ID :
64489
Sat, 06/06/2009 - 16:49
Auther :
Shortlink :
https://www.oananews.org//node/64489
The shortlink copeid
India calls for major role of UNGA
United Nations, June 6 (PTI) Calling for a major role of
the General Assembly in the election of the Secretary-General,
India has questioned the current system in which the Security
Council decides on a name for the top UN post and the
192-member Assembly rubber stamps the decision.
"Obviously, visibility and outreach of the General
Assembly are important too," India's UN Ambassador Hardeep
Singh Puri told the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Revitalisation
of the UN General Assembly.
"While concrete proposals in this regard should be
considered, we believe that real visibility of the General
Assembly can only be generated if the Assembly takes important
decisions or contributes meaningfully to important decisions,"
he said.
India's considered view, he said, is that role of the
General Assembly as the chief deliberative, legislative,
policy-making and representative body of the international
community needs to be strengthened.
In this context a critical issue is the appointment of
the Secretary-General, Puri said.
Stating that the mandate for the appointment of the UN
Secretary-General flows from Article 97 of the UN Charter, he
said this inter alia states that the Secretary-General shall
be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation
of the Security Council.
"Clearly, this Article envisages a role for both the
General Assembly as well as the Security Council," Puri added.
The modalities of the appointment process have, however,
come to be governed by Resolution 11(1) of 24 January 1946.
This, the ambassador said, states that it would be
desirable for the Security Council to proffer one candidate
only for the consideration of the General Assembly, and for
debate on the nomination in the General Assembly to be
avoided.
"Both nomination and appointment should be discussed at
private meetings, and a vote in either the Security Council or
the General Assembly, if taken, should be by secret ballot."
He said it is important to emphasise that these
restrictions arise from a General Assembly resolution, rather
than a Security Council resolution, and certainly not from
Charter provisions.
Besides, the tone of the para is recommendatory, rather
than mandatory, he told the panel.
"It would appear strange that while we all promote the
principles of transparency and an inclusive selection process,
the General Assembly willingly agreed to impose such
restrictions on its own Charter mandate," he said.
The reason for Resolution 11(1), he pointed out, was the
context of the post-1945 world, where it was preferable that
the cold-war adversaries agree on a common candidate before
putting forward the name.
"However, more than sixty years since the adoption of
Resolution 11(1), we live in a different world. While the
Security Council itself must change to reflect contemporary
realities and expand its membership in both permanent and
non-permanent categories, the General Assembly cannot remain
bound by self-imposed restrictions reflecting an era gone by,"
he added.
A more inclusive and interactive selection process, he
said, would also enhance the authority and effectiveness of
the Secretary-General, as well as increase the confidence of
all Member States in the Secretary-General.
"Only with real changes can we ensure that the General
Assembly exercises its judgement in the matter of the
appointment of the Secretary-General, rather than merely
rubber stamping proposals by the Security Council while
ensuring that the appointment process does not become a
divisive issue between the General Assembly and the Security
Council," he added.
But as envisaged in the Charter, this is a process that
involves both these organs and needs to be carried out in a
collaborative exercise respecting each others' mandate.
The issue of timing of these changes, he said, is
important.
"Some argue that since the appointment of a new
Secretary-General is not on the horizon, this issue does not
need to be addressed with urgency. On the contrary, such a
situation provides the right opportunity to address this issue
impartially and objectively," he told the panel. PTI DS
AM
the General Assembly in the election of the Secretary-General,
India has questioned the current system in which the Security
Council decides on a name for the top UN post and the
192-member Assembly rubber stamps the decision.
"Obviously, visibility and outreach of the General
Assembly are important too," India's UN Ambassador Hardeep
Singh Puri told the Ad-hoc Working Group on the Revitalisation
of the UN General Assembly.
"While concrete proposals in this regard should be
considered, we believe that real visibility of the General
Assembly can only be generated if the Assembly takes important
decisions or contributes meaningfully to important decisions,"
he said.
India's considered view, he said, is that role of the
General Assembly as the chief deliberative, legislative,
policy-making and representative body of the international
community needs to be strengthened.
In this context a critical issue is the appointment of
the Secretary-General, Puri said.
Stating that the mandate for the appointment of the UN
Secretary-General flows from Article 97 of the UN Charter, he
said this inter alia states that the Secretary-General shall
be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation
of the Security Council.
"Clearly, this Article envisages a role for both the
General Assembly as well as the Security Council," Puri added.
The modalities of the appointment process have, however,
come to be governed by Resolution 11(1) of 24 January 1946.
This, the ambassador said, states that it would be
desirable for the Security Council to proffer one candidate
only for the consideration of the General Assembly, and for
debate on the nomination in the General Assembly to be
avoided.
"Both nomination and appointment should be discussed at
private meetings, and a vote in either the Security Council or
the General Assembly, if taken, should be by secret ballot."
He said it is important to emphasise that these
restrictions arise from a General Assembly resolution, rather
than a Security Council resolution, and certainly not from
Charter provisions.
Besides, the tone of the para is recommendatory, rather
than mandatory, he told the panel.
"It would appear strange that while we all promote the
principles of transparency and an inclusive selection process,
the General Assembly willingly agreed to impose such
restrictions on its own Charter mandate," he said.
The reason for Resolution 11(1), he pointed out, was the
context of the post-1945 world, where it was preferable that
the cold-war adversaries agree on a common candidate before
putting forward the name.
"However, more than sixty years since the adoption of
Resolution 11(1), we live in a different world. While the
Security Council itself must change to reflect contemporary
realities and expand its membership in both permanent and
non-permanent categories, the General Assembly cannot remain
bound by self-imposed restrictions reflecting an era gone by,"
he added.
A more inclusive and interactive selection process, he
said, would also enhance the authority and effectiveness of
the Secretary-General, as well as increase the confidence of
all Member States in the Secretary-General.
"Only with real changes can we ensure that the General
Assembly exercises its judgement in the matter of the
appointment of the Secretary-General, rather than merely
rubber stamping proposals by the Security Council while
ensuring that the appointment process does not become a
divisive issue between the General Assembly and the Security
Council," he added.
But as envisaged in the Charter, this is a process that
involves both these organs and needs to be carried out in a
collaborative exercise respecting each others' mandate.
The issue of timing of these changes, he said, is
important.
"Some argue that since the appointment of a new
Secretary-General is not on the horizon, this issue does not
need to be addressed with urgency. On the contrary, such a
situation provides the right opportunity to address this issue
impartially and objectively," he told the panel. PTI DS
AM
