UNGA 59: FIFTH COMMITTEE
3 November 2004
Statement by H.E. Mr Allan Rock, Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Canada, on behalf of Australia, Canada and New Zealand
Item 108: Programme Budget for the Biennium 2004-2005
Mr. Chairman,
I am pleased to deliver this statement on behalf of the delegations of Australia New Zealand, and Canada. May I say at the outset that our thoughts and hopes today are with the young Filipino, Kosovar and Irish members of the United Nations team who are being held hostage in Afghanistan. They and thousands of their colleagues in duty stations around the world, drawn from every region and country, are the human face of United Nations efforts for peace, development and humanitarian action. Their abduction reminds us that our work today on the safety and security of UN workers is not an abstract exercise. It is about the lives and well being of our colleagues, our friends and their families. We therefore have a heavy responsibility to ensure that our deliberations, which should of course be thorough and methodical, lead soon to effective action.
Mr. Chairman,
We are grateful to the Secretary General for introducing his proposals for an improved United Nations security management system. We also appreciate the report of the ACABQ introduced by Mr. Kuznetzov.
On Monday last, in this place, the Secretary-General made a moving and persuasive case for security management reform. The security environment for the United Nations has become far more threatening, particularly as peacekeeping and humanitarian missions operate in more volatile settings. Security can no longer be treated as incidental, or addressed through a patchwork of ad hoc responses. Or to quote the Secretary-General: “Security is not a privilege or a luxury, not an afterthought or a burden, but an indispensable part of carrying out our work.”
Working as fully as possible with host authorities who have a primary responsibility, the United Nations must provide for the safety and security of its staff. Indeed, with a physical presence in over 140 countries, and its responsibility for 100,000 staff and 300,000 dependents, the United Nations family has for some time needed a more systematic and professional approach to staff safety and security.
Mr. Chairman,
The UN security management system has been the subject of multiple expert reviews over the last few years. All of them have converged in identifying the same weaknesses: fractured structures; unclear lines of responsibility and accountability; non compliance with security rules; lack of threat and risk assessment capability; insufficient resources and professional expertise. There is therefore compelling evidence, from a number of independent and credible sources, of the need for unified and determined management, commonly shared good standards and a compliance regime linked to accountability. These are essential if we are truly serious about safety and security. And yet, even now compliance in the field with security standards and procedures may be insufficient. The recent audit by the Office of Internal Oversight Services of security in a number of peacekeeping and political missions will no doubt shed light on this.
The proposals of the Secretary General, if implemented effectively, will address the obvious weaknesses in the current system. The starting point is that the purpose of improved security is to enable the UN system to implement its mandates throughout the world, which it cannot do if it adopts a bunker mentality. United Nations staff and vulnerable populations must have access to each other. Risk cannot always be avoided, but it can be better assessed and managed, thus enabling risk to be properly balanced against the need for ongoing operations.
The numerous facets of the Secretary General's proposals will no doubt be discussed in detail later, but we outline four elements of fundamental merit:
• First is the unification of multiple security structures through a new directorate of security which would integrate the three structures that now exist.
• Second is the unified structure at the country level, led by the senior UN official who would report to the new head of security on security matters.
• Third, is the Secretary General's recognition that effective decentralization of security work requires a robust central capacity for policy, standards, threat and risk assessment, training, compliance supervision and administration. In other words, effective field operations require a critical mass of support at headquarters.
• And fourth is the significant strengthening of security staff, including of field presence, and the effort to ensure the new structure meets the needs of various parts of the UN system.
Mr. Chairman,
The Secretary General proposes changes in the way the UN meets its security responsibility to its staff, but has done so without proposing a top heavy structure for the new security directorate. The fact that only seven posts of “Director” level or higher are proposed in an overall complement of over 1500 staff is modest, particularly given the managerial challenges that lie ahead.
As meritorious as these proposals are, some issues require clarification. For example, the report mentions the need to professionalize security staff, but does not explain what this means in practical terms. We will also want to understand more about the global security access system.
We appreciate the contribution of the ACABQ on the budgetary proposals. We agree with the ACABQ that the accountability arrangements for field security presented to the General Assembly two years ago should be updated and broadened so that the role of each responsible official is made clear. Like the ACABQ, we prefer to use existing units for administrative functions, rather than create new ones. The ACABQ suggests a different way of handling administration than does the Secretary-General. We are confident that through informal consultations, we will be able to clarify the best way to provide the new Directorate with the administrative support it needs.
Mr. Chairman,
Any functional security regime requires clear, predictable and secure funding arrangements. The Secretary General sees security as a core UN function that should be borne by the regular budget and points to problems with the present arrangements for sharing field security costs. The argument for cost sharing relates to the user pay principle, and the premise that it underpins shared ownership of the security system. Rather than try to reconcile divergent organizational philosophies, our main interest now is to ensure operational effectiveness. We would like to see further analysis of the financial and operational implications of shifting from cost-sharing to absorbing these cost in the regular budget. In pursuing these and related questions, we should not lose sight of the primary objective: the establishment of a single security architecture that is robust, responsive and efficient.
Mr. Chairman,
We have before us an important, complex and costly set of proposals. Implementing the proposed changes will require great managerial leadership, which must herald an even more daunting process of culture change in United Nations organizations. Leadership, standards, compliance and accountability are the keys to succeeding in these transformations. The Secretary General has set out a comprehensive package, which we can fine tune as implementation proceeds, drawing on the applicable advice of the ACABQ.
As we go about this important work, let us never forget that we have a collective responsibility to the men and women working for the UN system both here in New York and in far-flung places throughout the world . Those brave and committed persons are responding to global peace and development challenges on a daily basis on our behalf. Among our solemn duties as managers of the institution that has sent them to do this vital work, none is more important and urgent than to provide for their safety and security, to a standard that we would expect for ourselves.
Thank you.