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mandates that appear to be outdated, overlap with other UN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