SYG SELECTION: SECURITY COUNCIL INFORMALS, MAY 25,

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 001086 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/29/2011 TAGS: PREL UNSC UN SUBJECT: SYG SELECTION: SECURITY COUNCIL INFORMALS, MAY 25, 2006 REF: A. STATE 84674 ¶B. USUN 1065 Classified By: Ambassador John Bolton, Permanent Representative, for re asons 1.4 b,d. ¶1. (C) Summary. Security Council PRs met May 25 in "informal informals" to discuss next steps in the process of selecting the Secretary-General. Basic agreement was reached that the Council would seek to announce in June its intention to "begin the process" in July, though the form of that announcement and the definition of what the Council intends to do in July were left for future discussions. There was general agreement that a public statement would encourage additional candidates to come forward and would allow candidates a chance to present their positions to Council members and the broader membership. Some Council PRs also focused on the growing divide among the general membership and the calls for a greater General Assembly role in the selection process, including the possibility of a resolution calling on the Council to provide more than one recommendation. Ambassador Sanders stressed that the U.S. supported a flexible, open process, but that it must not be formalized in such a way as to limit the flexibility of the Council to carry out its Charter responsibilities and recommend the best candidate for the job to the GA. The French will convene another informal meeting May 31 to continue the discussion. End Summary. ¶2. (C) Security Council Ambassadors met Thursday May 25 for "informal informals" convened by French PR de La Sabliere to discuss next steps in the selection process of the Secretary-General (SYG). As agreed among the P5 in advance, SIPDIS de La Sabliere circulated a two-page paper that highlighted elements of the process of previous elections and asked a series of questions intended to guide members to agreement on next steps. ¶3. (C) De La Sabliere opened by noting that the Security Council had earlier agreed that the selection process should be completed by late September or October to allow the new SYG adequate transition time. In order to make that deadline, it is important to start the "formal election process" over the summer. Respecting the "mood of the house" -------------- ¶4. (C) Much of the discussion focused on the issue of transparency and the prevailing polarized atmosphere in the ;General Assembly, including how to respond to the Indian/NAM draft resolution that would call on the Security Council to recommend more than one candidate (ref b). ¶5. (C) Denmark's Ellen Loj (incoming Security Council President for June) emphasized the importance of transparency and openness in the Security Council's decision-making process so that the SYG is not "damaged" before he or she takes office. "The Charter is the Charter," she said, "and we need to respect it." But, referring to the polarized atmosphere among the broader membership, she added, "We need to take into account the mood of the house." Loj warned that conducting the process "as we did it last time" might not be enough to meet the demands of the broader membership. ¶6. (C) UK's Emyr Jones Parry noted that the idea floated by certain NAM countries to demand more than one candidate from the Security Council was a "recipe for disunity." The UK believed that the Security Council should recommend only one candidate, but that it should encourage greater General Assembly (GA) participation in the process. Jones Parry suggested that the Security Council should encourage candidates to lay out their positions and agenda to the broader membership. The Security Council should be willing to listen to other views. It would be "reprehensible," Jones Parry said, if it at the end of the process it appears that the P5 decided on a candidate and imposed that choice on the other members of the Council and the broader membership. Instead, the Council should spell out a timetable and ensure there are "no surprises." ¶7. (C) Jones Parry proposed that the Security Council consider encouraging a debate in the GA on the overall priorities of the organization and the kind of qualities that member states wish to see in the next SYG. It would be "rather good as a test of opinion," he said. If the Council was seen to take account of that debate, "we might lance the boil of the proposed NAM resolution." If the proposed resolution were put to a vote, he added, it would "pass handsomely" and "we would have a real inter-organ problem." ¶8. (C) De La Sabliere interjected that France strongly opposed the idea of multiple candidates to be presented to the GA. "What we need is a SYG," he said, "that is elected by the whole of the international community, for the good of the UN and the international community." He noted that he had spoken to a number of NAM countries to emphasize that, while France understands the desire for greater participation in the process, the prospect of a debate over two candidates in the GA would be a "disaster" for the UN. ¶9. (C) Tanzania's Augustine Mahiga noted that the NAM Ministerial in Kuala Lumpur was going to focus on this issue and make recommendations on how to increase the GA's role in the selection process. Mahiga, clearly putting his Security Council role ahead of that of the NAM, said the Council would need to be ready to "know how to respond." Peru's Oswaldo de Rivero cautioned that paying too much attention to the "mood of the house" risked going against the Charter, which gave primary responsibility to the Security Council. ¶10. (C) Ambassador Sanders noted that the U.S. supported a process that was transparent but that preserved the Council's flexibility to meet its Charter obligations and recommend the best candidate for the position. In this regard, it was very important that we not create formal processes for the GA that limits the Council's flexibility. There is already an active ongoing dialogue regarding the selection process. The U.S. is talking to others about the process and "we hope you are too." Additionally, each Council President has briefed the GA President over the past few months. Council members should not be defensive about what the Charter says about the selection process, and should remind other members that a resolution on the Council's process, while clearly not binding, would only add to the bad atmosphere that pervades the institution. We should discourage such a resolution, in part by being as open and transparent as possible, but not limit our freedom to react to what has historically been an unpredictable process. ¶11. (C) Argentina suggested that the right way to address the unhappiness in the GA would be to "limit the veto power" of the P5 in the selection process. This would make the appointment about "more than just the P5." ¶12. (C) Japan's Kenzo Oshima said that the issue of the number of candidates was "very delicate" and would not be solved at this early stage. He suggested that the issue be "kept under review." When to begin? -------------- ¶13. (C) The rest of the discussion focused on the timing of the Council's "formal consideration" of candidates, exactly what that process would entail, and how the Council would notify the broader membership. ¶14. (C) De La Sabliere pushed that the Council needed to "ring the bell" on the process in order to give candidates a chance to make their candidacies known to the broader membership before the Council got down to the business of considering individual names and conducting straw polls. In the past, the Council President has made a statement to the press, but perhaps this time a letter to the President of the General Assembly would display more transparency and facilitate the process. De La Sabliere noted, and there was consensus around the table, that in order to make the September/October deadline, the Council now "has to move ahead." ¶15. (C) Russia's Vitaly Churkin asked a series of practical questions about what Council members mean when they say, "begin the process." Churkin proposed sticking to precedent in notifying the broader membership: "We should do what was done before." The purpose of any notification should be to indicate to the broader membership that the President of the Council is ready to receive official nominations. Anything more could conceivably put the Council in a position where the GA declares only certain candidates as "screened" and appropriate for Council consideration. ¶16. (C) Denmark's Loj said that the Council should signal its intent to "intensify" the process and encourage regional groups to meet with candidates. She argued that to fail to send a letter would reinforce the sense that the Council was not being transparent. "If we talk to the President of the General Assembly privately, and then he circulates the information, it will not be the Council that gets credit for being transparent." Tanzania's Mahiga agreed. Argentina suggested that the Council's communication should include a general timetable. ¶17. (C) UK Political Coordinator Paul Johnston said that by signaling a formal start to process, the Council was indicating its readiness to draw up a candidate list and begin the consideration of candidates. A short letter could encourage candidates to come forward and to set out their views. China suggested that the formal start of the process would be defined by the receipt of official nominations by the Council and the creation of an official Council list. Next steps -------------- ¶18. (C) De La Sabliere closed by agreeing to host another "informal informal" in a week's time (now scheduled for May 31),in advance of the Danish Presidency's first formal Council session. In advance of that, France and Denmark would begin work on the elements of a draft letter to the President of the General Assembly. In addition, the Council should consider additional talking points on the process agreed on for use in the regular monthly meeting between the President of the General Assembly and the President of the Security Council. BOLTON