Federal Republic of Germany increased by .64% to 7.74% and that of Japan by 1.51% to 8.66%, while that of the U.S.S.R. (including Byelorussian S.S.R. and Ukrainian S.S.R.) decreased by 1.91% to 13.23% and that of the United Kingdom by .87% to 4.44%. The U.S. assessment remained at the 25% ceiling. Eightyone states were assessed at the .02% minimum. The Committee on Contributions incorporated these recommendations into a draft resolution for adoption by the General Assembly. The Fifth Committee held a spirited debate on the proposed scale of assessments at 14 meetings between October 26 and December 14. The United States supported the proposal of the Committee on Contributions since it was consistent with the detailed criteria established by the General Assembly. However, many other states voiced objections. A number of the oil-producing countries objected to the increases in their assessments which were based based on national income from nonrenewable resources.S Many developing countries expressed dissatisfaction with the .02% minimum rate as being beyond the capacity of some members to pay. Three draft resolutions were put forward by member states: the first by Nepal and Afghanistan, the second by Cuba, and the third by a group of 14 Asian, African, and Latin American states (nine of them members of OPEC). Nepal, later joined by Afghanistan, introduced a draft resolution reaffirming that the capacity to pay is the fundamental criterion for determining scales of assessment and requesting that the minimum assessment be lowered to .01% in the next scale. This draft was subsequently expanded by Canada to request the Committee on Contributions (1) "to study urgently and in depth ways and means of increasing the fairness and equity of the scale of assessments in the light of views expressed by member states," in particular by seeking improvements in the statistical methodology of determining assessments; (2) to justify in future reports any significant increases in the assessment of any member state between two successive scales; and (3) to submit an in-depth report to the General Assembly in 1977. The draft was further amended, on the initiative of the Federal Republic of Germany, to enlarge the Committee on Contributions by five members (from 13 to 18), effective January 1, 1977. After a number of separate 5/ The assessments of the 13 members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) as a whole rose by 57% from a total of 1.28% in the 1974-76 triennium to 2.01% in the scale proposed for 1977-79. votes, the resolution in its final form was approved by the Fifth Committee on December 3 by a vote of 74 (U.S.) to 0, with 47 abstentions. The General Assembly in plenary session subsequently adopted it on December 14 by a recorded vote of 122 (U.S.) to 0, with 4 abstentions.6/ The draft resolution proposed by Cuba decided to maintain during 1977-79 the 1974-76 rates of assessment for "the developing countries whose principal export commodities have undergone a sharp price decline since 1974, in cases where the Committee on Contributions has recommended an increase in the rates." This draft resolution, which actually applied only to Cuba and Malaysia, was approved by the Fifth Committee on December 3 by a vote of 34 to 26 (U.S.), with 62 abstentions. The Committee-approved resolution failed to be adopted by the General Assembly, however, when the vote in plenary on December 14 was 29 in favor to 29 opposed (U.S.), with 66 abstentions. The Charter provides that budgetary questions require a two-thirds majority. The third draft resolution, introduced by Kuwait, inter alia, proposed (1) maintaining the 1974-76 scale during 1977 and 1978, (2) establishing a ceiling of 30% on the percentage increase in any member's assessment, (3) expanding the Committee on Contributions to include three additional members from developing countries, and (4) requesting the Committee on Contributions to submit a new scale of assessments to the Assembly in 1978. Canada proposed an amendment that would replace the first paragraph with one adopting the new scale recommended by the Committee on Contributions for 1977 and 1978. The Fifth Committee on December 6 adopted the Canadian amendment by a rollcall vote of 56 (U.S.) to 46, with 29 abstentions, but subsequently rejected the draft resolution as a whole by a vote of 26 in favor (U.S.) to 62 opposed, with 34 abstentions. On December 14 Algeria and India proposed an amendment to the draft resolution proposed by the Committee on Contributions whereby the new scale would be adopted for 1977 only. The Committee was instructed to draw up future scales of assessment on the basis of, in addition to previously established criteria, (1) the additional criteria contained in resolution 31/95 A, (2) the continuing disparity between the economies of developed and developing countries, (3) methods which avoid excessive variations of individual rates of assessment between two successive scales, and (4) the debate that had just taken place in the Fifth Committee. 6/ Resolution 31/95 A. This amendment was approved by the Fifth Committee without objection, and the amended resolution was also approved without objection. The General Assembly in plenary session later the same day adopted resplenary session later, FINANCING OF UNEF AND UNDOF On October 22, 1976, the Security Council extended UNEF for 1 year, and on November 30 it extended UNDOF for 6 months (see above, pp.10 and 14). On October 26 the General Assembly, on the recommendation of its Fifth Committee, adopted without a vote a resolution/authorizing the Secretary General to enter into commitments not exceeding $6,916,666 per month for UNEF from October 25 through November 30, 1976, and not exceeding $1,288,636 for UNDOF for the month of November. This interim funding was provided in order to allow adequate time for consideration of the Secretary General's report on financing the two forces. ther interim funding, until December 21, was approved on December 1 by a recorded vote of 112 (U.S.) to 2 (Albania, Syria), with no abstentions.9/ Fur On December 22 the General Assembly adopted two resolutions on UNEF and UNDOF. The first,10/adopted by a recorded vote of 113 (U.S.) to 2 (Albania, Syria), with 12 abstentions, appropriated $76,276,000 for the operation of UNEF from October 25, 1976, through October 24, 1977. The second resolution,11/ adopted by a recorded vote of 112 (U.S.) to 2 (A1bania, Syria), with 12 abstentions, appropriated $9,824,086 for the operation of UNDOF from October 25, 1976, through May 31, 1977, and authorized the Secretary General to enter into commitments at a rate not to exceed $1,359,583 per month for the period June 1 through October 24, should the Security Council continue the force beyond the 6 months authorized. The P.R.C. did not participate in any of the votes on UNEF and UNDOF. 7/ Resolution 31/95 B. 8/ Resolution 31/5 A. 9/ Resolution 31/5 B. 10/ Resolution 31/5 C. The resolutions continued the funding formula established by the 28th General Assembly, whereby the least developed members pay 10% of their regular UN assessed rate, the other developing countries pay 20% of their regular rate, the developed countries (except the five permanent members of the Security Council) pay their regular rate, and the five permanent members pay the balance, or about 18% more than their regular rate. The continued application of this formula implicitly recognizes both the special responsibility of the permanent members of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security and the collective responsibility of all UN members to meet peacekeeping costs. INSTITUTIONAL MATTERS PROGRAM BUDGETING, COORDINATION, AND EVALUATION For many years the United States has sought to improve the UN machinery and procedures for program budgeting, the coordination of programs and activities, and the evaluation of programs and activities implemented by the UN system. During 1976 several measures in this regard that had been under development for a number of years were implemented. The bodies most directly affected were ECOSOC's Committee for Program Coordination (CPC) and the Joint Inspection Unit (JIU). Committee for Program and Coordination12/ The CPC was strengthened in 1976 as a result of the recommendations of a Working Group on UN Program and Budget Machinery that the General Assembly had established in 1974 to review and make recommendations on the existing intergovernmental and expert machinery for the formulation, review, approval, and evaluation of UN programs and budgets. The United States had been one of 22 states on the Working Group which recommended, among other things, that the CPC should become the main subsidiary organ of both ECOSOC and the General Assembly responsible 12/ A standing committee of ECOSOC, the CPC assists ECOSOC in carrying out its responsibilities for the coordination and review of UN and specialized agency programs in economic and social fields. Its 21 members in 1976 were Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussian S.S.R., Chile, Denmark, France, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kenya, Pakistan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, U.S.S.R., United Kingdom, United States, and Zaire. for planning, programming, and coordination, and that in this connection it should review the UN 4-year medium-term plans and the biennial program budgets in alternate years. The Assembly in 1975 referred the Working Group's recommendations to ECOSOC with the recommendation that it strengthen the CPC ap propriately. On January 15, 1976, ECOSOC began implementing the Working Group's recommendations by, inter alia, (1) amending the CPC's terms of reference so that it could take on added responsibilities, (2) requesting the Secretary General to submit the proposed mediumterm plan for 1978-81 to the CPC for review at its next session, and (3) authorizing the CPC to submit its report on the plan simultaneously to ECOSOC and the ACABQ.13/ The United States supported this action. On May 14 the 60th ECOSOC adopted without vote new consolidated terms of reference for the CPC that provided it would "function as the main subsidiary organ of the ECOSOC and the General Assembly for planning, programming, and coordination."147 In particular, the CPC is to review the programs of the United Nations as defined in the medium-term plan and assist ECOSOC in its coordination functions within the UN system. With respect to the mediumterm plan, the CPC will recommend an order of priorities, interpret legislative intent as guidance to the Secretariat on program design, consider and develop evaluation procedures, and make recommendations with respect to work programs. With respect to coordination, the CPC will consider on a sectorby-sector basis the programs of agencies in the UN system so that ECOSOC can ensure that they are compatible and mutually complementary. Upon the recommendation of the Assembly or ECOSOC, it will review and appraise the implementation of important legislative decisions to determine the degree of coordination throughout the UN system in selected priority fields. This work is to be carried out both 13/The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions is an expert body of 13 members appointed by the General Assembly for 3-year terms. David L. Stottlemyer of the United States is a member. 14/ Resolution 2008 (LX). |