INDIA STILL PONDERING UN REFORMS, DEMOCRACY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 NEW DELHI 003333 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/02/2015 TAGS: PREL KDEM IN KG UNSC SUBJECT: INDIA STILL PONDERING UN REFORMS, DEMOCRACY PROMOTION REF: A. NEW DELHI 3252 ¶B. 04 NEW DELHI 7675 Classified By: Charge Robert Blake, for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) ¶1. (C) Summary: In a May 3 meeting with PolCouns and Poloff, MEA Joint Secretary (UN Political) Hamid Ali Rao welcomed the upcoming visit of the Secretary's Adviser on UN Reform Shirin Tahir-Kheli and requested more details on Washington's position on UN reform proposals. He acknowledged that India faced a political dilemma on whether to press for a veto or not, and expressed interest in further discussions of US-India cooperation on democracy promotion, which we expect to be on the May 17-18 Global Issues Forum agenda. End Summary. ¶2. (C) Rao observed that after the recent visit of Kofi Annan to India, action on UNSC reform option has moved back to New York. Although the Secretary General had been supportive of India's "legitimate" desire for inclusion in the Security Council, Rao complained that the singular press focus on Annan's dismissal of an expanded veto (Ref A) "unfairly" tainted his otherwise positive comments. The GOI is looking forward to upcoming interaction with Ambassador Shirin Tahir-Kheli in Washington and New Delhi, and is appreciative of early USG engagement with India on UN reform. Rao noted that India has not yet initiated formal discussions with other P-5 countries on the other UN reform issues, as it is still working out its own positions on them. ¶3. (C) Acknowledging that public opinion would make it politically difficult for the GOI to accept a permanent seat without a veto, Rao did not further specify an Indian position, but referred us to the April 28 statement made by the Indian UN Mission during informal consultations in the GA on the Secretary-General's report. (Note: This statement repeated India's support for action before September, and played for support from its NAM friends, accusing "those making attempts to postpone UNSC expansion" of working against the interests of developing countries, "in particular, Africa." End Note) ¶4. (C) Although the statement from the Indian Mission did not address the veto issue, Rao stated that the GOI position has been evolving since Foreign Secretary Saran's December speech on the subject (Ref B),which was silent on the veto. Press reports speculate that India will have to choose whether to join the other G-4 countries in a June framework resolution in the UNGA supporting the High Level Panel's option A (new permanent members without veto),or break ranks and continue to insist on a seat with veto. Rao was frank about the political difficulties that the Parliamentary insistence on a veto has created. ¶5. (C) Rao agreed with PolCouns's point that UN reform efforts had to include broader questions beyond the Security Council, but commented that the UNSYG's suggestions on areas other than the UNSC are vague. He requested further detail of Washington's views on these proposals, and agreed to try to develop an analogous summary of GOI positions, acknowledging that the Indian views on many issues, including peacekeeping operations, ECOSOC, and UNCHR reform are not finalized. ¶6. (C) Highlighting the Secretary's April 28 remarks at the Community of Democracies Ministerial in Santiago, PolCouns underlined the importance of democracy promotion by networks of democratic nations, independent of UN reform proposals, and flagged democracy promotion as an area of interest for the May 17-18 Global Issues Forum. Rao agreed that the US-India coordination on Nepal and support for the Afghan Parliament could serve as a model for future cooperation. PolCouns cited recent coordination between our Ambassadors in Kyrgyzstan as an example of the expanding horizons for US-India democracy promotion efforts, and encouraged further GOI thinking in this area. Rao agreed that the Administration's focus on democracy as a guiding principle for US foreign policy had been inadequately understood by the New Delhi strategic community. BLAKE