente, intervenir bajo su presidencia. La comunidad internacional debe a usted los valiosos servicios que le ha prestado; le echaremos de menos, nos hará mucha falta.
Como lo ha dicho el Sr. Iskit, de Turquía, distinguido Presidente del Comité de Redacción, este informe es bastante satisfactorio, sin embargo tenemos algunos comentarios que espero no sean muy controvertidos.
Queremos referirnos al párrafo 4 que refleja muy bien las declaraciones de algunas delegaciones, entre ellas la de Colombia, sobre las iniciativas y declaraciones importantes que se habían formulado para mejorar la situación del comercio internacional. En nuestra declaración, y creo que en otras también, se hizo referencia al nuevo Reglamento de la Comunidad Económica Europea, nuevo reglamento que fue promulgado en diciembre de 1986, si no estamos equivocados, y siempre que el observador de la Comunidad, o los miembros que están presentes, no tengan inconveniente; tenemos esperanza de que también ese nuevo reglamento de la CEE pueda contribuir a mejorar la situación del comercio. Proponemos que hacia la mitad del párrafo, por ejemplo después de "La Cumbre de Venecia de los jefes de los principales países industrializados", se pueda agregar "el nuevo reglamento de la Comunidad Económica Europea" o el título exacto que el observador de la Comunidad cree corresponda; repito si esto no ofrece dificultades; está inspirado en el deseo de que la Comunidad contribuya a mejorar el comercio como parece es el deseo de esa importante organización.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the distinguished delegate, and in particular for his personal remarks. With his proposal, I open the discussion. Does anybody wish to take the floor?
I see no objection so it is so decided; the inclusion will be made, and we shall ask the distinguished representative of the Community to give us his assistance on this.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): El ambiente de armonía y cooperación en que ha trabajado este Consejo, al igual que el Comité de Redacción, nos anima a proponer que la última frase del párrafo 8 empiece por: "El Consejo subrayó que la FAO", esto da más fuerza al informe; no creo que nadie pueda oponerse a que la FAO asista a los países en desarrollo para que participen de manera más adecuada en la Ronda Uruguay.
CHAIRMAN: Does any delegate wish to say anything on the subject? No one? - then it is so decided.
Paragraphs 1 to 14, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 14, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 14, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 15 to 21
PARAGRAPHES 15 à 21
PARRAFOS 15 a 21
Sra. Doña Grafila SOTO CARRERO (Cuba): muy brevemente quisiéramos referirnos al párrafo 17 en su penúltima oración, donde dice "En dichos estudios se observaban los mismos inconvenientes que ponían de manifiesto las respuestas enviadas al cuestionario de la FAO". Nos parece, Sr. Presidente, que en realidad esa frase no agrega nada de contenido al párrafo y nuestra propuesta concreta es suprimirla; en realidad no es que hacemos una cuestión de principio, pero nos parece que efectivamente el párrafo quedaría mucho mejor si le quitamos esa frase.
Ronald F.R. DEARE (United Kingdom): My delegation actually has no recollection that this point was made, so we can certainly support the proposal of the distinguished delegate of Cuba.
Temei ISKIT (Chairman, Drafting Committee): This was raised during our discussion, but the delegate who raised it did not insist upon the explanations given by the Secretariat, so we kept it.
CHAIRMAN: So it seems, after the intervention of the delegate of the United Kingdom, that there is no objection to dropping it so we accept the deletion of - in the English text - "These studies indicated the same type of shortcomings as those that emerged from the answers provided to the FAO questionnaire".
Paragraphs 15 to 21, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 15 à 21, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 15 a 21, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 22 to 26 approved
Les paragraphes 22 à 26 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 22 a 26 son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary, Part I, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, I partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte I, así enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT-PART II
PROJET DE RAPPORT - PARTIE II
PROYECTO DE INFORME - PARTE II
Paragraphs 1 to 2 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 2 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a 2 son aprobados
Paragraphs 3 to 4 approved
Les paragraphes 3 à 4 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 3 a 4 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 5 to 6
PARAGRAPHES 5 à 6
PARRAFOS 5 a 6
Ronald F.R. DEARE (United Kingdom): My delegation now submits to the Secretariat the following footnote to paragraph 5 of this document: "The delegation of the United Kingdom wishes to record its regret that the vote in the Council on the nomination of Chairman of the Conference resulted in the abrogation by FAO of the long-established United Nations principle of rotation". We wish that footnote to be added to the report under paragraph 5.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): La forma en que está redactado el párrafo 5 no permite ver qué es lo que ocurrió, y que lleva extrañamente a unas reservas de parte de ciertas delegaciones que, de no explicarse, parecería que se violó aquí en nuestra Organización alguno de los principios o de las reglas básicas.
Los Estados Miembros del Consejo, tras examinar los resultados de las múltiples reuniones sostenidas para buscar un consenso mediante un grupo de contacto que constituyó el Sr. Presidente de este Consejo en junio de este año revisaron, analizaron los reclamos de cada una de las dos Regiones interesadas en la postulación de su candidato para la Presidencia de la Conferencia de la FAO, en cuanto a que el principio de rotación le favorecía a una o a otra Región.
Esos Estados Miembros, libre y soberanamente determinaron su apreciación de los hechos, de los resultados de esos múltiples contactos en busca del consenso. Lamentaron el que no se hubiera llegado a un consenso, y también libre y soberanamente manifestaron su apreciación de los reclamos respectivos de cada una de las Regiones, y manifestaron sus decisión a través del voto democrático que es el sistema legítimamente constituido en nuestra Organización para resolver las controversias.
Ese voto le dio por mayoría el favor al Sr. candidato por Kuwait, Faisal Abdel-Razik Al-Khalid. Nos sorprende profundamente que países que han constituido hacia dentro un sistema democrático y lo han legitimado con su voto y aprobación plena en esta Organización, ahora pretendan rechazar no sólo el contenido de tal sistema sino el resultado de un voto democrático.
Parecería que habrían estado de acuerdo en el caso de que tal voto hubiera favorecido a su candidato, pero ahora parecen estar en contra porque no lo favoreció. Y eso, Sr. Presidente, no lo podemos aceptar, y quiero que quede en actas esa declaración que estoy haciendo porque creo que al aceptarse estas reservas se está, de, hecho, poniendo un veto a un sistema democrático que ha sido constituido en esta Organización y que prevalece antes, ahora y en el futuro.
John COOK (United States of America): The United States would like to associate itself with the reservation expressed by the delegate of the United Kingdom concerning the regretful abrogation of the principle of rotation in the election of the Chairman of the Conference. The issue here is that abrogation of the principle of rotation: the issue is not whether the Chairman was democratically elected, as the delegate of Mexico has just mentioned. The suggested footnote concerns itself simply with the abrogation of the principle of rotation. It makes no mention of whether or not the Chairman was democratically elected, and that is the footnote with which the United States would like to associate itself.
CHAIRMAN: May I call the attention of honourable delegates to the fact that we are approving a Draft Report on the meeting of three days of this Council. Whatever was not done or said during this Council, in the opinion of the Chair, has nothing to do with this Report, and I believe that this must be kept in mind. We are not reopening a debate.
Seni DABO (Gambia): The Gambian delegation would wish to associate itself also with the reservation of the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom. It is a question of departure from the traditional form of nomination on an Independent Chairman. We therefore strongly associate ourselves with the statement of the delegate of the United Kingdom.
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): First of all, I should like to support what you have just mentioned. We are now adopting the Report of the Council. We are now trying to record what transpired during the last three days of the meeting of the Council. No reservations have been made during the Council, except that which is now written as a footnote. Therefore, I do not believe that at this stage those reservations could be made, as you stated.
Secondly, the reservation claims that the election is an abrogation, a violation of the principle of rotation. I beg to disagree on this point. I have been a member of the Contact Group that negotiated and tried amicably to settle the claims of the two candidates and of the two regions. If my recollection is not mistaken, both candidates claim that the rotation was in their favour. According to the delegate of the South West Pacific, since it last held the Chairmanship of the Conference in 1972, whereas the candidate of the Near East Group held the post in 1975, it was their turn by the principle of rotation.
On the other hand, the spokesman for the Near East Group Said that it was its turn to hold the Chair since the South West Pacific had held the position three times whereas the Near East Group had held it twice.
It is not the point now to reopen this debate, but the question is who has the monopoly of truth. It is really whether the principle has been abrogated or not.
If such reservations were allowed, first of all I think it would be a violation of the procedure that we have adopted until now, since this reservation has not been made during the Plenary. If there had been any reservation in Plenary we should record it now as has been recorded here.
Secondly, we cannot admit at this stage that reservations of this sort could be made since we do not believe that such reservations are unjustified. If such reservations were allowed by you, Mr Chairman, then other reservations would have to be entered in the name of those who believe that such reservations are not justified.
CHAIRMAN: May I call the Council to order? We are trying to approve or comment on or change a report which is in front of us. We stopped at paragraph 5 and its footnote. The discussion and interventions should now concern that paragraph which we have in front of us and its footnote. First of all the Secretariat will fill the empty space, and then I will give the floor to other speakers, but remember we are discussing what we have before us and if we need any clarification we have the Chairman of the Drafting Committee who Will tell us why he introduced this and not other words spoken on the subject. This is his competence to tell us. First, let us fill in the names.
Temei ISKIT (Chairman, Drafting Committee): In paragraph 5 in the sub-paragraph concerning the chairmen, wo shall of course fill the Chairman of Commission I. The name is Mr C.S. Sastry (India). The Chairman of Commission II will be His Excellency Fred Eckert (United States of America). There is a middle initial J.
For the Chairman of Commission III we shall put His Excellency Jozef Wiejacz (Poland).
J. LYNCH (Canada): On the footnote which I understand is not a reservation, the way I understand it, it is merely a statement of regret which is to be recorded as a footnote; no way is it an attempt to reserve on the question of the vote the fact that the delegate from Kuwait, Mr Al-Khalid, was chosen as Chairman of the Conference. I think that has been agreed and everyone is in favour of it. This is merely to indicate that on the footnote there is a question as to whether the principle of rotation was implemented with respect to the election of Chairman. My delegation would like to join the delegations of the United Kingdom, the United States and Gambia in expressing our regret that there appears to have been a violation of the principle of rotation.
CHAIRMAN: Delegate from Canada, we take note of these regrets. May I ask the permission of the delegates of the Republic of Germany, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia kindly to concede to my Deputy who is representing Italy to take the floor because she has to rush back to the embassy.
Mme Anna Teresa FRITTELLI ANNIBALDI (Italie): Je voudrais tout simplement faire deux petites observations au sujet du paragraphe 5. Tout d'abord, je suis entièrement convaincue - et je crois que c'est dans les règles - que le rapport doit refléter ce qui a été dit au cours du débat. Je me demande donc s'il est possible d'émettre ici des réserves quand on ne l'a pas fait au cours du débat. C'est la première chose.
En lisant ce rapport, on a l'impression que l'on est arrivé au vote sans que rien n'ait été fait auparavant pour l'éviter. Et puisque je suis sûre qu'il n'y ait une personne, ici, qui veut ou même pense remettre en discussion ce qu'une procédure démocratique a conclu, mais tout simplement ce qui est en discussion est la ligne de rotation à suivre, je me demande plutôt s'il ne serait pas possible d'ajouter au paragraphe 5 une phrase - le Secrétariat pourrait, le cas échéant, la rédiger -faisant état de la situation qui nous a amenés au vote. Il faut expliquer pourquoi on est arrivé, au Conseil, à une solution qui, en un certain sens, est traumatique au lieu d'avoir un consensus et de trouver une solution qui réponde aux désirs de tout le monde. Il faut expliquer qu'on en est arrivé à la procédure de vote parce qu'on n'avait pas trouvé de solution satisfaisante en ce qui concerne la rotation car il y avait des avis différents sur la façon dont nous devions considérer la rotation et le principe de rotation qui devait être appliqué.
Ainsi, les points de vue de tout le monde figureraient et nous pourrions peut-être éviter d'exprimer des réserves, ce qui, en effet, ne résout pas le problème mais risque de l'aggraver davantage. Je me demande si nous ne pourrions nous mettre d'accord sur une telle solution.
CHAIRMAN: I now give the floor to the distinguished delegate of the Federal Republic of Germany thank him, as well as Switzerland and Saudi Arabia for conceding to the lady and allowing her to speak first.
Joachim WINKEL (Germany, Federal Republic of): Even if equal rights are claimed everywhere for women, I always regard them as a cavalier.
Returning to our subject, I fully agree with you, Mr Chairman, that we will not reopen discussions here. I also a^gree with the opinion of the distinguished delegate of the Philippines that in this report nothing should be mentioned which was not mentioned in previous discussions. However, since there is nothing written about the discussions which we had before voting, we have a real reason to fill this gap. I understand this was the reason why the distinguished delegate of the United Kingdom made this reservation. Only by regarding this gap do we associate with his reservation and I assure Mr Al-Khalid our full support as Chairman of the Conference, as a democratically elected chairman. Nevertheless we regret that, in our view, the principle of rotation has been abrogated. We join with this reservation for these reasons.
Igor MARINCEK (Switzerland): And this is just to say that Switzerland would also like to join with the United Kingdom footnote which has been supported by other countries. In our opinion, both the majority rule and rotation principle are important and dear to the running of our Organization. The majority principle is a democratic principle. The rotation principle is a protection of minorities. This has not been upheld, has not been respected in the case of a country of the OECD. It can also go to the disadvantage of another country. I think it would be a pity if we did not respect these two bases of our Organization.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (Original language Arabic): In fact I was going to put up an objection. I was ready for this objection to be included in the record when I received the document this morning and found the footnote in part II of the report which covers the reservations of Denmark I wanted, in the name of my country, also to introduce an objection, a reservation, on our part, but, because of the respect that is due to our Council, its work and its prestige, I was also ready to withdraw this objection or reservation in order not to disrupt its smooth running. Out of respect to the Council, the Chairmen, the members, we have decided not to express this objection, reservation, because the report was drawn up and we simply have to endorse it.
I fully agree with his Excellency the Ambassador of Mexico and the distinguished representative of the Philippines. I believe, as they do, that there are certain matters which have to be understood by all, matters which are obvious, such as the misinterpretation of the principle of rotation. Today there are allegations and claims to cause a disturbance. Everybody knows that the Secretariat of our Organization are in no way involved in this matter and that it was simply a dispute between two regions, each region defending its own position, each region interpreting in its own fashion the principle of rotation. The matter in the last resort led to a vote because everyone knows that the region of the Near East has shown great flexibility in this matter and has always sought a solution which would be acceptable to all and that this region was ready to accept any solution which would have enabled a vote to be avoided. Unfortunately, the persistence of the other party has meant that we have had to resort to a vote. The vote is a logical democratic procedure and is certainly not something which should lead to any doubts or upset any sensibilities.
Mr Chairman, if you agree to take into account reservations other than the Danish one which has already been introduced, then in that case, in the name of the entire Near East region, we reserve the right to put in a vigorous objection expressing very strong reservations on our part, which would have also to be contained in this report, and as a separate paragraph.
We are in a very difficult situation here. We are facing very serious problems which are at the very heart of the work of our Council and the forthcoming General Conference. All developing countries are looking to us in the hope that we shall be able to meet their aspirations.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the distinguished delegate for Saudi Arabia and give the floor to the representative of Egypt. Before he takes the floor, may I again stress that we are not reopening the debate. I have not accepted any other footnote. We are discussing whether to say "yes" or "no" to this footnote. We may ask the Chairman of the Drafting Committee whether all the discussion which took place before the vote was mentioned and why it was not mentioned here, but not add documents to this. What was said on that occasion should be there but not what was said before.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Ronald F.R. DEARE (United Kingdom): I thought I hoard you say that we are discussing whether or not to accept the footnote I have proposed. Let me say again that I am not proposing a reservation. It is a footnote to the report. It is my understanding that any delegation has the right to add a footnote to the report of the Council. I should be grateful if the Legal Counsel could be asked to confirm that. I do not think there is any profit here discussing whether or not our footnote can be added. I believe we have an inalienable right to have that added and I would ask that the Legal Counsel be asked to give an opinion on this.
CHAIRMAN: As you know, according to the regulations, we have first to take a decision on the point of order that has just been made by the distinguished representative of the United Kingdom. We would hardly need help, but I request help because it is my duty, as Chairman, to improve my knowledge of the existing regulations, and I give the floor to Mr Roche, Legal Counsel, to tell me whether it is true or not that we have to make a volume of footnotes here.
LEGAL COUNSEL: The Council's choice whether to put the reflection of its discussions in the form of paragraphs in the body of its report or alternatively in footnotes is, in a way, totally immaterial. It is reflecting its discussion. The Danish footnote could just as well be in the body of the text, but the delegate of Denmark preferred, presumably, because the delegation is identified, to have a footnote. The Council can reflect its work either in the body of the report or in footnotes. It is purely a practice, and footnotes tend to be reserved to minority views where a particular delegation is not in agreement with the text. It is a practice and not an established principle. It is not provided for anywhere in the Basic Texts. It is simply, I repeat, a drafting practice.
CHAIRMAN: I thank the Legal Counsel. Before making my ruling, I should like to ask Mr Iskit whether any reservations were made during the debate that appear from the verbatim. If not, there is nothing that we can add now. Of the contrary, we could amplify the part preceding the vote. I expected no commentary to be made but now I have to take facts as they are. There was only one country after the vote and it is reflected in this footnote, but before the vote plenty happened. Would the Chairman of the Drafting Committee tell us why everything has been dropped and unanimously approved as such?
Temei ISKIT (Chairman, Drafting Committee): There was no discussion on paragraph 5 besides the Danish proposal to include the footnote and, without discussion, this request was accepted and the footnote presented in the Draft Report.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Iskit. Thank you, Mr Roche. I think at this stage I have to stick to my previous statement. We are not continuing the debate. The Council session is over. It was over last night when our Honourable independent Chairman left. I am here to chair the session that the reflection is correct and a precise reflection of what happened in the Council. Mr Iskit said that in the Drafting Committee meeting there was no request to add anything to what is written in the draft presented by the Secretariat. I am very embarrassed to say that I do not see how adding a footnote or paragraph now -- as Mr Roche said, a footnote and a paragraph is the same thing -- would reflect what happened. I must stick to my duty of passing on what is the reflection of the Council itself up to the night of the 5th, not the morning of the 6th.
The floor is given to the distinguished representative of Egypt.
Adel Helmy EL-SARKI (Egypt) (Original language Arabic): Mr Chairman, we have heard the various views on this subject and we feel that the report of the Council which is before us accurately reflects all the views expressed during the meeting.
Milutin TAPAVICK.I (Yugoslavia): Mr Chairman, I should like to support your ruling. If we are going to accept that explanation of the votes can be added, then it has to be done at the Council session, because 27 countries have to explain why they voted for what they did. I am completely in agreement with your ruling that there be no explanation of the votes during the acceptance of the report.
Leopoldo ARIZA HIDALGO (Cuba): Nosotros queremos, Señor Presidente, intervenir específicamente para lamentarnos de que se sigan utilizando mecanismos de bloqueo y de interferencia en el debate; quiero decir esto porque los que estamos sentados aquí sabemos muy bien que el principio de rotación no es una norma escrita en ningún lugar, es una práctica de la colaboración y que, por lo tanto, tiene interpretación. Esa fue la realidad. Hace cuatro meses que estamos discutiendo en grupos de contacto las dos interpretaciones; al no llegar a un consenso en cuanto a la interpretación hubo que ir a una práctica que si está escrita y que creo que eso no se puede interpretar y la están interpretando, que es la democracia. Si las democracias las quieren interpretar igual que el principio de rotación sería otra cuestión. El principio no está escrito en ningún lado, es una práctica, no es una norma escrita en ningún texto básico, sin embargo la democracia creo que si está escrita en muchos lugares y lo que se está tratando es de negar y de interpretar la democracia. Yo pregunto, si hubieran salido los números al revés ¿hubiera habido notas?; quisiera preguntar eso. No Señor, nos atenemos a la democracia aceptando la votación, discutiendo la votación, creando los mecanismos para que se votara, inclusive obteniendo el método que seleccionaron para la votación. Entonces creo que están interpretando la democracia, no el principio de rotación, que ese se puede interpretar libremente porque no está escrito.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, distinguished delegate of Cuba. May I ask delegates to exert self-restraint? We have already spent one hour on something which has already in my opinion been disposed of with a ruling. We have four more speakers, including a member of the Drafting Committee, and we hear that there was no objection, it was a unanimous approval of that report. I hesitate to give the floor to a member of the Drafting Committee, otherwise we shall be reopening the discussion. Why did he not object during the approval of the draft?
Amin ABDEL-MALEK (Liban) (Langue originale arabe): Je n'ai rien à ajouter à ce que vous venez de dire qui reflète entièrement nos points de vue.
Nous voulions simplement dire que nous sommes entièrement d'accord avec ce qu'ont dit le représentant du Mexique et le représentant des Philippines.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): Lamento mucho. Señor Presidente, tomar la palabra por segunda ocasión. Lo hago con el propósito de animar a este Consejo a que no pierda el tiempo con cuestiones que promueven la división de una Organización, de un Consejo que busca y está preparado para convocar la cooperación internacional.
Declaraciones como las que se pretenden adicionar en este informe no resuelven nada. Por ello, creemos que una decisión como la suya es perfectamente aceptable y debería ser aceptable para todos; o bien una descripción de los hechos de tal manera que se refleje la posición de los dos grupos contendientes que hicieron sus declaraciones aquí y que expresaron ambos su reclamo ante el
principio de rotación que sigue vigente de tener derecho a la candidatura. Los dos lo declararon y los dos, desde nuestro punto de vista, lo expresaron así durante los diversos contactos que hubo. No puede, por tanto esgrimir una parte que se viole el principio de rotación, porque la otra puede decir lo mismo.
El principio de rotación está sujeto a interpretación, en primer lugar y, en segundo lugar, - y queremos lo constate el Asesor Legal - no forma parte de los textos fundamentales. En tercer lugar, ha sido una cuestión que se ha respetado tradicionalmente, pero sobre la base de una negociación abierta, sincera, amistosa, cooperativa de todos los Estados Miembros. Por lo general ese principio de rotación se ha aplicado, en esta ocasión hubo reclamos de una y otra parte. El grupo del Cercano Oriente ofreció todas las alternativas y esas fueron rechazadas una y otra vez. Si no se acepta ni su dictamen ni la propuesta de Italia y se insiste en una declaración de éstas, entonces mi Delegación desea que se incluya otra declaración a ésta, que se ha adicionado aquí, después de que el párrafo quinto contenga una descripción de los hechos; es decir las declaraciones que hicieron Libia y Australia con las notas o reflexiones del Director General, y entonces se adicionaría un texto como el siguiente: la mayoría del Consejo rechazó las observaciones anteriores sobre la base de que la decisión del Consejo no abrogó o violó en forma alguna el principio de rotación geográfica que, si bien no forma parte de los textos básicos ha sido tradición respetable.
Señor Presidente, le proponemos las tres alternativas: primero su dictamen y la propuesta de Italia que lo viene a completar muy bien, y en segundo lugar si no se aceptan, e insisten en una declaración así, nosotros adicionaríamos una como la que he dictado y que me permito transmitir a la Secretaría.
CHAIRMAN: May I say that we also regret that a consensus was not reached in six months. My country also participated in the negotiations to prevent this regrettable vote. But I stick to my previous point and I would not like to be forced to close the discussions because we have spent one hour on this point when we have spent much less time on more important points which have been submitted to us. This is a question of changing what has been said or adding extra material. The door is open to the Nordic countries to re-open this, as with so many issues. We have plenty of time, why should we prolong the discussion this morning? It is useless. Does the delegate of the Philippines wish to speak?
Horacio CARANDANG (Philippines): I do not think I have to speak at this stage, after the ruling which you made, which we fully support. I think you should close the discussion at that.
CHAIRMAN: I have the delegate of the United States on my list, I think he personally participated in the unanimity.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): So did Lebanon, Lebanon was in the Drafting Committee.
CHAIRMAN: Yes, and supported what was written.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): Are you not going to give me the floor?
CHAIRMAN: I am giving you the floor, but I would remind you that you approved this because Lebanon did not dissent from what is stated here.
A. Daniel WEYGANDT (United States of America): I have to say that I do approve of what is written in the report. I was a participant in the Drafting Committee discussions. I can perhaps complement what Mr Iskit has said by giving a little more description of the discussion we had which was that we wanted to be very careful to have a text which would not re-open the debate. We drafted this in a "minimalist" way, if you will.
So I would say I have no problem with what is in the report. I or my colleague have associated our delegation with the footnote put by another delegation; okay?
Now I would like to raise one final matter which is that a question was put to the Legal Adviser: not whether it is a practice or anything in writing, whether or not a delegation can put a footnote in, but whether a delegation has the right to put a footnote in. It seems to me that based on what we have been hearing for years and years in the FAO Council it is indeed the right of any delegation to put a footnote into the report, just as it would be any delegation's right to have its views reflected in the body of the report. The Council is still in session, it has not closed, we are approving the report of the Council. Therefore, while I understand that it is not correct to re-open an issue, it seems to me it is perfectly within the bounds of our Council for delegates to put their views on record as we approve the report.
Therefore, I fail to understand how anyone can object to this footnote being put into the report. Certainly, if other delegations wish to have footnotes put in, I would be willing to accept them, sight unseen. It is the right of any delegate to put a footnote reflecting the views of his Government into the report. I would stand by that position and I would like very much to close the debate at this time myself.
CHAIRMAN: I dissent from the view the delegate of the United States expressed that countries may put a footnote on any subject. The subject is there, the draft is before us. You are asked to approve or make reservations on the draft, not add any lines to it. If you want to put footnotes, you can send them to the Secretariat, as many as you want. You can have 49 footnotes and have a special volume for them. That is a joke.
So I stand by my ruling and if need be I will put it to the vote.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Si usted, Sr. Presidente, clausura el debate ¿cómo puedo yo intervenir?
CHAIRMAN: Before I do that, do you want to take the floor? I have two names here, I do not want to prevent them from speaking. They are Colombia and Brazil. If you wish, I will close the debate.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Sr. Presidente, había estado tratando de ayudar al Consejo mediante contactos con algunos colegas que, desgraciadamente, han resultado infructuosos. Ahora quiero ayudarle en otro sentido: no hablando.
CHAIRMAN: I appreciate that very much.
Joâo Augusto de MEDICIS (Brazil): I would just say that my delegation regrets very much that no reservations to the elections were made here before the elections, only after the results of the elections. Some of the delegates were asking for that before the election, so the only thing is that the reservations are not being made to the elections, but I believe to the result of the elections. On the other hand, no reservations were made during the Drafting Committee either, only by the Danish Delegation of course. So I do not see any reason for having any footnotes or reservations now as they do not reflect what happened in the debate.
CHAIRMAN: The debate is closed and my ruling stands.
POINT OF ORDER
POINT D'ORDRE
PUNTO DE ORDEN
Ronald F.R. DEARE (United Kingdom): I have put a proposal, or not a proposal, I have insisted on my right to have a footnote. You have ruled that I may not have a footnote. I wish that to be put to the vote, a roll call vote.
CHAIRMAN: I said that if I accept a footnote from one country I have to accept the Mexican footnote and 49 footnotes, if need be. All right, I do not want to accept that and I am ready to put my ruling to the vote that we have to stop the discussion now. Do you want me to make it clear? If I accept your footnote, I accept all footnotes. But I am not inclined to do so because they do not reflect what we have to put in the report. The report concerned a debate. The debate is closed. I stand by my ruling that the debate is closed.
Ronald F.R. DEARE (United Kingdom): I have made a formal proposal that your ruling that my footnote is not admissible be put to a vote of this Council by roll call vote.
CHAIRMAN: Nobody has anything to add on the subject? All right, we will put it to a roll call vote on the subject.
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of) (original language Arabic): I do not think it is appropriate now for us to engage in any process of voting. We accept the fact which was mentioned by the Legal Counsel that any country has the right to include what has been said on this report. As mentioned in our previous intervention, if the delegate of the United Kingdom insists on including a footnote to this report, we in turn will be protesting formally in this report and will be sending this objection to the Secretariat.
CHAIRMAN: I am sorry, I cannot give the floor any more because I read in the Basic Texts: "A delegate represented may appeal against the ruling of the Chairman, in which event the appeal shall immediately be put to the vote." So I cannot give the floor, but I have to ask for an explanation from the British delegate. My ruling concerned the contents of the report. I wished no footnote to be added because it had nothing to do with what was said during the debate because you could put a footnote on anything that is not pertinent to what we are talking about.
I then added it was not the ruling. The first ruling was general. This is not the re-opening of the debate. Whatever was said in the session is to be reflected here, and the footnote was not presented then. It is presented now, so in my opinion the ruling was to exclude any footnote. Then you came in with this footnote and said "I have the right to put it". The Legal Counsel did not say that you all have the right to put footnotes, or as many as you like, in a report of the proceedings of the Council. I think you have misinterpreted. What I should like to do is prevent another unpleasant vote. I said I am disposed to accept your footnote if I accept all. Would you object to that?
Ronald F.R. DEARE (United Kingdom): Mr Chairman, maybe I can help you. I am perfectly content for the delegate on behalf of the Near East Region to add a footnote. Like my American colleague, I am happy for him to put that in. I do not want to see it. But I am under instructions to insist that my footnote be added to the report. It is the view of my Government. It has been the practice in this Organization over innumerable years that although we cannot insist on having our views included in the main body of the Report - that is a matter for the Council as a whole - it has been the practice in the past on innumerable occasions that delegations have been able, provided the Council has not concluded its proceedings, has not finished its considerations-of the report, to add the views of a delegation on a particular issue in a footnote. That actually identifies the delegations concerned; it does not commit the Council in any way; it is not in the body of the Report.
So, Mr Chairman, once again I have to insist that my footnote be added to the Report. If you are going to rule against that, then I maintain my request that it be put to a roll call vote.
CHAIRMAN: I think I have your point. We are in the presence of two more footnotes proposed by Mexico and by Saudi Arabia. In order to be balanced, I already have one footnote, another from you, then one from Mexico and one from Saudi Arabia. This is quite fair. You agree?
The Deputy Director-General would like to say something.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: From the Secretariat side I should probably try to be an angel and fear to tread. However, there are some things that I should like to say at this stage.
On the practice regarding footnotes, I should like to be quite clear what is not in the written rule book but the rules of the game. The rules of the game are that any delegation may propose a footnote to be added to the Report, but this must be added in the open Council session or whatever it may be; or there should be an agreement on the contents of the footnote. There have been other cases of a similar nature.
The contents of one footnote can then attract the generation of another footnote. Frankly, to the outside world this looks extremely inelegant and gives an impression of very deep divergencies and even confusion.
Secondly, the delegations that started putting in the footnotes made it clear that they were not-trying to enter a reservation on the choice of the Chairman of the Conference. I must say frankly that that is not clear. It does look as if they were entering a reservation. Just picking up the Report, that is how I interpreted it.
Would it not be better in the interest of everybody to reflect the two different points of view in an additional paragraph in the text? I am ready to propose a text if the Council wishes.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Deputy Director-General, I thank you very much, but the only immediate reaction is that we have to keep the balance. We put two paragraphs and we have a footnote. The footnote is already in; it is already an imbalance.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Mr Chairman, can I just try this paragraph out, and if it makes life more complicated for the Council I withdraw it.
This would come after the existing paragraph 5 and would be a new paragraph 6, therefore, consisting of two sentences, each sentence representing a different view. I will read it quickly:
"A number of members felt that the decision reached by vote had abrogated the long-established principle of rotation. Many members pointed out that the disagreement had not been over the principle of rotation but over the way in which it should be applied, and that this divergence of views had been resolved by democratic process."
CHAIRMAN: May I ask whether the British delegate and the other proposers of footnotes, the delegate from Mexico and the delegate from Saudi Arabia, would be satisfied with the proposal just made by Mr Walton for the sake of peace?
Ronald F.R. DEARE (United Kingdom): I think we may have a solution here, but could I ask the Deputy Director-General to read it again rather more slowly so that we can get the exact wording? Then I would be quite happy to comment.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: I would like to repeat that the two sentences each represent one point of view. The essential, then, would be to reach agreement with the two groups on the formulation of their point of view.
Sentence one: "A number of members felt that the decision reached by vote had abrogated the long-established principle of rotation".
Sentence two: "Many members pointed out that the disagreement had not been over the principle of rotation but over the way in which it should be applied, and that this divergence of views had been resolved by democratic process".
CHAIRMAN: May I have the opinions of the proposers of the footnotes as to whether they agree to this compromise solution?
Atif Y. BUKHARI (Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of): First, I should like to thank the Deputy Director-General for his help. Secondly I have no objection in fact to what is said in this proposal.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Le agradezco también Sr. Walton esta propuesta que creernos refleja perfectamente lo que sucedió y nos atenemos a ella.
Ronald F.R. DEARE (United Kingdom): I would be content to accept this except that I would propose the deletion of three words in the first sentence. "A number of members felt that the decision reached by vote had abrogated the long-established principle". That perhaps suggests that we are challenging the vote. Of course, that is not the purpose of the footnote that I added, so I would propose saying "A number of members felt that the decision had abrogated"
While I have the floor, could I make it absolutely clear beyond any measure of doubt that in agreeing to this compromise, for which I thank the Deputy Director-General, I do not in any way abandon my claim that any delegation has the right to insist on a footnote. Of course, the Deputy Director-General was not in his present seat in the June Council in 1985. Had he been, I am sure it would be scarred on his memory that we had, I think, at least thirteen reservations added to that report at the report stage, not during the session, the discussions in the Council. So I do insist, and I wish it to be recorded in the record of this meeting, that I maintain that right.
CHAIRMAN: I thank delegates for accepting this proposal and for the help given to us all by the Deputy Director-General. I would tell you that I join your request that it be recorded that all footnotes pertaining to the subject may be added but it would cause a list of appendices as Mr Walton said. We have no objection to writing it down once they pertain to the subject and are approved by everybody, because if the subject is not pertinent it would not be in.
Ronald F.R. DEARE: Mr Chairman, I am sorry, but you have said "once they are approved by everybody". I cannot accept that proposal. I maintain the right of my delegation, or of any delegation, to have a footnote which does not require the approval of other delegations. I am sorry, I do not want to debate it now, but I want my view recorded very clearly.
CHAIRMAN: Mr Deare, you did not understand me. Let me make it plain that I am not so silly as to say they have to approve the wording. I said if the subject is pertinent. If you tell me that apples in Italy are too expensive you will find nobody will say you are right, but if you say what you just said, this is pertaining to the subject. Do not try to change my words, will you?
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: It has been remarked that all of Western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato. I think that what I said was not correctly interpreted by the United Kingdom delegate. I would just like to be clear: there is no disagreement between us at all. The point I want to make is that at the report stage the body concerned, whether it is the Council or another one, must agree on the insertion of a footnote and the content. It is not allowed that after the meeting is over a delegation comes and asks for a footnote to be inserted. That has happened also, and that is what I was talking about. It has to happen within the body itself. That is my only point.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Walton, that is a useful clarification. Otherwise we accept the whole ruling of the Council.
May we pass to the next point?
Paragraph 5 has been approved, but you propose it as paragraph number 6.
It is paragraph 6, as proposed by Mr Walton and amended by the correction suggested. The footnote is also approved.
Paragraphs 5 to 6, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 5 à 6, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 5 a 6, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 7 to 10 approved
Les paragraphes 7 à 10 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 7 a 10 son aprobados
Paragraph 11 approved
Le paragraphe 11 est approuvé
El párrafo 11 es aprobado
Paragraphs 12 to 19 approved
Les paragraphes 12 à 19 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 12 a 19 son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary, Part II, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la pionière, partie II, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte II, asi enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT - PART III
PROJET DE RAPPORT -PARTIE III
PROYECTO DE INFORME - PARTE III
Paragraphs 1 to 8 approved
Les paragraphes 1 à 8 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 1 a .8 son aprobados
Paragraphs 9 to 18 approved
Les paragraphes 9 à 18 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 9 a 18 son aprobados
Paragraphs 19 to 20 approved
Les paragraphes 19 à 20 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 19 a 20 son aprobados
Paragraphs 20 to 21 approved
Les paragraphes 20 à 21 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 20 a 21 son aprobados
Paragraphs 21 to 27 approved
Les paragraphes 21 à 27 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 21 a 27 son aprobados
Paragraphs 28 to 31 approved
Les paragraphes 28 à 31 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 28 a 31 son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 32 to 38
PARAGRAPHES 32 à 38
PARRAFOS 32 a 38
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): En los párrafos 32 a 38 mi delegación reconoció la importancia de la creación de una Comisión de Desarrollo Ganadera para América Latina y el Caribe. Sin embargo, en el texto no aparece el exhorto al Consejo a adoptar la Recomendación de la 19a Conferencia de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe en el sentido de que basándose en el artículo VI inciso 2 de la Constitución de la FAO, se estudiara el establecimiento de un Comité
de Ganadería. Ese Comité sería un órgano asesor del Consejo de la FAO. En tal recomendación también se pidió a la Secretaría que tomara las medidas para poner en práctica esa Recomendación. Tampoco aparece en el nuevo proyecto de Resolución la creación de una Comisión Regional,
A estas cuestiones no se opuso ninguna delegación. Nos parece que hubo consenso y desearíamos que esto se reflejara en el texto del tema 13.
CHAIRMAN: Has the distinguished delegate any wording to suggest, and does anybody else want to take the floor on this subject? - No. So, unless there is any objection, the Ambassador of Mexico will now give you this addition to the text. Is there any objection? - No.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): El otro podría estar incluido en el REP/3 antes del párrafo 34 y diría así: "Asimismo se aceptó considerar la Recomendación de la 19 Conferencia de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe sobre el establecimiento de un Comité de Ganadería como Organo Asesor del Consejo de la FAO. Ello en base al Artículo VI-2 de la Constitución de la FAO. Se pidió a la Secretaría que tomara las medidas para poner en práctica dicha Recomendación".
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Ambassador. Does any delegate have comment or objection?
John COOK (United States of America): The United States would like to request that the last change suggested by the delegate from Mexico be clarified. Could that be read to us once again please?
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): ¿Es la última oración la que me pide el Delegado de Estados Unidos?: "Asimismo se aceptó considerar la recomendación de la 19 Conferencia de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe sobre el establecimiento de un Comité de Ganadería como Organo Asesor del Consejo de la FAO. Ello en base al Art. VI-2 de la Constitución de la FAO. Se pidió a la Secretaría que tomara las medidas para poner en práctica dicha Recomendación.
CHAIRMAN: The floor is given to the Legal Counsel who has a clarification to make.
LEGAL COUNSEL: I think there may be a slight confusion here. The distinguished delegate of Mexico is perfectly correct. The Regional Conference for Latin America and the Caribbean did recommend the establishment of a committee under paragraph 2 of Article VI of the Constitution. However, for reasons which are in fact explained in document CL 92/7, the proposal was converted to the establishment of a commission under Article VI.1 which is broader and has more general responsibilities. Therefore, in a way, the original recommendation to create a VI. 2 committee was superseded by the VI.1 Commission which you have already established at this Council session. I believe that the proposal that is now being made is, in fact, overtaken by the events which have just occurred.
CHAIRMAN: Is there any other comment on this? I give the floor to the Ambassador of Mexico again.
José Ramon LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Le agradezco al Asesor Legal su explicación, pero a lo que nosotros nos referimos no es a la Comisión creada, era a un Comité Ganadero para la FAO no de carácter regional. Es a eso a lo que nos referimos durante el Consejo.
James D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): I am afraid i have some dificulty here because I now appreciate that perhaps we have misunderstood the Mexican proposal. We certainly spoke in favour of the establishment of the Commission for Latin America. I would like to make that quite clear. What we now seem to have is another proposal to establish a separate committee, is that correct? Perhaps somebody could advise me on this? If that is the case, then I should like some indication from the Secretariat of the financial implications of this particular proposal.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): Desde la 19a Conferencia Regional y posteriormente en la Conferencia de FAO de 1985, la Delegación de Mexico propuso que en vista de la diversidad de foros en los que se trataban las cuestiones ganaderas, se estudiara la creación de un Comité de Ganadería para la FAO. Nosotros declaramos en esta ocasión durante este Consejo que nos complacía mucho la creación de una comisión regional de ganadería para América Latina y el Caribe, y que considerábamos en consecuencia un paso útil, positivo, en la dirección de concentrar los esfuerzos en esta materia en un Comité de Ganadería de la FAO. No quiero abrir el debate aquí, simplemente marcar lo que hemos propuesto de que se estudie y se den los pasos necesarios para la creación de un Comité de Ganadería. Reconocemos lo que ha dicho el Asesor Legal respecto de que la Comisión ha sido ya creada; ése no es el punto que nosotros declaramos apoyados por otras delegaciones. Decíamos que se debían tomar los pasos para la creación de un Comité de Ganadería. Todo esto, Señor Presidente, con base al artículo VI-2 de la Conferencia.
C.H. BONTE-FRIEDHEIM (Assistant Director-General, Agriculture Department): On a number of occasions during COAG and in other sessions the proposal has been made that FAO should not only have a Committee on Agriculture, but should also have a committee on livestock. This is the proposal that the Ambassador of Mexico refers to, but this is the proposal which has not been further developed and we cannot say anything about it because at the moment what the Council has done is to establish a commission for Latin America only, while a committee would be worldwide. In a way it is only slightly related because the original request was, and may be still is, for a committee, but a commission has now been established.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): No deseo abrir el debate, sólo que se refleje la posición de la Delegación que insistimos en este Consejo de que se tomaron las medidas y se dieran los pasos necesarios para tal Comité de Ganadería. Con base, como digo, en el artículo VI-2.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): En la última Conferencia Regional de la FAO la Delegación de Colombia apoyó la iniciativa de México, Cuba y otros países en este sentido. Atribuimos gran importancia a la consideración de este asunto. Somos concientes de que a la luz del debate que se ha producido no podemos avanzar demasiado, pero si queremos quede constancia de esa intención y, con la venia del colega de México, nosotros propondríamos que al menos hubiera en el Informe un nuevo párrafo que dijera: "El Consejo tomó nota de que en la 19a Conferencia Regional de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe se había propuesto la creación de un Comité de Ganadería como órgano asesor del Consejo, a la luz del artículo VI-2." Al menos que nos deje que se refleje en el Informe esta iniciativa que corresponde al deseo de los gobiernos de América Latina y el Caribe.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): Yo, Señor Presidente, no había escuchado una reacción muy negativa respecto de esta propuesta, es decir que se estudiara. No veo, por tanto, por que debemos limitarnos tanto. Podemos ir más allá. Es decir, el Consejo tomó nota de que la 19a Conferencia de la FAO para América Latina y el Caribe propuso la creación de un Comité de Ganadería como órgano asesor del Consejo, con base al artículo VI-2, y coincidió en que se tomaran los pasos necesarios para estudiar su eventual creación, o algo parecido, ya que hemos visto que ha sido bien recibido no creemos que haya necesidad de incluir un párrafo opositorio, en vista de que los debates reflejan tal oposición.
J. LYNCH (Canada): I think I am losing things in the translation, because the first time I took down the notes I had "requested that the Council was requesting that the necessary steps should be taken to put it into implementation" and the next time I had it as "to study possible implementation". I am sure the interpreters are doing their job very well but I am a bit confused. I am not sure whether we are agreeing to do something. I think that given the variances, at least as far as my delegation is concerned, the wording expressed by the delegate of Colombia came out clearest as to what we think we agreed to.
CHAIRMAN: Before the floor is taken by the United Kingdom and the United States of America, I will ask the Secretary-General what he took in his note so we know what we are talking about. What kind of expression did you take in your notes? Did you take notes? "The Council took note" or "The Council encouraged?" "Took note." Is that all right with you? I have two other speakers. Do you want me first to clarify so that you agree on which kind of proposal it is?
John COOK (United States of America): The United States has the same problem that Canada has just mentioned. In the last translation, as I have taken my notes, it is that the Council agreed that necessary steps be taken. That is not our understanding of what the Council agreed. I think we need to clarify exactly what has been proposed.
Janes D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): We share confusion about the proposal which has been referred to by the distinguished delegates of Canada and the United States. Certainly I took part in that debate and made the UK statement on it, and I must say that, without the verbatims in front of me, I do not recall that in the Chairman's summing up there was this proposal that Council had endorsed. There- • fore, in these circumstances it seems to me that the formula which has been proposed by the distinguished delegate of Colombia is perhaps a most helpful one for the Council to adopt.
I would also make the point here that I believe there are over 122 specialist standing committees of FAO in existence at present and obviously if there is any proposal to introduce another one, it will have to be looked at very carefully.
José Ramon LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (México): Debo advertir que en la formulación que propuse, de ninguna manera hablo del Consejo, se dice de manera impersonal: se pidió a la Secretaría. No se dice el Consejo pidió a la Secretaría. Se pidió a la Secretaría, y esto es un reconocimiento a un hecho de que nadie se opuso a tal recomendación. Estamos aquí no abriendo un debate ni preguntando si tenían la intención de oponerse o no, sino recoger lo que se dijo. Y por eso en atención a que efectivamente el Consejo no se pronunció completa y unánimemente en relación a esto, la fórmula que he propuesto es: se pidió a la Secretaría que tomara las medidas para poner en práctica dicha recomendación. Ahora, si llegamos a un acuerdo en base a mi propuesta, la que me permití leer, que se diga: "asimismo, se tomó nota", en lugar de "se aceptó considerar". Se tomó nota de la recomendación de la 19 Conferencia de FAO para América Latina y el Caribe sobre el establecimiento de un Comité de Ganadería como órgano asesor del Consejo de la FAO, y luego se pidió a la Secretaría que tomara las medidas necesarias para estudiar y eventualmente poner en práctica la recomendación.
Vuelvo a repetir: "se pidió a la Secretaría que tomara nota de las medidas necesarias para estudiar y eventualmente poner en práctica tal recomendación".
CHAIRMAN: Is everybody happy with that?
James D. AITKEN (United Kingdom): I am very grateful to the distinguished delegate of Mexico for clarifying the text here. This has been a very useful clarification. I think perhaps it might make it clearer, certainly for English language users, if in the second sentence, which I understand read, as proposed by Mexico, "The Secretariat were requested to take the necessary steps..." etc., we add to that, "The Secretariat were requested by some Member States to take the necessary steps..." I mention this purely to remind ourselves in later days when we come to read this, that it was by some Member States and avoid any confusion that this might have been a request by the whole Council.
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): En ese caso si insiste en esa entrada nosotros dejaríamos el resto del texto como estaba porque entonces ya no es nuestra propuesta; es decir, varios miembros pidieron a la Secretaría que tomara las medidas necesarias para poner en práctica dicha recomendación, pues lo que nosotros pedimos fue una fórmula de transacción y si no se acepta volvemos a nuestra fórmula con el encabezamiento que propone el Reino Unido.
John COOK (United States of America): If the wording is now that several members requested the Secretariat to take the necessary steps, then we have no problem with that wording.
Gonzalo BULA HOYOS (Colombia): Apoyamos la última propuesta de México. Creo que es consecuente que debe adoptarse la redacción final propuesta por Mexico.
Paragraphs 32 to 38, including draft resolution, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 32 à 38, y compris le projet de résolution, ainsi amendé, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 32 a 38, incluido el proyecto de resolución, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraph 39 approved
Le paragraphe 39 est approuvé
El párrafo 39 es aprobado
Draft Report of Plenary, Part III, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, III partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte III, así enmendado, es aprobado
DRAFT REPORT-PART IV
PROJET DE RAPPORT - PARTIE IV
PROYECTO DE INFORME - PARTE IV
LE SECRETAIRE GENERAL: Je voulais présenter les excuses du Secrétariat pour quelques accidents de fabrication qui ont marqué la préparation du document CL 92/REP/4.
D'une part, on me signale que, dans la version espagnole, les pages 10 et 11 sont identiques. Cette page a été répétée par erreur. Il suffit donc de barrer la page 11 et, lors de la discussion, de passer de la page 10 à la page 12.
Dans la version française, après le paragraphe 18, par suite d'un autre accident de fabrication, le projet de résolution a été omis; il a toutefois été distribué depuis sous la cote CL 92/REP/4 - sup 1. Les membres de langue française n'auront qu'à insérer cette page à l'endroit voulu dans le document CL 92/REP/4.
PARAGRAPHS 1 to 3
PARAGRAPHES l à 3
PARRAFOS 1 a 3
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments on paragraphs 1-3?
José Ramón LOPEZ-PORTILLO ROMANO (Mexico): Sólo para indicar que hubo una propuesta de parte de varias delegaciones en relación a que se llevara a cabo un estudio en cuanto a la revitalidad o rentabilidad de las contribuciones a FAO.
El 11.1 leía así. Es un párrafo cuarto y se lo he extendido ya a la Secretaría y reza: "Algunas delegaciones solicitaron que se preparara un estudio sobre la rentabilidad de las contribuciones a la FAO para varios tipos de países en términos de los técnicos, servicios de consultoría, uso de maquinaria, equipo e insumos agrícolas y otros servicios que aprovecha la Organización.
CHAIRMAN: Are there any comments or objections? There are none, so it is approved.
Paragraphs 3 to 5, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 3 à 5, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 3 a 5, así enmendados, son aprobados
PARAGRAPHS 4 to 9
PARAGRAPHES 4 à 9
PARRAFOS 4 a 9
Dean K. CROWTHER (Assistant Director-General, Department of Administration and Finance): The Government of Japan has very kindly offered to defer a portion of their Cash Surplus. The Cash Surplus distribution for the Government of Japan was just over $4.3 million. The Government of Japan is prepared to send a contribution in the amount of $3.3 million, which is the major cause of their Cash Surplus Distribution, but, as the distinguished delegate has said, it is not in its totality, so it is referred to as "partial" only.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I now give the floor to the distinguished delegate of Japan after renewing my gratitude for this generous gesture.
Sumiji NAKAZAWA (Japan): I see that this morning my Government has paid that amount.
CHAIRMAN: So the amount is correct. I have only one question for the Chairman of the Drafting Committee, and I put it as Chairman, not as delegate of Italy. Was there any reason not to single it out?-because it came so suddenly, that substantial increase of the cash available for one year to the Organization. We have this figure of 21 deferrals - unless I am mistaken this should be the 22nd. But was it singled out? I know that Japan was warmly thanked by many of us including the Chairman, and I am wondering why there is a reason to single it out.
Temel ISKIT (Chairman, Drafting Committee): There was no reason to single it out, but there was no discussion on this paragraph - nobody thought to propose a new formula. But the Council is of course sovereign - a change can be made here if necessary.
CHAIRMAN: I think perhaps that members of this Council had not completely understood that it was not a deferral - it was a paying-back to the Organization, may I say for at least a year? So, as the money has already been paid, and is an important relief for the Organization, if you have no objection, I would like to single it out, because this list probably escaped in the hurry. It was singled out during the debate. As delegate from Italy, I was one of those who explicitly thanked Japan, as did President Ben Osman. So, if we have no objection, we can ask the Secretariat to single it out, because it came after the twenty-two, and was the most substantial deferral of all. Is there any objection? No.
Paragraphs 4 to 9, as amended, approved
Les paragraphes 4 à 9, ainsi amendés, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 4 a 9, así enmendados, son aprobados
Paragraphs 10 to 12 approved
Les paragraphes 10 à 12 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 10 a 12 son aprobados
Paragraphs 13 to 14, including draft resolution, approved
Les paragraphes 13 à 14, y compris le projet de résolution, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 13 a 14, incluido el proyecto de resolución, son aprobados
Paragraphs 15 to 16, including draft resolution, approved
Les paragraphes 15 à 16, y compris le projet de résolution, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 15 a 16, incluido el proyecto de resolución, son aprobados
Paragraphs 17 to 18, including draft resolution, approved
Les paragraphes 17 à 18, y compris le projet de résolution, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 17 a 18, incluido el proyecto de resolución, son aprobados
Paragraphs 19 to 20, including draft resolution, approved
Les paragraphes 19 à 20, y compris le projet de résolution, sont approuvés
Los párrafos 19 a 20, incluido el proyecto de resolución, son aprobados
Paragraphs 21 to 22 approved
Les paragraphes 21 à 22 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 21 a 22 son aprobados
Paragraphs 23 to 26 approved
Les paragraphes 23 à 26 sont approuvés
Los párrafos 23 a 26 son aprobados
Draft Report of Plenary, Part IV, as amended, was adopted
Projet de rapport de la plénière, IV partie, ainsi amendée, est adoptée
El proyecto de informe de la Plenaria, Parte IV, así enmendado, es aprobado
CHAIRMAN: I think we. have finished our work in two hours. Our friend Declan Walton has a corrigendum.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR-GENERAL: Mr Chairman, in the course of this Council session, I have probably spoken too much, and I have asked for the floor now only to make a small adjustment, shall we say, to what I said yesterday. In my enthusiasm for our MacDougall Memorial Lecturer, I said that his father was the first Chairman of the FAO Council. He was, in fact, the first Chairman of the predecessor body of the FAO Council. In those days it was called the Executive Committee. He was also the Chairman of the Second Session of the FAO Conference. I do apologize for any traumatic impact I may have had on historians in the room.
CHAIRMAN: There will be a press reaction. Thank you, Declan. I want to thank everybody and especially those fellow delegates who took the floor on the thorny subject and agreed to prevent another vote, accepting the wisdom of Ireland to help us. This is the last time I shall sit here It may be the last time I shall sit over there, though I shall probably be here on the 27th. One thing is sure in my heart. I shall not abandon FAO because I shall seek election in the Finance Committee as long as my energies allow me to do something good on behalf of my country for this great organization that we all love. Thank you very much.
Applause
Applaudissements
Aplausos
The meeting rose at 12.00 hours
La séance est levée à 12 heures
Le levanta la sesión a las 12.00 horas.
