UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY 55th SESSION

Fifth Committee - Item 169: Scale of Assessment for the Apportionment of the Expenses of the United Nations Peacekeeping Operations

Statement by H.E. Ms Penny Wensley Ambassador and Permanent Representative
on Behalf of the Delegations of Canada, New Zealand and Australia (CANZ)

3 October 2000

Mr Chairman, once again I have the honour to speak on behalf of the delegations of Canada, New Zealand and Australia.

As so many other speakers in this morning’s debate have underlined all member states have a collective responsibility to maintain international peace and security under Article I of the Charter. Over fifty years of peacekeeping activity confirms that this is a core activity of the United Nations. Throughout these decades our three governments have participated in many peacekeeping operations, dating back to the very first missions mandated by the United Nations in the Middle East and in South Asia.

We are committed to supporting effective and adequately resourced peacekeeping work by the United Nations, both in the field and at headquarters. I want to remind all colleagues that for a number of years CANZ countries have argued that the ad hoc peacekeeping scale needs to be reviewed comprehensively. In fact, individual members of CANZ have put forward proposals to this effect as far back as 1995. Against this background we welcome the fact that other member states now agree on the need for review and we look forward to engaging constructively and cooperatively in a comprehensive review of this scale that would meet the needs of all member states. We will work in our usual practical and non-polemic way towards consensus adoption of an updated scale.

There are a number of fundamental points in the approach taken by CANZ delegations to the peacekeeping scale. These were set out clearly during last year’s Fifth Committee general debate on the financing of UN peacekeeping operations in the CANZ statement delivered by the Permanent Representative of New Zealand, Michael Powles but now that we have taken the important step of having a specific agenda item on the peacekeeping scale I consider it appropriate to recall these basic points. In our view a revised scale should be more transparent and equitable, and less arbitrary than the current ad hoc arrangement. The scale should continue to be based on the scale of assessments for the regular budget and on the principle of capacity to pay. The Permanent Members of the Security Council because of their special responsibility for the maintenance of peace and security should continue to pay a premium for this responsibility. Some might say "for this privilege". The benefits of this surcharge should continue to flow to the less economically developed countries, in particular the least developed countries. We continue to believe there should be no pre-determined ceiling or floor in the peacekeeping scale.
I want to take this opportunity particularly to welcome the statement made by the Permanent Members of the Security Council on 7 September, 2000 during the Millennium Summit in which they recalled their special responsibilities and committed themselves to creating a more stable and equitable financial foundation for current and future United Nations operations, including adjustments to the peacekeeping scale of assessments to reflect the role of all Member States and especially the role of all permanent members in peacekeeping financing.

In addition to these basic points, CANZ delegations wish to see the following three elements included in a comprehensive review of the peacekeeping scale. The review should:

• Firstly, establish objective, economic criteria for the group system to address the current anomalies within and between the groups of member states;
• economic criteria would also provide an objective basis for assigning new members to the various groups and would facilitate their movement between groups;
• given there are already well-established procedures in place for determining Least Developed Country status, it would seem both just and sensible to reserve the largest discount in any revised group system for a group consisting exclusively of the Least Developed Countries;
• Secondly the review should address the overall decline in the funding of peacekeeping by the permanent members of the Security Council, including modified arrangements for sharing the premium among the P5; and
• Thirdly the review should establish automatic and periodic review of the scale.
I wish to make two final points. They are on possible transitional arrangements and on the connection between the regular and peacekeeping scales. First, because the scope of this scale review is both comprehensive and long overdue, we are open and would encourage others to be similarly receptive to considering short-term transitional arrangements for member states significantly affected to facilitate the implementation of a permanent peacekeeping scale.

Second, because the ad hoc peacekeeping scale is based on the regular budget scale, there is an inevitable connection between the two scales. Some may find it difficult to make decisions on a new peacekeeping scale without first knowing what the new regular scale will look like. CANZ delegations would be concerned if this were presented as an argument for delaying our work. Since the peacekeeping scale has not been reviewed since its inception in 1973, there is considerable work to do on it and much information to be reviewed and exchanged. We should therefore make a start to our work as soon as possible. We urge delegations that have concrete proposals to introduce them formally so that they can be studied by all. This in turn will enable the Secretariat to provide the information that will be needed to analyse the proposals.

An equitable peacekeeping scale is fundamental to the adequate financing of peacekeeping operations. Our three delegations are keen to see negotiations on a new scale proceed as quickly as possible. I reiterate we are ready to engage constructively in the process and to review every proposal on its merits.

Thank you.