Explanation of Position following the Adoption of the UNGA72 Second Committee Resolution on Middle-Income Countries

Marji Christian
International Relations Officer
U.S. Mission to the United Nations
New York City
November 28, 2017


Thank you, Chair.

With regard to this resolution’s references to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Addis Ababa Action Agenda, and the Paris Agreement, we addressed our concerns in the general statement delivered on November 17. We note that while the United States continues to develop its policies on climate change, the language on climate change included in this resolution is without prejudice to our future positions.

Regarding PP11, the United States wishes to clarify that Members States, in implementing such policies, must do so in a way that honors relevant international rules and obligations.

In addition, the United States disassociates from language in PP19 that suggests that the international economic environment does not already include coherent and mutually supporting trade, monetary, and financial systems or suggests global economic governance should be strengthened and enhanced. Furthermore, the United States notes that PP19 does not make a call for specific changes to market access, but notes that members of the WTO would benefit individually and collectively from the full implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement.

In respect to PPs 16 and 17, the United States underlines the central message of Financing for Development – that each country has primary responsibility for its own economic and social development and that the role of national policies and development strategies in identifying and addressing the particularities and development needs of middle-income countries, including addressing challenges of inequality, cannot be overemphasized.

The United States disassociates from PP11, OP7, and OP8 to the extent that such language could promote technology transfer that is not voluntary and on mutually agreed terms. For the United States, any such language will have no standing in future negotiations. The United States continues to oppose language that we believe undermines intellectual property rights.

The United States disassociates with the sentence in OP16 that notes with concern that access to concessional finance is reduced as countries’ income grow. The United States believes that countries’ access to concessional finance should decrease as their incomes increase and that development cooperation providers should target their scarce concessional financing to the poorest and least creditworthy countries. Rather than try to preserve access to concessional finance, the providers’ implementation of their graduation policies should aim to smooth the transition away from concessional assistance to other sources of finance.

Thank you.