VZCZCXYZ0006
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0399 0611453
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 021453Z MAR 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8150

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000399 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC KUNR UNGA
SUBJECT: JOINT INSPECTION UNIT: A MORE EFFICIENT ELECTION 
PROCESS? 
 
REF: A/50/659 
 
¶1.  This is an action request; please see para. 5. 
 
¶2.  SUMMARY: As invited by the General Assembly (GA) in its 
resolution 59/267, the President of the General Assembly 
(PGA) has reviewed the procedures followed by the General 
Assembly to appoint inspectors to the Joint Inspection Unit 
(JIU).  He has determined that they could be simplified and 
has submitted for the GA's approval proposals to streamline 
the existing procedures (A/60/659).  The new procedures would 
shorten the election period from two years to one year, while 
maintaining the consultative process required in Article 3 of 
the JIU statute.  The new procedures would also eliminate the 
need to vote first on the countries which can present 
candidates and then on the candidate themselves.  The new 
procedures would also require the PGA to review the 
qualifications of inspectors prior to putting them forward as 
candidates.  The report does not address the timing of when 
the new procedures, if approved, would take effect nor the 
impact on current or future election cycles.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶3.  The President of the General Assembly, as invited by the 
General Assembly in its resolution 59/267, has reviewed the 
procedures used to appoint inspectors to the JIU and has 
determined that the process needs to be simplified.  The 
report notes that the current selection process begins two 
years prior to an inspector taking up his/her post.  In the 
first year, in consultation with Member States, a list of 
countries that will be requested to propose candidates is 
drawn up and voted on in the General Assembly.  In the second 
year, after appropriate consultations, the President of the 
General Assembly submits a list of candidates from the 
approved countries to the GA for approval.  He therefore 
proposes that the General Assembly approve new procedures 
that would shorten this cycle to one year and would allow 
regional groupings to put forward any number of qualified 
candidates from countries in their region. 
 
¶4.  The new procedures would have the PGA inform regional 
groups in January of the post(s) that will be vacant at the 
end of the calendar year.  The regional groups would then 
simultaneously submit the names of countries and candidates 
in March.  The PGA would conduct consultations and a review 
of qualifications of proposed candidates from April to July 
and then present the list of candidates to the GA in 
September, for a decision during the main session. 
 
¶5.  COMMENT:  It appears that in addition to shortening the 
long election cycle, the PGA is hoping to increase the 
emphasis on and review of the qualifications of candidates 
that are nominated by Member States.  USUN supports both of 
these positions, but has doubts as to whether these new 
procedures would actually improve the generally poor quality 
of candidates put forth by Member States.  The likelihood is 
that deals will be made within regional groups so that a 
limited number of Member States (maybe even only one) would 
actually put forth candidates and that not all Member States 
would necessarily put forward the most qualified candidates. 
If that is the case, a PGA review of candidates would only be 
marginally useful.  Nevertheless, USUN supports the PGA's 
attempts to make the election process for JIU inspectors more 
efficient and rational.  A recommendation in a recent JIU 
report on oversight would, if implemented, help to improve 
future JIU candidates by barring members of other oversight 
bodies (ACABQ, ICSC, etc.) from seeking the lucrative D-2 JIU 
posts in Geneva.  Unless otherwise instructed, USUN intends 
to support these new procedures. 
BOLTON