8 May 2009 – TWN Info Service on Finance - The President of the General Assembly (PGA), H.E. Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, presented the draft outcome document of the June Conference on the global financial and economic crisis today morning to the General Assembly.

The Friday morning session revealed that there is an intensifying divide between the UN representatives from developed countries versus those from developing countries.

The former hold the position that the PGA’s version of the draft outcome document was formulated in a manner that lacked transparency and inclusivity, and has resulted in a document that is distinct from the one originally submitted by the two Co-Facilitators from the Netherlands and from St. Vincent and St. Grenadines on Wednesday 6 May.  This situation has resulted in debate and controversy at the United Nations regarding which document shall be the basis for official negotiations among country representatives.

One of the two Co-Facilitators of the June Conference’s outcome document, Ambassador Majoor of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, expressed his discontentment with the PGA’s version of the draft outcome document—in part because the extensive revisions and inputs made by the PGA had created a different outcome document than that which was originally submitted by the Co-Facilitators.

He also said that he had worked with his partner Co-Facilitator from St. Vincent and St. Grenadines to incorporate the views of various delegations, as well as inputs that were submitted to them, including that of a ministerial meeting at the Non-Aligned Movement in Havana, Cuba.

The Co-Facilitator from the Netherlands concluded that he will have to reconsider the continuation of his role in the June Conference, and to that extent, will have to consult with his capital.  Other representatives from developed countries also said that the manner in which the PGA’s version of the draft outcome document was produced will affect the prospect of their advocating for high-level participation from their capital in June.

Meanwhile, representatives from developing countries such as Venezuela, Cuba and Syria, among other countries, voiced support for using the PGA’s draft as a basis for negotiations.

Ghana made a proposal, in a spirit to mediate, that the PGA organize a meeting with representatives of key countries and groups to address how to go forward in the short timeframe of the 3 weeks that remain until the June Conference.  Ghana’s proposal was also supported by Estonia and Chile.

The PGA responded by saying that there is only “one paper” and that his office has done their utmost to fully reflect all the various inputs and views that were submitted to them.  The PGA said his intention was to create a stronger draft outcome document which reflected the views of the hundreds of millions who had no other forum to express their unique and often divergent perspectives.

The PGA also said that the world expects the United Nations to respond to the crisis with speed and decisiveness, especially because the current crisis represents a “perfect storm of climate change, food, energy and finance.”

However, some country representatives felt that the purpose of the document was to build political consensus and momentum between member states.  Germany said that it would be useful for the UN members if the PGA shared the document circulated by the Co-Facilitators in order for the membership to have a clear sense of where things stand.  Canada and France supported this call, however, the PGA responded by again repeating that there was only one document and that a full effort had been made to incorporate a broad and inclusive array of views.

The United States said that what they first thought of as a transparent and inclusive process has not turned out to be so.  Three months have been spent on negotiating just the modalities and the UN process is proving to be too bureaucratic and cumbersome at times.

Canada said that while it is interested in the views of the PGA, they are concerned that the work of the member states is not lost in the document being presented by the PGA, especially given that the UN is a member state driven process.  Canada also said that the process by which the PGA’s document has been created lacked transparency, and Canada will have no choice but to re-consider the level at which they participate in the conference.

France assured that it attaches great importance to the June conference of the UN, and that while it is crucial for the PGA to make his proposals and views known it is also important that all of the views of member states are also voiced.  The conference can be an opportunity for inclusion and access to all countries, including those who have not had their voices heard.

However, France said that UN member states need to have a consensus on the final outcome document, and that the way to achieve this is to have a fully independent and inter-governmental process.  France supported the two Co-Facilitators by saying that they had worked very intensively and had held many consultations.  France also emphasized transparency, saying that the UN has to “stand true to the inter-governmental process of true transparency.”

Sudan, on behalf of the G77 and China, said that member states need not counter the PGA’s document before having read it carefully to see if it reflects the contributions of member states as well as the different inputs from the Stiglitz Commission, UNCTAD and ECOSOC.

Sudan said that UN member states often have a propensity to undermine their own efforts in cooperating together and finding solutions.  Sudan emphasized that it is about time that UN member states rise above their small differences and concentrate on substance.  Sudan persuaded the Co-Facilitators not to take any of this as a “personal affront,” and that if there are any mistakes in the process, they should be protracted.

Sudan said that the document which has been presented by the PGA should be taken on its substantive merit, and this sentiment responds to one particularity of the United Nations, which is that many Missions might sometimes voice different perspectives than what even their leadership would say.  Sudan stressed that it is too early for member states to be pre-judging the PGA document, and that the need is to focus on what can take the process forward toward the June conference.  While the concern of Ambassador Majoor is valid, he should not disregard the entire value of the document.  Likewise, no nation should feel threatened.

Member states, Sudan said, need to sit down and really discuss the content of the PGA’s outcome document, in the interest of the millions if not billions of people around the world who are being severely affected by the current economic and financial crisis.

Cuba emphasized that just as the PGA has discharged his responsibilities and offered member states this draft outcome document, the member states must now discharge their responsibilities, as representatives of their governments, to start negotiations on the document as soon as possible.

Spain reiterated the sentiment that it is immensely important for the UN to work in an inclusive manner and get to the heart of the issue in the next few weeks, without losing time in issues that move us away from the goal.  It is important to prioritize studying the various proposals made in the outcome document.

Venezuela said that the views of developing countries need to be especially considered given the fact that the draft outcome document talks about the structures and processes that disproportionately affect developing countries.

Syria added its voice to Cuba and Venezuela and said that the PGA has effectively accomplished his task in the prepatory process.  Syria also said that the issuance of another draft outcome document at this point would just complicate the whole procedure.

Nigeria agreed with the representative of G77 and China that at this early stage they should not prejudge the PGA’s document, and that member states should re-convene at a later stage after reviewing the document.