|
|
G-15/06/PR89/2
Date issued: 12 April 2006
Distribution: GENERAL
EIGHTY-NINTH
MEETING
OF THE PERSONAL
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
HEADS OF STATE AND
GOVERNMENT OF THE GROUP OF FIFTEEN
Geneva, 17 March
2006
SUMMARY RECORDS
1. The 89th
Meeting of the Personal Representatives (PRs) of the Heads of State and
Government of the Group of Fifteen was held on 17 March 2006 in Geneva, under the Chairmanship of
Ambassador Idriss Jazairy, the Personal Representative of the President of
Algeria to the Group of Fifteen.
2.
Before proceeding with the business of the day, the Chairman recognized
the presence of some Ambassadors who were attending the meeting of the Personal
Representatives for the first time. The PRs joined him in welcoming them to
their midst.
Item 1 – Adoption of the
Agenda
3.
The meeting adopted its Provisional Agenda, without amendment, as
contained in Document G-15/06/PR89/1.
Item 2 - Briefing on
preparations for the 13th Summit of the Group to be held in
2006.
4.
Further to earlier consultations that he initiated, the Chairman invited
comments from the floor on a possible date for hosting the 13th Summit in
Algiers. In her intervention, the Personal Representative of Malaysia, after
listing the dates on which her Prime Minister would otherwise be engaged,
proposed that the Summit should be scheduled for 7 - 9 August 2006. In
subsequent interventions, some PRs expressed difficulties with the proposed
date. In particular, the PRs of Mexico and Brazil referred to the very important
national and regional engagements of their Heads of State and Government that
would take place in the second half of the year, which would make their
participation in the Summit impossible. The PR of Brazil therefore proposed
hosting the Summit in November/December 2006. The PR of Indonesia informed the
meeting of the availability of his President if the Summit could be held in June
2006, as it would coincide with the visit of his President to the region. The
Acting PR of Venezuela similarly informed that her President would be available
in the month of June 2006, while noting that the second semester of the year
would be difficult due to the Presidential election to be held in December 2006.
The PR of Chile also endorsed convening the Summit in the first semester of the
year, as the new administration that would be in place in the country would need
the second part of the year to settle down, in addition to other engagements and
regional events during the period. Some PRs also informed the meeting that they
were still awaiting instructions from their capitals on a preferred date for
hosting the Summit.
5.
Noting all the constraints raised on the matter, the Chairman observed
that there were obvious difficulties in proposing a tentative date for the
Summit. He noted that the determination of the latter would enable the
government of Algeria to dispatch Special Envoys to capitals of member countries
to formally deliver invitations to the Summit. He remarked in this regard that
it was already getting late and that the possibility of hosting the Summit in
the second half of the year appeared impossible. He therefore undertook to
convey all the observations made to Algiers for consideration. With respect to
the preparatory activities for the Summit, the Chairman informed the meeting
that a competent consultant had already prepared a good report on Rural
Transformation through Community Development and the Management of Water
Resources to be considered at the forthcoming G-15 Expert Meeting to be held in
Algiers. He remarked that while further information on the event would be made
available in due course, the government of Algeria was considering how
participation in the event would be funded in light of some budgetary
constraints. The foregoing notwithstanding, he observed that the government of
Algeria expected a high level of participation due to the importance of the
subject to all member countries. To ensure that the proposed Expert Meeting
benefited from the outcome of the 4th World Water Forum that took place in
Mexico, he expressed his willingness to cooperate with the PR of Mexico.
Responding, the latter expressed his positive disposition in this
regard.
Item 3 - Follow-up
consultations on the outcome of the 27th Meeting of the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs held on 21 September 2005 in New York:
a)
Consultations on the Draft
Recommendations submitted by Personal Representatives that turned out to be
contentious at the 27th Meeting of the Foreign
Ministers;
6. The
Chairman recalled that a set of Draft Recommendations considered as the areas of
apparent consensus among PRs on the Report of the Panel of External Consultants
on the Examination of the Challenges Facing the Group and Evaluation of its
Projects for South-South Cooperation was submitted to the 27th Meeting of the
Ministers of Foreign Affairs, which was held on 21 September 2005 in New York.
He remarked that as some of these Draft Recommendations turned out to be
contentious at the Ministerial Meeting, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs agreed
to take due note of them and directed PRs to further consult with a view to
forging the needed consensus on the various recommendations of the Panel of
External Consultants. To this end, the Chairman drew attention to Document
G-15/06/PR89/INF.1 prepared and circulated by the TSF, which, inter
alia, clearly identified the three Draft Recommendations that turned out to
be contentious, namely, the Expansion of the
membership of the Group; the Agenda of the G-15; and Summit Procedures relating
to Annual Summits. He therefore invited
suggestions from PRs on these draft Recommendations, taking into account the
main comments made by the Ministers. The Draft Recommendations were then
considered one after the other as follows:
·
Recommendation (a) Expansion of the membership of the
Group:
The principle of
expansion of membership to include some key developing
countries; the Chair is mandated to
explore informally any such possibility.
8.
The Chairman recalled in this regard that the two main positions that the
Foreign Ministers were unable to bridge were, whether priority should be
accorded to expanding the membership of the Group or to consolidating it, as
well as the question of whether to admit only new members who expressed such
interest or to informally approach potential candidates that could add dynamism
and value to the Group. The suggestions made on the
subject in the ensuing interventions were as follows:
·
Not to expand membership,
unless there was a specific request, which would then be examined to determine
if the admission of a prospective member would add value to the
Group.
·
That while consolidation
should be the main focus for now, the door should not be closed to the
possibility of future admission of deserving developing countries that express
strong interest in joining the Group, after a careful examination of such
requests;
·
That focus should be
maintained on the Group's consolidation and revitalization against the
background of its current challenges and difficulties. The attainment of this
goal would make the Group attract more interest from other
countries;
·
To focus attention on
enhancing the efficiency of the Group by exploring the recommendations of the
Panel of External Consultants in this regard;
·
That while endorsing the
principle of expansion, the Group should, for now, avoid any outright admission
drive.
9.
In summarizing the comments made, the Chairman identified the apparent
consensus reached as follows: "While recognizing that priority attention should
be accorded to the consolidation and revitalization of the Group, there was no
objection to the principle of future expansion should there be an expression of
strong interest by a non-member country. In such a case, the specific request
would be considered on its merit." This consensus was agreed
upon.
·
Recommendation (b) Agenda of the
G-15:
To focus the agenda of the
G-15 on development issues while not excluding political issues with development
dimensions.
10. The Chairman
identified the main point of contention among the Ministers as to whether the
Group should focus exclusively on the development agenda or, in addition, take
on political issues that have
development dimensions. He observed that PRs had recommended that political
issues with development dimensions should be entertained bearing in mind the
interrelatedness of both issues and the fact that it would be difficult or
futile to attempt to preclude Heads of State and Government from discussing any
political issue of interest to them. The suggestions made on the subject in the
ensuing interventions were as follows:
·
That while the Group's
primary focus should be on issues of development and South-South Cooperation, it
is the prerogative of Heads of State and Government to consider any political
issue of interest to them, particularly in the course of their
Retreat;
·
The debate was considered a
non-issue as all development issues have inherent political dimensions or
undertones;
·
That the Group should focus
exclusively on the development agenda, such as the broadening of intra-G-15
cooperation, to enable it build the desired level of interest and galvanize
support for South-South Cooperation and economic issues of common interest to
all member countries;
·
That the subject should be
left to the discretion of the Summit host country and the nature of the draft
Joint Communiqué presented by it for consideration, taking into account the
prevailing circumstances.
11. In summarizing
the comments made, the Chairman identified the apparent consensus reached as
follows: "To focus the agenda and
documentation of the G-15 on development issues and South-South Cooperation,
while not excluding the political dimensions of development issues."
This
consensus was agreed upon, with the exception of one member country that entered
a reservation to enable it seek the view of its capital on this new
compromise.
·
Recommendation (c) Summit Procedures - Annual
Summits:
To consider the possibility
of hosting biennial Summits in place of the increasingly troubled practice of
annual Summits endorsed by the Panel of External
Consultants.
12.
The Chairman recalled in
this regard that the main point of contention among the Ministers as well as PRs
was whether the Group should retain the practice of annual Summits that had
worked satisfactorily until the recent difficulties associated with Summit
quorum or on the other hand, to change over to biennial Summits, a position that
is gaining increasing support within the Group. The suggestions made on the
subject in the ensuing interventions were as follows:
·
That biennial Summit was
better as it would allow sufficient time for the implementation of decisions and
preparations for Summits, as well as ensuring a higher level of participation of
Heads of State and Government;
·
That increasing Summitry
fatigue and the associated problem of participation made biennial Summit more
realistic;
·
That while biennial Summit
should be made the rule, it should be made possible to host a Summit within one
year if an offer was made to this effect by a hosting country and a good agenda
was presented;
·
That since it was the advent
of exceptional circumstances that disrupted the regularity of annual Summits, to
abandon this established practice would appear to contradict the current impetus
towards re-invigorating the Group. Besides, it was argued that there was no
guarantee that the introduction of biennial Summit would resolve the problem of
quorum. As a result, the impending Summit and the one after should be held in
2006 and 2007, respectively, while further discussions on the merits of a change
could be deferred to a later date.
13. In
summarizing the comments made, the Chairman noted that in recent years, the
Group had inadvertently evolved towards a de facto biennial Summit. Recalling
the interventions made, he remarked that part of the compromise reached was that
while the Group was energizing, it should not be seen to have gone to sleep. The
Chairman therefore identified the apparent consensus reached as follows:
"Summits should be held biennially, but if a host country offers to host it
earlier, this proposal would be reviewed by Personal Representatives with a view
to making an appropriate recommendation". This consensus was unanimously
endorsed.
b)
Consultations on other Draft Recommendations of
the Panel of External Consultants upon which consensus is yet to be reached by
the Personal Representatives.
14. The
Chairman recalled that there were a number of other Recommendations of the Panel
on which PRs could not attain consensus in the course of their deliberations
prior to the Meeting of the Foreign Ministers in New York. He therefore remarked
that consultations would resume to this end. These Draft Recommendations
of the External Consultants were therefore considered as
follows:
(a) SUMMIT
PROCEDURES:
Summit
Venue
15.
The
Chairman observed that from the trend of previous discussions, the
recommendation to apply alphabetical order in deciding whose turn it would be to
host a Summit did not appear to gain favour. He therefore proposed that the
first step was to reaffirm the extant principle of regional rotation in the
hosting of Summits. Thereafter, the region whose turn it was to host a Summit
would hold consultations with its co-regional members, taking into account other
factors and not necessarily the alphabetical order, in choosing the host country
for the Summit. The suggestions made on the
subject in the ensuing interventions were as follows:
·
The principle of regional
rotation in hosting Summits should be reaffirmed;
·
That the application of the
proposed alphabetical order within a region whose turn it was to host a Summit
would ensure the assignment of responsibilities and establish predictability,
while recognizing the possibility of exceptional circumstances that could
constrain a country from offering to host a Summit;
·
That the proposed
alphabetical order, which would amount to an imposition of an obligation
irrespective of a member country's circumstances, should be dispensed with in
favour of flexibility in the choice of a possible host country from within a
region;
16. The
Chairman's proposal to retain the current practice, as reflected in Paragraph 15
above, was endorsed. With respect to the Summit to be held after the 14th Summit
in Iran, it was made known that member countries from the Latin
American/Caribbean were expected to commence early consultations with a view to
identifying which of them would offer to host the 15th
Summit.
Quorum
17. The
Chairman recalled in this regard that the Panel's recommendation
not to fix a quorum for the Summit found support among some PRs and Foreign
Ministers who based their argument on the need for flexibility. On the other
hand, others objected to it against the background of the recent difficulties
associated with participation and therefore called for the establishment of a
minimum quorum for convening a Summit. The suggestions made on the
subject in the ensuing interventions were as follows:
·
It was important to
establish a quorum for convening a Summit in order to guarantee a minimum level
of attendance. Accordingly, it was suggested that once a Summit had been
scheduled, the participation of at least eight to nine Heads of State and
Government should be confirmed three or six months before the due date, failing
which the proposed Summit should be postponed;
·
That the postponement or
cancellation of a Summit due to lack of quorum creates problems for the host
country and other member countries as well as sending a negative political
message about the Group. It was argued that prior confirmation of participation
would not necessarily translate to actual participation and therefore, the need
for some flexibility was reiterated;
·
That if up to nine Heads of
State and Government confirmed their participation, then a Summit should be
convened, but if the host country experiences some difficulties in this regard,
then the Troika Countries could consider a request for
cancellation;
·
The convening of a Summit
should proceed once all the Troika Heads of State and Government had confirmed
their participation, but the Retreat should be cancelled;
·
Noting the difficulties of
imposing conditionalities and the credibility of hosting a Summit with the
participation of only the Troika Heads of State and Government, it was suggested
that early notification and appropriate consultations could facilitate a good
turn out;
·
To maintain the present
quorum of eight (at least 5 Heads of State and Government plus 3 Deputy/Vice
Heads of State and Government), subject to confirmation a month prior to the
Summit date, failing which PRs would meet to review the situation with a view to
determining whether to recommend if the proposed Summit should proceed or not;
alternatively, the host country should, in such a situation, exercise the
discretion of deciding to go ahead or not.
18. The
consensus reached on the subject was to retain the current quorum (at least 5
Heads of State and Government plus 3 Deputy/Vice Heads of State and Government),
which should be physical presence and not mere confirmations of participation,
with the host country left to decide in good time if the quorum would be met or
not. If, however, it turned out that some Heads of State/Government were
physically present and there was no quorum, and if this question was raised,
then the Heads of State/Government present should decide whether to proceed with
the Summit or not.
Enhancing the global impact
of the Group's pronouncements
19. The
Chairman observed that the only area left for consensus building is on the Panel's
recommendation that the Group's pronouncements should evolve at the Summit in
the form of "Understandings", "Conclusions" or "Communiqués" from informal
discussions among Heads of State and Government rather than a draft document
reconciling different points of view drafted ahead of time in Geneva. He noted
that the resolution of this procedural difference is very important as we embark
on substantive preparations for the next Summit. The suggestions made on the
subject in the ensuing interventions were as follows:
·
In recognition of the need
for flexibility on this procedural matter, it was suggested that the host
country should be free to decide if it would like to present a draft document
for consideration in Geneva, or otherwise, allow such pronouncements to evolve
in the course of the Summit;
·
That a communiqué addressed
to the international community, embodying agreed positions, should emanate from
each Summit.
20. The
compromise reached on this procedural matter was to leave it to the host country
to decide, with a recommendation that the communiqué should emerge from the
discussions held during the Summit itself.
(b)
REVAMPING THE INSTITUTION OF
PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES
21. The
Chairman remarked that the trend of discussions so far was that, the Panel's
recommendation that Personal Representatives should be high-level and
authoritative personalities (Vice Ministers or Permanent Secretaries) from the
capitals, with the Geneva-based Ambassadors serving as their Alternates, was
less favoured. He added that it was considered difficult to operate because of
the high cost of traveling from the capitals and the likely problem of
attendance. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that the calibers of officials in
question were too busy to take on additional assignments. In light of the
foregoing considerations, it was agreed to retain the current
practice.
(c) INSTITUTIONAL
STRUCTURE OF THE G-15; AND RESOURCES AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE
G-15
22. The
Chairman recalled that some member countries were in support of the Panel’s
recommendations to establish a full-fledged Secretariat with wide-ranging
responsibilities as well as the doubling of annual contributions. He noted that
others considered the additional financial obligation involved as not
justifiable, especially in the face of the inability of a significant number of
member countries to pay-up their outstanding contributions. The Chairman
therefore proposed, and it was agreed, that the Group should in the meantime
retain its current structure and funding, while accepting to revisit the matter
when activities gained added momentum in due course.
(d) PROJECTS FOR
SOUTH-SOUTH COOPERATION
Projects emanating from the
12th Summit
23. The
Chairman recalled that, with the exception of the proposed G-15 Africa Fund that
enjoyed general support among PRs and Foreign Ministers, the other proposals
emanating from the 12th Summit, namely, the proposed South Bank, University of
the South and South Television Network, could not get the support of the
majority of member countries. He therefore proposed that a meeting of experts
should be organized in Geneva to review the said project proposals and to make
concrete recommendations on their feasibility. In her intervention, the Acting
PR of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated the proposed South-South
Cooperation projects were the most substantive outcomes of the 12th Summit as
they dealt with development issues and regretted the fact that recommendations
were being contemplated to request Heads of State/Government to reconsider their
decision. While observing that it would take a long time to consider embarking
on a feasibility study, she expressed doubt on the usefulness of such course of
action when those project proposals were already being operationalized
successfully in the Latin American region. She expressed the feeling of her
country that same goal could be attained in the G-15 should the next Summit so
decide. In light of the foregoing, it was considered presumptuous to call for a
feasibility study. Accordingly, it was agreed that the government of the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela should submit a report to the next Summit on
the operationalization and implementation of these projects in the Latin
American region.
Projects under
implementation
24. On the
recommendation by the PRs to review and rationalize ongoing projects, it was
agreed that the TSF should submit a checklist on the projects, identifying their
achievements or otherwise, to facilitate the exercise.
******
25. In light of
the broad interest generated
by the discussions on the ongoing effort to reform the Group, it was agreed that
as part of the preparations for the 13th Summit in Algiers, a PRs meeting should
be convened for proper brainstorming on how to focus the agenda of the G-15,
strengthen its value, enhance its credibility and recognition as well as elevate
its image in our individual countries and regions. It was further agreed that
the exercise should take the form of an open-ended informal discussions to allow
for a free flow of ideas.
Item 4 – Briefing on the
recruitment process to fill the vacant positions in the
TSF
26. The Chairman
informed the meeting that the Recruitment Panel, composed by the Troika Board of
Supervisors and approved by the Personal Representatives, had successfully
undertaken the task of selecting the best candidates for the vacant positions of
an Economic Affairs Officer and a Secretary in the TSF. He reported that, taking
into account the requirements for the posts, as advertised, the academic
qualifications and working experiences of the candidates as well as the
evaluation of their performance in the written and oral interviews, the
Selection Panel chose Mr. Pradip Bhatnagar from India to fill the vacant
position of the Economic Affairs Officer in the TSF, while Ms. Wendy
Hinds-Anagbogu from Jamaica was chosen to fill the Secretarial post. Both
candidates were expected to assume duties as soon as the relevant administrative
procedures were concluded. The meeting endorsed the decisions
taken.
Item 5 - Any Other Business
27. The Chairman drew the attention of the meeting to the outstanding financial contributions, which he considered very high, in spite of the payments made by a few member countries since the last Meeting of the Foreign Ministers in September 2005. He therefore enjoined member countries, particularly those with the largest arrears of contribution, to take early steps to fulfil their financial obligations to the Group. In this regard, Brazil's announcement that its contributions to the approved Budgets for 2004 and 2005 were in the process of being settled was warmly welcomed.
28. The Head of the Technical Support Facility informed the meeting that, within the context of the G-15 Human Resource Training Programme launched by the Foreign Ministers in Mexico City in 2001, the Government of Egypt, as in the past, has decided to offer additional training courses on Agriculture. He stated that, for the 2006/2007 session, ten courses would be organized by the Egyptian International Center for Agriculture and that five candidates from all G-15 member countries would benefit from this offer. He informed the meeting that the Admission Forms and other relevant documents had already been mailed to the missions of member countries and urged the latter to facilitate the early nomination of their candidates. In the spirit of further elevating intra-G-15 cooperation, he urged other member countries to consider contributing to the strengthening of the G-15 Human Resource Training Programme by making offers in various fields of human development.
29. Before adjourning the meeting, the Chairman thanked the PRs for their attendance and constructive contributions to the success of the meeting.
************