UN REFORM: SECURITY COUNCIL MANDATE REVIEW

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 001250 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/20/2011 TAGS: PREL KPKO KUNR UNSC SUBJECT: UN REFORM: SECURITY COUNCIL MANDATE REVIEW REF: A. STATE 84675 ¶B. USUN 1067 ¶C. USUN 681 Classified By: Ambassador John R. Bolton, Permanent Representative, for reasons 1.4 b,d. ¶1. (U) Summary. The Security Council has begun the process of reviewing its mandates as called for by heads of state at last year's World Summit. The review process will proceed in two phases, the first of which will identify areas of consensus among Council members for early action. As part of this effort, Council members have requested the Secretariat to provide a technical briefing on a limited number of mandates that appear to be outdated, overlap with other UN efforts, or have not been examined by the Council in many years. Following this briefing, Council members will need to determine which mandates to review in the first phase, and invite comments from the broader membership on their continued utility and practical impact. End Summary. Security Council begins review process -------------- ¶2. (U) As called for by heads of state at last year's World Summit (A/RES/60/1),the Security Council has begun a process of mandate review, parallel to the ongoing efforts in the General Assembly and ECOSOC. The Council has established an ad hoc working group to manage the process, which the U.S. and Slovakia have agreed to co-chair. The Committee's first meetings have generated broad agreement on the importance of a review process that strengthens the ability of the Council to act, while recognizing the inherent political sensitivity of Council mandates. ¶3. (U) Compared to other bodies conducting a similar review process, the Security Council has a smaller set of mandates. Nonetheless, even the periodic reviews in the Security Council are narrowly focused on one particular mandate, are often only pro forma, and may not provide members an opportunity to examine the Council's overall political objectives and how effectively the Council's mandates are able to achieve them. ¶4. (U) Consistent with the Secretary-General's recommendations in his report "Mandating and Delivering" (A/60/733) and the mandate review process in the General Assembly, the Security Council has agreed to look at mandates in two phases. The first phase, to occur over the remainder of June, will focus on individual mandates where there is Council consensus that an early review would be beneficial. The second phase, which would take a comprehensive look at all Council mandates on a regional or functional basis, would occur over a longer period of time. Criteria for early review -------------- ¶5. (U) Council members suggested that the process of identifying mandates for review in the first phase should be based on agreed criteria and should not simply reflect the "arbitrary choices" of individual Council members. There was broad understanding that the following five criteria would be useful in identifying mandates for review in the first phase: -- Specific recommendations in the Secretary-General's Report for mandates to review; -- Mandates that have not been examined by the Security Council in the last five years; -- Mandates that appear to contain duplicative or unnecessary reporting requirements; -- Positions that have remained vacant or where the reason for appointment has changed; -- Areas where there are two or more senior UN representatives in a particular geographic region with potentially overlapping or duplicative mandates. ¶6. (U) A mandate that falls within any one (or more) of these categories is not automatically considered for review in the first phase. Council members agreed only that these five criteria should guide discussions; it would be up to Council members to agree on which mandates to review. A paper listing the five criteria, with a few illustrative examples in each of the categories, was circulated to Council members, and has been broadly shared with the general membership and the Secretariat. Identifying mandates for early review -------------- ¶7. (U) On June 13 and 14, Council experts met to review the various mandates in their respective regions and propose mandates for review in the first phase. Due to continued concerns about the political sensitivity of the mandates, particularly from the Russian and Chinese delegations, the regional groups were unable to agree on mandates to consider in the first phase. Council members did agree, however, that it would be appropriate for the Committee to request a briefing by the Secretariat on a small number of mandates in which Council members expressed interest. Council members suggested that a briefing by the Secretariat on the current operations of these mandates could help further their consideration of mandates for review in the first phase. ¶8. (U) The mandates, for which a technical briefing by the Secretariat was requested, are: SIPDIS -- SRSG for West Africa -- SRSG for the Great Lakes Region -- UNOGBIS -- Special Adviser to the SYG on Africa (based in Geneva) -- Special Envoy for Ethiopia/Eritrea -- UNMOGIP -- UNTSO -- UNMOVIC -- Greece-FYROM Personal Envoy ¶9. (U) All Council members emphasized that the continued discussion of these mandates did not prejudge their eventual inclusion in the first phase review. In addition, members noted that any agreement to review a mandate does not prejudice the outcome of that review. The Council, as a result of its review, may choose to expand, discontinue, or otherwise amend an existing mandate. Or, the Council may choose to leave the mandate as it is. ¶10. (SBU) Council members noted the political sensitivity of each of the identified mandates, in particular UNTSO and UNMOGIP, which have not been taken up by the Council for a number of years. Japan, the UK and USUN argued that there should be no areas declared "off limits" to the Council, and that a briefing by the Secretariat should not be seen as an indication of the Council's intent to take action on any of these mandates. ¶11. (U) USUN expects the Secretariat to brief the Council on the mandates identified above on June 26. After that briefing, the Council will consider next steps to advance the process. Any further discussion of these (or any other) mandates will require an opportunity for the broader UN membership, particularly the interested parties, to comment. Comment -------------- ¶12. (C) The relative progress of the Security Council's mandate review process stands in sharp contrast to the gridlock that has bogged down the General Assembly's effort. This reflects the smaller size and efficiency of the Council. USUN will continue to reach out to the broader membership in New York to counter rumors that the Council's mandate review process is "targeting" particular mandates. We will also encourage the Council to move quickly to invite comment from the broader membership on any specific mandates identified for further discussion. However, it is vital that no mandates be seen as "off limits" for a discussion by member states. The argument that some mandates should not be reviewed is limiting the effectiveness of the review as a tool to improve the overall functioning of the UN. ¶13. (C) USUN does not believe that it is likely for the Council to consider all of these mandates in the limited time available in the first phase. To this point, we have encouraged that the list of mandates "under discussion" include at least one mandate from each region, so as to avoid the impression that the Council is targeting mandates in one particular region. (The list does not, however, include a mandate from the Americas, given the very limited scope of Council activity in that region.) In addition, USUN has encouraged the Council to discuss some of the older mandates, including UNMOGIP and UNTSO. The G-77 and NAM have insisted in the General Assembly that the only/only mandates subject to review are those older than five years and not subsequently renewed. The USG and other western States do not agree with, and are resisting, this interpretation of the Outcome Document. End Comment. BOLTON