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