(Please check against delivery)
Statement by Mr. Ken Mukai
Counsellor of Permanent Mission of Japan
On agenda item 140: Administrative and budgetary aspects of financing
United Nations Peace Keeping Operations;
Consolidation of peacekeeping accounts
Before the Fifth Committee
Second resumed session
Sixty-second Session of the United Nations General Assembly
5 May 2008
My delegation would like to thank Mr. Warren Sach, UN Controller and Ms. Susan McLarg, Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) for introducing their reports (A/62/726 and A/62/818) relating to the Consolidation of peacekeeping accounts.
My delegation has serious doubts about the effectiveness of the proposed consolidation. We also have concern that the consolidation of peacekeeping accounts could have negative effect on some Member States' obligation to pay their arrears.
The Secretariat argues that the consolidation of peacekeeping accounts could have some beneficial effect in terms of timely reimbursement to troop- and police-contributing countries. My delegation, however, would like to remind this Assembly again that the fundamental and underlying cause of delayed reimbursement to TCCs and PCCs has been the non-payment of assessed contributions by Member States. Without payments by Member States this issue cannot be solved.
Peacekeeping operations have a unique budget and assessment arrangement. Assessed contribution for each peacekeeping mission is justified by individual decision of the Security Council to create a mandate. A Council's decision on a peacekeeping mandate then allows the issuance of assessment letters to Member States for each mission. In other words, the requirement of both individual Security Council decision for a mandate and assessments corresponding to such action must be strictly observed and any blurring of this requirement would create difficulties for certain Member States, including my own, to justify payment of assessments. Delink between peacekeeping assessments and the specific mandates (mandate periods) could also distort sound budgetary discipline and prejudice the consideration of the Security Council.
Treating individual peacekeeping operation as a section of the total peacekeeping budget, as if in the case of the regular budget is, in our view, unrealistic and lacks justification. Furthermore, as the ACABQ correctly points out, the scope and quality of information provided on the financing of peacekeeping operations should not be diminished. This applies to both the budget and the performance reports on PKO. From the viewpoint of enhancing accountability and justification of the ever-increasing PKO budget, we need more detailed information and breakdowns of resource requirements for each item, mission by mission.
My delegation would not be ready to accept the proposals for the reasons stated above. With this position, my delegation wishes to take part constructively in the discussion at the informal sessions.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Back to Index