UNESCO. General Conference; 30th; Records ... - unesdoc - Unesco

hemos hecho a lo largo de esta década. Por lo tanto, me sumo a los oradores anteriores en el sentido de que se
mantenga un mandato de seis años, prorrogable. Muchas gracias.
(35.1) M. MBENGA OBA ABEME (Guinée équatoriale) (traduit de l'espagnol) :
Merci beaucoup, Madame la Présidente. Dans notre esprit, les fonctions de Directeur général sont très
complexes et exigent donc, pour être menées à bien, un mandat d'une durée appropriée. Notre délégation souscrit
par conséquent à tous les propos de nos collègues du Venezuela, de l'Indonésie et de l'Inde, notamment, à savoir
que la durée du mandat du Directeur général doit rester inchangée.
(35.2) Les programmes sont très complexes ; il y a des programmes à court, à moyen et à long terme. C'est
pourquoi une réduction de la durée du mandat impliquerait que certains pays, en particulier les plus riches,
pourraient bénéficier des programmes de l'UNESCO tandis que les pays les moins avancés ne pourraient en tirer
profit comme ils ont pu le faire tout au long de la décennie écoulée. Aussi, je m'associe aux orateurs précédents et
souhaite que l'on conserve un mandat de six ans, éventuellement prorogeable. Merci beaucoup.
36. The PRESIDENT:
I thank the distinguished delegate of Equatorial Guinea, and now give the floor to the distinguished
delegate of Denmark.
37.1 Mr KROGH (Denmark):
Thank you once more Madam President for giving me the floor. We have given a lot of thought to these
proposals from New Zealand and Canada and, on the basis of our analysis, we expected to be the first country to
take the floor after New Zealand and Canada to support the idea of a change. Moreover, Denmark has a long
record of supporting minorities. So we take the floor with a happy heart. The reason why we support the idea of
four plus four, and not six plus two as we do not see any meaning in adding two years to a six-year term, is first
of all because, in our opinion, eight years would be a sufficient period for any Director-General. This is a period
which is well known to democratic societies in the case of presidents or prime ministers. It would also, as has
already been mentioned, bring UNESCO into line with most of the other United Nations specialized agencies.
We have listened with great care to all the arguments put forward in favour of postponing a decision, arguments
which in our opinion certainly deserve a lot of attention. I should say, however, that the argument that we should
not take a decision in a hurry can be used at any time and always. The original author of this proposal, New
Zealand, submitted it in time according to all the rules and regulations, so there is no question of hurry. There has
also been ample time for the Executive Board, if they so wanted, to look into the matter.
37.2 Secondly, it is said that the candidates for the post as Director-General have probably been under the
impression that they were running for a term of six years which could be even prolonged by another six years.
Now, in our assessment all the candidates for the post, and not the least the one who has been recommended by
the Executive Board to the General Conference, all of them naturally followed what was happening in UNESCO
very closely so that all of them undoubtedly knew about the proposals by New Zealand and Canada. I do not
think it would reflect well on the abilities of the candidates to think they were not aware that another term of
office might be adopted by the General Conference.
37.3 A third point has been raised concerning the six-year period for strategic planning. That, of course, is
correct. We have worked over the years with six-year so-called medium-term strategies or plans. I would remind
you, however, that we are now moving into the last two years of such a six-year period. At the next General
Conference we will have to decide whether this system should be continued. In itself, therefore, this argument
about the six-year strategic planning terms is not very strong in our opinion. As a matter of fact, if - though of
course it is very obvious from what has been said here today that this will not happen - if there was a two-thirds
majority for changing the Constitution and instituting a term of four plus four years for the Director-General,
such a change would fit very well with the fact that in two years' time a decision will be taken on the future
approach to strategic planning in UNESCO.
37.4 Madam President, the reason why Denmark is in favour of four years plus four is simply that, in our
view, in a democratic culture like UNESCO's it is very important for notions like accountability and
responsibility to be exercised at reasonably frequent intervals. Six years is a very long time between the first
election and a possible re-election. And that is precisely the main reason why we would recommend that the
Canadian amendment be approved. Thank you very much.
38. The PRESIDENT:
I thank the distinguished representative of Denmark. The representative of the United Republic of
Tanzania now has the floor.
570