.
Two proposed amendments to the United Nations (UN) budget, both aimed at denying funding to contentious programs, were struck down by vote in the General Assembly Fifth Committee late December 2016. For those at the meeting, the amendments were a scary sign of the polarized politics sweeping the globe over the course of 2016.
On the last day of the 71st session of the Fifth Committee, the subcommittee of the General Assembly tasked with budgetary matters, member states are supposed to review the work completed over twenty meetings and complete any last-minute minor changes. Instead, the gathered delegates were divided over two amendments that seemed to threaten the tranquil nature of the Fifth Committee.
The representative from Burkina Faso, speaking on behalf of the African Group, the largest regional group and representing 54 African countries, proposed an amendment to the budget that “decides to not allocate budgetary resources for [Resolution] 32/2 of the Human Rights Council against gender-related violence.”
The historic United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution 32/2, adopted in June 2016, established the first UN Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI). This unique position will aim to address the serious issues of violence and discrimination against people based on their sexual identities. The SOGI mandate, as the Resolution has been popularly described, was immediately controversial, facing prominent opposition from the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) and African Group.
Opposition to the Independent Expert on SOGI is supposedly centered on its “the legal basis,” with claims that it would interfere with “domestic jurisdiction” and State sovereignty. When the UNHRC Consultative Group named Thai law professor Vitit Muntarbhorn as the Independent Expert, the Egyptian ambassador to the UNHRC boycotted the selection committee. He stated in a letter to the UNHRC president that it was “an exercise which is contrary to my convictions and the values I stand for.”
The African group made two previous attempts at delaying the adoption of measures related Resolution 32/2 in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) and General Assembly. “In both cases, the majority of States, including representatives of the five regional groups, had recognized and defended integrity of the Council to put into place resolution 32/2,” said the representative of Argentina in response to the amendment. Ultimately, the Fifth Committee followed suit, with the amendment being defeated by a vote of 82 against to 65 in favor, with 16 abstentions.
The other amendment floated during the meeting was by Israel, deciding “not to approve any resources stemming from adoption of resolution 31/36 by the Human Rights Council.”
Resolution 31/36 of the UNHRC is one of many recent UN resolutions that has focused on Israeli settlement activities, including a Security Council resolution calling for the end of settlement building. The UNHRC resolution, in particular, has gained notoriety, because it calls on the UN to monitor how businesses affect the “human rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” This mandate would create a database of companies that do business in the settlements, a move that some Israeli media have described as a “blacklist.”
Businesses working in or with Israeli settlements have previously been the focus of human rights watchdogs. Early in 2016, Human Rights Watch issued a report titled “Occupation, Inc.” and concluded that “business activity contributes to the serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law inherent in the settlement enterprise.”
Speaking at the Fifth Committee, the representative of Israel said he objected to the funding of UNHRC Resolution 31/36 as “it was against the State of Israel and went beyond the scope of the mandate of the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights.”
“The funds of [UNHRC Resolution 31/26] are being used to target the State of Israel; tomorrow such funds could be targeting any one of the member states. It is time to remove resources for activities that had only one agenda: to politicize the work of the Human Rights Council,” he said.
While contentious topics and resolutions are more than common in the daily proceedings of the United Nations, it is rare to see them surface during the course of the Fifth Committee. As the central mechanism of determining funding estimates at the UN, the Fifth Committee has a general principle of approving resources for all UN programs and activities. On an administrative level, nearly every decision in the Fifth Committee is made by consensus and rarely voted on.
To many of the member states in the Fifth Committee, the amendments represented a dangerous politicization of a typically controversy-averse body. The representative from Argentina expressed concern at “the implications for the integrity of the budget process and system for protecting and promoting human rights in the United Nations were the [Burkina Faso] amendment to be adopted."
In response to the African Group’s amendment aimed at the SOGI mandate, the representative of Slovakia, speaking on behalf of the European Union, claimed it “was not based on budgetary issues, but rather, political ones.” In the future “political elements would hamper the Committee’s ability to deliberate issues,” he explained.
This sentiment was mirrored by the United States representative, who objected to re-litigating the issue of the Independent Expert for SOGI and claimed “that such actions undermined the way the Organization conducted its business.” However, the U.S. was one of eight countries to vote in favor of Israel’s proposed amendment, despite the claims from other member states that both amendments were similar in their attempts at politicizing the committee.
About the author: Akshan de Alwis is Diplomatic Courier’s United Nations Correspondent based in New York City.
UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe: The General Assembly adopted a $5.4 billion budget for the United Nations for the 2016-2017 biennium, as recommended by the Assembly’s Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). A view of the General Assembly Hall as Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (shown on screens) addresses the Assembly following the adoption of the budget.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
Fifth Committee Rocked by 'Political' Amendments Proposed to UN Budget
Seventieth session of the General Assembly
82nd plenary meeting (resumed).
March 23, 2017
Two proposed amendments to the United Nations (UN) budget, both aimed at denying funding to contentious programs, were struck down by vote in the General Assembly Fifth Committee late December 2016. For those at the meeting, the amendments were a scary sign of the polarized politics sweeping the globe over the course of 2016.
On the last day of the 71st session of the Fifth Committee, the subcommittee of the General Assembly tasked with budgetary matters, member states are supposed to review the work completed over twenty meetings and complete any last-minute minor changes. Instead, the gathered delegates were divided over two amendments that seemed to threaten the tranquil nature of the Fifth Committee.
The representative from Burkina Faso, speaking on behalf of the African Group, the largest regional group and representing 54 African countries, proposed an amendment to the budget that “decides to not allocate budgetary resources for [Resolution] 32/2 of the Human Rights Council against gender-related violence.”
The historic United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) Resolution 32/2, adopted in June 2016, established the first UN Independent Expert on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI). This unique position will aim to address the serious issues of violence and discrimination against people based on their sexual identities. The SOGI mandate, as the Resolution has been popularly described, was immediately controversial, facing prominent opposition from the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC) and African Group.
Opposition to the Independent Expert on SOGI is supposedly centered on its “the legal basis,” with claims that it would interfere with “domestic jurisdiction” and State sovereignty. When the UNHRC Consultative Group named Thai law professor Vitit Muntarbhorn as the Independent Expert, the Egyptian ambassador to the UNHRC boycotted the selection committee. He stated in a letter to the UNHRC president that it was “an exercise which is contrary to my convictions and the values I stand for.”
The African group made two previous attempts at delaying the adoption of measures related Resolution 32/2 in the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) and General Assembly. “In both cases, the majority of States, including representatives of the five regional groups, had recognized and defended integrity of the Council to put into place resolution 32/2,” said the representative of Argentina in response to the amendment. Ultimately, the Fifth Committee followed suit, with the amendment being defeated by a vote of 82 against to 65 in favor, with 16 abstentions.
The other amendment floated during the meeting was by Israel, deciding “not to approve any resources stemming from adoption of resolution 31/36 by the Human Rights Council.”
Resolution 31/36 of the UNHRC is one of many recent UN resolutions that has focused on Israeli settlement activities, including a Security Council resolution calling for the end of settlement building. The UNHRC resolution, in particular, has gained notoriety, because it calls on the UN to monitor how businesses affect the “human rights of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” This mandate would create a database of companies that do business in the settlements, a move that some Israeli media have described as a “blacklist.”
Businesses working in or with Israeli settlements have previously been the focus of human rights watchdogs. Early in 2016, Human Rights Watch issued a report titled “Occupation, Inc.” and concluded that “business activity contributes to the serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law inherent in the settlement enterprise.”
Speaking at the Fifth Committee, the representative of Israel said he objected to the funding of UNHRC Resolution 31/36 as “it was against the State of Israel and went beyond the scope of the mandate of the Human Rights Council and the High Commissioner for Human Rights.”
“The funds of [UNHRC Resolution 31/26] are being used to target the State of Israel; tomorrow such funds could be targeting any one of the member states. It is time to remove resources for activities that had only one agenda: to politicize the work of the Human Rights Council,” he said.
While contentious topics and resolutions are more than common in the daily proceedings of the United Nations, it is rare to see them surface during the course of the Fifth Committee. As the central mechanism of determining funding estimates at the UN, the Fifth Committee has a general principle of approving resources for all UN programs and activities. On an administrative level, nearly every decision in the Fifth Committee is made by consensus and rarely voted on.
To many of the member states in the Fifth Committee, the amendments represented a dangerous politicization of a typically controversy-averse body. The representative from Argentina expressed concern at “the implications for the integrity of the budget process and system for protecting and promoting human rights in the United Nations were the [Burkina Faso] amendment to be adopted."
In response to the African Group’s amendment aimed at the SOGI mandate, the representative of Slovakia, speaking on behalf of the European Union, claimed it “was not based on budgetary issues, but rather, political ones.” In the future “political elements would hamper the Committee’s ability to deliberate issues,” he explained.
This sentiment was mirrored by the United States representative, who objected to re-litigating the issue of the Independent Expert for SOGI and claimed “that such actions undermined the way the Organization conducted its business.” However, the U.S. was one of eight countries to vote in favor of Israel’s proposed amendment, despite the claims from other member states that both amendments were similar in their attempts at politicizing the committee.
About the author: Akshan de Alwis is Diplomatic Courier’s United Nations Correspondent based in New York City.
UN Photo/Eskinder Debebe: The General Assembly adopted a $5.4 billion budget for the United Nations for the 2016-2017 biennium, as recommended by the Assembly’s Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary). A view of the General Assembly Hall as Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon (shown on screens) addresses the Assembly following the adoption of the budget.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
