GA REVITALIZATION DEBATE TO CONTINUE; NO AGREEMENT

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 001318 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/04/2011 TAGS: PREL UNSC UN SUBJECT: GA REVITALIZATION DEBATE TO CONTINUE; NO AGREEMENT ON DRAFT REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Classified By: Ambassador Mark Wallace for reasons 1.4 b,d. ¶1. (U) Summary. The working group on GA revitalization continues to debate the co-Chairs' proposed report and recommendations, including language related to the selection process of the Secretary-General. The most recent group meeting, on June 29, revealed divergent positions on a number of issues. The co-Chairs have indicated that they will present a revised draft report and recommendations by July 7. End Summary. ¶2. (C) On Thursday, June 29, the Working Group on General Assembly (GA) Revitalization met for the ninth time, to consider a draft report and recommendations from the co-Chairs (Latvian PR Silkalna and Yemeni PR Alsaidi). The recommendations are intended to form the basis of a future GA resolution. The working group's proceedings, which have been dominated by calls for greater GA involvement in the selection of the Secretary-General and complaints about Security Council "encroachment" on the authorities of the GA, have produced little of added value. The draft recommendations are mostly a repeat of previous resolution language calling for rationalization of the work of the GA and its Main Committees, but with little specificity. (USUN has emailed the draft report to IO/UNP; it is also available on the GA President's webpage.) There are, however, at least three objectionable recommendations and a number of places where we have recommended edits to strengthen language. Is this really worth it? -------------- ¶3. (U) On June 29, a number of countries, including Mexico and Liechtenstein (usually strong supporters of the General Assembly's work) openly called into question the need for a new resolution that added so little to the overall effort. USUN Ambassador Mark Wallace reiterated U.S. support for the goal of revitalizing the GA, but emphasized that the working group's efforts need to reinforce the role of the Assembly as envisioned in the Charter. Ambassador Wallace noted specific U.S. concerns to recommendations that would increase staffing in the office of the President of the General Assembly and that would provide an inappropriate (and unhelpful) role for the GA in the selection process for the next Secretary-General. SIPDIS ¶4. (U) USUN has been working with likeminded delegations (particularly the EU, Japan and the other P-5) to encourage support for our core positions. Japan, the EU, Russia, and Mexico supported the U.S. call to oppose increased staffing in the office of the President of the General Assembly. We also objected to a G-77/NAM suggestion that would require the Secretariat to provide an annual report on the "status of SIPDIS implementation" of GA resolutions. Noting that the majority of GA resolutions do not even purport to be legally binding, Ambassador Wallace said that it would be inappropriate (and a waste of resources) for the Secretariat to attempt to judge Member States' implementation of these resolutions. The Secretariat could be called upon to report on its SIPDIS implementation of resolutions, perhaps in conjunction with the ongoing mandate review exercise. Japan, the EU, and Mexico supported this position. Consensus is not near -------------- ¶5. (U) Despite the co-Chairs' desire to move quickly to consensus agreement on the report and recommendations, it is clear that the working group is nowhere near consensus. Switzerland, India, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, and Cuba expressed their support for the current proposal (which we oppose) to add two new positions in the office of the President of the General Assembly. Algeria (speaking for the NAM) not only supported the existing recommendation, but also suggested that the group recommend an even greater increase - four new positions. South Africa agreed. The Indian representative made a series of specific textual suggestions, most of which would walk back positive changes that we had already worked privately with the co-Chairs to incorporate into the draft. The Indians, in perhaps the most dispiriting suggestion of the afternoon, proposed that the working group be re-established in the next GA session. Given the limited utility of the current incarnation of the group, we will work with others - and hope sanity prevails - to push off the next session of this working group for at least a couple of years. Protecting Security Council equities on SYG Selection -------------- -------------- ¶6. (C) Delegations on June 29 paid particular attention to the recommendations related to the selection of the next Secretary-General. Japan, the EU, Russia, and China all SIPDIS explicitly supported the U.S. request to eliminate proposed Canadian language that would ask the President of the General Assembly to convene informal meetings of the GA to hear candidates' views. We remain extremely concerned that the proposal could potentially lead to "hearings" for candidates in the GA that would limit the field of candidates, contribute to a "beauty pageant" for candidates among the general membership, and limit the Security Council's ability to select the best candidate for the position. While supporting a general call for candidates to make their positions known to member states, we will continue to oppose recommendations that could create a "requirement" for potential candidates to present themselves to the GA. ¶7. (U) The Canadian delegation, expressing a willingness to demonstrate "maximum flexibility", proposed alternative language to replace the current paragraphs related to candidates and the General Assembly (22 and 22bis). The new Canadian language is: "Encourages candidates for the position of Secretary-General to present their views to Member States, and requests the President of the General Assembly to facilitate such consultations, including through the convening of informal meetings as required." (Comment: On July 5, Yemeni Ambassador Alsaidi told us that the co-Chairs would include the new Canadian proposal in their next draft. End Comment) ¶8. (U) New Zealand, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland, speaking after Canada, expressed support for the new language. Algeria, speaking on behalf of the NAM, South Africa, India, Brazil, Colombia, Venezuela, and Cuba expressed support for the original Canadian language and noted that they would consider the new proposal. (Comment: It is possible that the NAM - who had not completed their internal coordination process prior to June 29 - could come back with a more radical proposal for GA involvement in the selection process. We understand, however, that the idea of asking the Council to recommend more than one name - as earlier proposed by the Indian PR (USUN 1065) - has not garnered wide support among the NAM.) Up Next: Another Negotiation? -------------- ¶9. (U) The co-Chairs were clearly disappointed that they could not achieve consensus on their text and instead face a possibly long and difficult negotiation. USUN has provided the co-Chairs and other delegations with a list of specific recommended edits. We will also encourage the co-Chairs to move towards direct negotiations among interested delegations, rather than to continue a facilitation effort. The co-Chairs have informed us that they intend to circulate a revised text to delegations by July 6 or 7. BOLTON