Question of Palestine home
11 December 1996
SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 39th MEETING
Chairman of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and
: Mr. MSELLE
AGENDA ITEM 123: FINANCING OF THE UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING FORCES IN THE MIDDLE EAST (
(a) UNITED NATIONS DISENGAGEMENT OBSERVER FORCE (
(b) UNITED NATIONS INTERIM FORCE IN LEBANON (
The meeting was called to order at 10.15 a.m
AGENDA ITEM 123: FINANCING OF THE UNITED NATIONS PEACEKEEPING FORCES IN THE MIDDLE EAST: (
(a) UNITED NATIONS DISENGAGEMENT OBSERVER FORCE (A/C.5/51/L.14) (
(b) UNITED NATIONS INTERIM FORCE IN LEBANON (A/C.5/51/L.15) (
Draft decisions A/C.5/51/L.14 and L.15
(Latvia), introducing draft decisions A/C.5/51/L.14 and L.15, said that they envisaged a combined reimbursement of $12 million to Member States, to be offset against future apportionments in the case of Member States which had fulfilled their financial obligations to the Mission, and against their share of the unencumbered balance in the case of Member States which had not fulfilled their obligations.
51. He also wished to remind the Secretariat that it had undertaken to provide a written response in connection with the two peacekeeping operations under consideration, but no such response had been received.
(Director, Peace-keeping Financing Division) said that paragraph 9 of the Advisory Committee's report A/51/684 indicated that the Advisory Committee believed that the budgets of both Missions were understated by amounts charged to the regular budget in relation to the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). The Secretary-General had been requested to submit proposals to the General Assembly on how to deal with the situation. The Secretariat fully intended to review the matter and to submit whatever proposals the Secretary-General thought necessary in the context of the next budget for the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) and the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). It was still unclear whether, in order for those proposals to be submitted, the Security Council would have to review the Missions' mandates. If that was the case, certain problems might arise because UNIFIL was the only Mission whose mandate was scheduled for review by Security Council.
(Lebanon) said that the Security Council had nothing to do with the Advisory Committee's request contained in paragraph 9 of document A/51/684. That request was a purely technical measure designed to ensure that the Secretary-General explained the financial procedures observed in international organizations regarding the transfer of sums and elements to UNTSO from the regular budget in order to finance its short-term activities with UNDOF and UNIFIL, while simultaneously enabling him to request a mandate from the General Assembly.
(United States of America) said that his delegation had noted certain problems raised by the OIOS report in relation to UNDOF personnel and procurement practices. The Secretariat had provided some answers, but more information was needed. His delegation was anxious to find out what was currently being done to address all the concerns raised by OIOS.
Draft decisions A/C.5/51/L.14 and L.15 were adopted
(Syrian Arab Republic), explaining his position on the decisions that had just been adopted, said that if they had been put to a vote, his delegation would have voted against them. The costs of UNDOF and UNIFIL should be borne exclusively by the State whose aggressive behaviour had led to the deployment of the Missions in the first place, namely Israel.
(Islamic Republic of Iran), explaining his position on the decisions that had just been adopted, said that if they had been put to a vote, his delegation would have abstained. The costs of UNDOF and UNIFIL should be borne by the aggressor State, namely Israel.
The meeting rose at 1.25 p.m