VZCZCXRO8974
PP RUEHROV
DE RUCNDT #2263/01 3531547
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 191547Z DEC 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0975
INFO RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV PRIORITY 1343
RUEHJM/AMCONSUL JERUSALEM PRIORITY 0816

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 002263 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC UNGA KUNR PREL IS
SUBJECT: UN BUDGET: FIFTH COMMITTEE VOTES ON DRAFT DECISION 
ON REGISTER OF DAMAGES 
 
REF: A. USUN 02231 
 
     ¶B. SECSTATE 197203 
 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY: On December 11th and 15th, the Fifth Committee 
(Administrative and Budgetary) voted on draft decisions 
regarding the program budget implications (PBIs) of 
A/ES-10/L.20 and A/ES-10/L.20/Rev.1, a draft resolution 
(reftels) to be acted on at the December 15th Emergency 
Special Session.  The Fifth Committee had to reconsider the 
additional PBI after changes were made to the underlying 
resolution that changed the budget implications.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
December 11th decision 
----------------------- 
 
¶2.  The Fifth Committee on December 11 considered the program 
budget implications of draft resolution A/ES-10/L.20.  The 
budget implications were related to operative paragraphs in 
the draft resolution regarding the creation of a Register of 
Damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied 
Palestinian Territory.  After various language amendments 
(related to whether the Committee should reaffirm Rule 153 of 
the rules of procedure) were discussed amongst delegations 
during the various suspensions of the meeting during the 
morning session, the Committee decided to return to the issue 
in the afternoon, so that delegations would have time to 
consult internally.  The Japanese delegate indicated to 
delegations during the morning session that he needed to seek 
instructions from Tokyo and would not be ready to act until 
the next day given the time difference between New York and 
Tokyo. 
 
¶3.  Upon reconvening, Israel requested a vote on the UN 
Register, saying the technical nature of the Fifth 
Committee's decision was tainted by political considerations. 
 Evidence of the political nature of the budget implication 
statement was demonstrated by the detailed description of the 
Registry, as well as the exorbitant figure and large staffing 
requested.  He was also concerned about duplication, as a 
mechanism for compensation already existed in Israel, with 
140 cases reviewed and more than $1.5 million paid by Israel 
to individuals and organizations.  Another mechanism, paid 
for by the taxpayers of the Member States, would be a waste 
of money, he said.  A solution to the conflict would only by 
settled through negotiations of the two parties.  If the 
technical Fifth Committee had not accepted the infiltration 
of politics in its debate, the current debate would not have 
been necessary. 
 
¶4.  As Japan did not request more time to seek instructions, 
the Committee, acting by a vote of 116 in favor to six 
against (U.S., Australia, Canada, Israel, Nauru, Palau) with 
one abstention (Republic of Moldova), decided to inform the 
Assembly that the adoption of the text would require an 
appropriation of up to $3.1 million of the 2006-2007 budget 
for the establishment and maintenance of the Register.  Both 
Niger and Armenia asked the Secretariat to record their votes 
in favor of the draft resolution, since they were not able to 
vote earlier for technical reasons. 
 
¶5.  Japan's representative offered an explanation of vote, 
saying the decision to vote "for" the UN Register had been 
taken while discussion on the draft resolution L.20 was 
ongoing, which should not be used by delegations for 
political purposes.  He said if the need arose the Fifth 
Committee would act in accordance with established procedure. 
 
 
¶6.  The Finnish representative (on behalf of the European 
Union) explained the EU's vote in favor of the draft 
resolution, saying the EU supported the draft decision on the 
budget implications statement submitted by the 
Secretary-General.  It also supported the report by the 
 
SIPDIS 
Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions 
(ACABQ), particularly in paragraphs six and seven (document 
A/61/614).  The EU noted the discussions on the substance of 
L.20 were still ongoing, and the position on the budget 
implications was without prejudice to those details.  Any 
substantive changes to the text would give rise to the 
application of rule 153 of the rules of Procedure.  She added 
it was time to restore the working methods (i.e., "principle 
of consensus") of the Fifth Committee. 
 
¶7.  Australia's representative said her country opposed the 
draft resolution on the legal consequences of the building of 
the wall and continued to oppose the Assembly's treatment off 
the matter.  Israel already had a mechanism for settling 
damages as a result of the construction of the wall, and the 
 
USUN NEW Y 00002263  002 OF 002 
 
 
proposed registry would not advance the issue of peace.  As 
Australia did not support the draft resolution, it also did 
not support the required resources. 
 
¶8.  The South African representative (on behalf of the Group 
of 77 and China) said the G-77 had the long-standing position 
that the Committee was a technical, not political body.  As a 
rule, the G-77 supported the budget implication statement 
before it.  The G-77 strongly backed rule 153 of the rules of 
procedure, and supported the current statement on budget 
implications as it would any other budget implication 
statement. 
 
¶9.  Ambassador Wallace spoke on behalf of the U.S. delegation 
regarding the draft decision on the UN Register.  The text of 
his statement is as follows: 
 
BEGIN TEXT: 
 
Mr. Chairman, 
 
The United States has consistently opposed the creation of 
the UN Register of Damage as contemplated by A/ES-10/L.20. 
This clearly political mandate comes at a destructive time 
and diverts attention from practical efforts to achieving 
peace and security for both the Palestinian and Israeli 
peoples.  Moreover and unfortunately, the draft decision 
before us today supports a resolution that goes well beyond 
what was requested in resolution A/ES-10/15. 
 
The resolution called upon the Secretary-General to establish 
a register of damage.  Now this body seeks to approve funding 
for a draft resolution that includes components- verification 
and assessment- that both further politicizes this body and 
costs substantial sums to all Member States. 
 
As the report of the Secretary-General states:  "The  act of 
registration of damage, as such, would not entail an 
evaluation or an assessment of the loss or damage claimed." 
In addition to our continuing opposition to the establishment 
of any Registry, my delegation strongly opposes the expansion 
of the mandate of the registry by the action that we are 
taking today.  At nearly $4 million per year, with no 
provision for the mandate to be either reviewed or concluded 
this body is committing scarce financial resources- for a 
political statement.  This action today continues to raise 
questions regarding the efficacy of the UN at a time when we 
are failing to institute reform and the world faces so many 
challenges that go unaddressed in this building every day. 
 
In conclusion, my delegation voted against this draft 
decision because the U.S. opposes the establishment of the 
Registry, the expansion of the Registry's mandate in today's 
action and we reiterate our real concerns about the large and 
open-ended financial commitment to this politically charged 
mandate. 
 
END TEXT. 
 
December 15 decision 
---------------------- 
 
¶10.   On December 15, the Committee considered a revised PBI 
and ACABQ report, as the underlying resolution had changed 
since Monday's action.  The result of the Committee vote was: 
128 votes in favor; five against (U.S., Australia, Israel, 
Micronesia, Palau); with one abstention (Cote d'Ivoire). 
Finland (on behalf of the EU) was the only Committee member 
to register an explanation of vote, saying the EU trusted 
that any effects of the resolution would be funded through 
existing resources of the 2006-2007 programme budget.  She 
was sorry, however, that the Committee deviated from the 
long-standing practice of consensus on this issue. 
 
WOLFF