- responding to the specific needs of developing countries for international assistance and improvin g geographical representation'.
- 245. The delegation of Tunisia remarked that China ' s proposal was fully compatible with India ' s proposal, so both proposals were valid. The Assembly could therefore consider China's proposal, which was more expressive.
- 246. The delegation of Palestine supported both amendments as they were both compatible and drafted in the same spirit. The delegation suggested a minor amendment, which would read, ' keeping in mind the principle of an equitable geographical distribution and giving priority to developing countries ' .
- 247. The Chairperson noted that Palestine suggested merging the two amendments, while India agreed to merge the two. The Chairperson asked the delegations to thus focus on merging the two amendments given that everyone appeared to agree that they were compatible.
- 248. The delegation of Algeria was not against the principle of the two amendments, and in fact welcomed the spirit, but one could not require equity on the one hand and give priority on the other. Thus, for the sake of coherence, the delegation suggested keeping the amendment of India, which maintained the principle of geographical equity, while adding the latter part of China's proposal, ' responding to the specific needs of developing countries ' , otherwise the two proposals would appear contradictory.
- 249. The delegation of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines supported the proposal to merge both proposals from India and China, as China 's amendment mentioned ' developing countries ', which was mentioned during the debate, and 'with a view to responding to the specific needs of developing countries ' .
- 250. The delegation of Ecuador supported Palestine 's suggestion to merge the two paragraphs. However, mindful of Algeria's remarks that was really an issue of wording and not content, it suggested deleting ' keeping in mind the principle of equitable and geographical distribution ' as it was already included in China's proposal. I n fact, China's proposal went further, and the delegation suggested ' improving the principle ' or ' strengthening the principle of equitable geographical distribution '. It was noted that all the delegations agreed with the strongest expression of equitable geographical distribution with both proposals on the right track.
- 251. The Secretary wished to clarify that the principle of equitable geographical distribution meant that priority would be given to under-represented States based on candidates of the same capacity, capability and competence. However, under-represented States did not necessarily mean developing countries, which was the principle of equitable geographical distribution. The Secretary concurred with Algeria's interpretation that the proposals were slightly contradictory. One proposal mentioned equitable recruitment with the principle of geographic distribution, and the other proposal mentioned preferential or priority treatment of candidates, in which the needs of developing countries did not pose that problem. Thus, the principle of equitable geographical distribution implied that preference should be given to candidates from under-represented States in the Organization at the same level of competence.
- 252. The delegation of Viet Nam was a co- sponsor of China' s proposal and wished to make clear, as explained by the Secretary, that the principle of geographical representation did not include the priority given to developing countries, yet it wished to take into account the specific needs of developing countries. For this reason, the proposal clearly mentioned the priority given to recognized experts in developing countries.
- 253. The delegation of Venezuela joined others in lending its support to both proposals, and trusted the Assembly to agree to the appropriate wording.
- 254. The delegation of Benin supported the proposal by China and Viet Nam. It believed that the two proposals were not contradictory, and it understood from the Secretary's explanation that the principle of geographical distribution did not apply for posts under extrabudgetary funding. Thus, the two proposals could be merged and adopted with acceptable wording.