UNSC EXPANSION: GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEBATES PRODUCES

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 001488

SIPDIS

SIPDIS
NOFORN

BERN ALSO FOR LIECHTENSTEIN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/01/2011
TAGS: PREL KUNR UNSC UN
SUBJECT: UNSC EXPANSION: GENERAL ASSEMBLY DEBATES PRODUCES
MORE OF THE SAME, BUT WITH LESS FEELING THAN BEFORE

REF: A. STATE 118619

B. 2005 USUN 2677

C. 2005 USUN 2635

Classified By: Ambassador John R. Bolton, Permanent Representative, for
reasons 1.4 b,d.


1. (U) Summary and Comment. During more than ten hours of
speeches over July 20 and 21, eighty-six delegations spoke in
the General Assembly on Security Council expansion and
working methods reform. Proponents of expansion cited the
large number of speakers as evidence of continued support for
the reform effort, although the numbers may simply reflect
the lack of consensus on the issue within the major groups.
Ambassador Bolton delivered the U.S. statement (ref a),
emphasizing our support for a modest expansion of the Council
that would serve to increase the body's effectiveness. The
Ambassador spoke positively of the progress made by the
Security Council's Working Group on Documentation and Other
Procedural Questions and confirmed U.S. support for Japan's
candidacy for permanent membership. Most of the other
delegations reiterated well-worn points from previous
debates, including that of last November (ref b). While the
sharp differences in positions have not changed, the overall
tone was more restrained, reflecting the sense that some of
the momentum behind the expansion effort in New York has
dissipated.


2. (C) The most aggressive statements used the crisis in the
Middle East (and by implication the recent U.S. veto) as the
backdrop for their call for reform, claiming that only reform
and expansion would cure the Council of its "inability to act
effectively." Indian PR Sen gave the most confrontational
statement of the two-day debate, focusing his criticism on
the P-5 and claiming that the Council has been unable to
fulfill its Charter role while it continues to encroach on
the work and authority of the GA. Expansion's supporters,
particularly the G-4 and some in the AU, sought the session
as a means to keep the issue "alive" and expressed a
willingness to compromise. Uniting for Consensus countries
called for "the negotiations we never had" to work out a
consensus text. Dutch PR Majoor, who co-chairs the current
version of the GA's working group on Security Council reform,
has become an active proponent of an "interim" solution.
While many delegations rhetorically support a "compromise,"
there is no underlying agreement on what it would look like.


3. (C) The "S-5" resolution on working methods reform was
also widely addressed by delegations. The effort to put the
S-5 resolution to a vote received a lukewarm reception,
reflecting concern among many that action on working methods
would undermine support for expansion. The sponsors,
including the Swiss, therefore appeared to back off from
earlier statements that they would seek a vote on the
resolution "this summer," though they kept open the
possibility. However, if the resolution were to come to a
vote, it still would pass overwhelmingly, as there remains
widespread support in the GA for improvements in the
Council's working methods. From our point of view, the S-5
resolution contains many unhelpful elements. End Summary and
Comment.

Consensus and Transitional Solutions
--------------


4. (U) The General Assembly met on July 20 and 21 to hold its
latest debate on the issue of Security Council expansion and
working methods reform. Only the African and Eastern
European regional groups have agreed positions on Council
expansion. There was no statement on behalf of the NAM or
G-77, and the EU remains deeply divided. Even within the
African Group, a number of delegations took the floor and
"expanded" on the group's statement (in both South Africa and
Nigeria's cases coming very close to disagreeing with the
group's position). As a result, eighty-six delegations took
to the podium. Without exception, each delegation expressed
at least rhetorical support for expansion of the Security
Council.


5. (U) The strongest supporters of expansion, including those
in the G-4 (Germany, India, Brazil and Japan) and their
supporters in the AU (South Africa, Nigeria) emphasized that
reform of the Council was an integral part of overall UN
reform. Germany claimed that, in light of the inauguration
of the Peacebuilding Commission and the creation of the Human
Rights Council, the lack of progress on Security Council
reform "sticks out like a sore thumb." Delegations from
Uniting For Consensus (UFC) noted that they had not retabled
their own resolution this year, instead stressing the need to
conduct negotiations among the differing groups in an effort
to achieve a consensus outcome. Despite the continuing
differences, there was less antagonism between delegations
and a more conciliatory tone from most. Compared to previous
discussions there was also less emphasis on the particulars
of the different proposals. (Of all the UFC delegations that
spoke, only one - Spain - directly referred to their previous
idea of expansion through the addition of semi-permanent
seats.)


6. (U) In addition to the more conciliatory tone, there were
repeated references to an "interim" or "transitional"
solution to the expansion issue. A number of speakers
referred to recent calls for an interim solution by UK Prime
Minister Tony Blair (during his May speech at Georgetown
University) and Secretary-General Annan. (Annan told a group
of Italian Parliamentarians in Rome on July 12 that he had
advised those seeking a seat on the Council: "Find a way to
reach a compromise to get you to the Council table and, from
there, you continue your search for the permanent solution.")
Dutch PR Majoor made the most detailed case for a
transitional solution, based on his consultations as co-chair
of the Open-Ended Working Group. Majoor said that he saw "a
growing interest in the idea of pursuing a transitional
solution... one which may last for, say, ten years." UK DPR
Pierce, though strongly supporting the G-4 for permanent
membership, called for "fresh thinking" and "renewed
momentum" to find a way through the "current impasse."


7. (U) Ambassador Bolton delivered the U.S. statement on the
afternoon of Friday, July 21, emphasizing our support for a
modest expansion of the Council that would serve to increase
the body's effectiveness. Ambassador Bolton spoke positively
on the progress made by the Security Council's Working Group
on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions and confirmed
U.S. support for Japan's candidacy for permanent membership.

India's Sen again attacks the Council and the P-5
-------------- --------------


8. (C) Indian PR Sen, who has established a reputation for
extemporaneous remarks at these sessions, took the podium
shortly after Ambassador Bolton and delivered the most
confrontational of the two days' of speeches. (Note: More
than one delegation told USUN officers that Sen ensured that
he would speak after the U.S., to allow an opportunity for
direct rebuttal, as he has done in the past (ref c). End
Note.) Sen focused on the "encroachment" of the Security
Council into the GA's affairs at a time when, he claimed, it
is unable "to address effectively" the problems in the Middle
East. The primary target of Sen's unhappiness is the P-5
(and by implication, the U.S.): "For some of the P-5,
history ended in 1945. They oppose any dispersal of quotas
in IMF... At the same time, they insisted on permanent
membership for the P-5 in the Peacebuilding Commission and
desired it greatly in the Human Rights Council. For them,
history stopped in 1945. All subsequent changes: the vast
expansion in membership, the anti-colonial and anti-apartheid
triumphs, freedom, equality, have not happened and should not
be taken into account."


9. (U) Sen also used the opportunity to express unhappiness
with other U.S. positions in New York. Referring to the
U.S.-led effort to seek reform through the imposition of a
spending cap (which had been agreed upon by consensus last
year and recently lifted),Sen asked: "Did we have a sense
of ownership of the spending cap? Most regarded it as an
unfortunate turnip ghost from an aborted Halloween party, a
scarecrow that fortunately failed to scare and had to be
given a decent burial." Sen suggested that the management
reform proposals suggested by SYG Annan and supported by the
U.S., which were defeated by the G-77 earlier this year,
"would have fashioned the General Assembly in the image of


the Security Council - dominance and decision making by a
charmed circle." Sen too called for a dialogue among
delegations to advance the process, though he did not offer
an olive branch to the UFC. First, he suggested, the G-4, AU
and S-5, whose proposals are "mutually compatible", should
work to arrive at a common understanding. "Thereafter the
process can extend to other member states." (The full text
of Sen's statement has been emailed to IO/UNP and is also
available on the website of the Indian Mission to the UN.)

Egypt's Abdelaziz
--------------


10. (C) Egyptian PR Abdelaziz claimed that the lack of
unanimity among the P-5 resulted in the Security Council's
"failure to address" threats to international peace and
security. Referring to the U.S. veto of a resolution on the
Middle East, he argued that the "current impasses in the work
of the Security Council" demonstrated the need for expanding
the membership and improving the working methods of the
Council. He also took the opportunity to criticize the
process of Secretary-General selection, arguing that the
selection of the SYG should not be subject to the veto. He
further advocated holding straw polls in the General Assembly
on candidates prior to the Security Council's recommendation,
in order to ensure the appointment results from "a
transparent and democratic process." (Comment: Egyptian
anger over the U.S. refusal to give Boutros Ghali a second
term in 1996 remains undiminished, and colors their approach
to all issues related to SYG selection. End Comment)

The G-4 and Africa
--------------


11. (C/NF) Japanese PR Oshima explicitly acknowledged that
action was not going to be taken on expansion during the 60th
Session and called for continued attention to the issue next
year. He also noted that Japan, who did not join its G-4
partners in re-tabling their text earlier this year, wanted
to develop a "concrete proposal" that was capable of
garnering "more support" than the G-4 had previously
received. Oshima said that "nothing new" had come out of the
recent AU Summit, and he hoped that delegations with
"important stakes" in this issue would work with
"flexibility" to find a solution that could get the "broad
support" of the membership. He noted, with appreciation,
continued U.S. support for Japan's candidacy. German PR
Matussek spoke of working with Africa and other regional
groups to "consider possible amendments with a view to
broadening the basis of support." Among the G-4's
supporters, the French and UK gave explicit endorsement to
the G-4's candidacies. One UFC Ambassador commented to USUN,
"The French and the UK are more G-4 than the G-4."


12. (C) Although the Algerians reiterated the AU position (as
reaffirmed at the Banjul Summit) on behalf of all African
delegations, a number of the G-4's friends on the continent
hinted (unsubtly) at their willingness to seek a compromise.
The South Africans, after noting the Banjul statement, said,
"However, we are also cognizant of the fact that the
decision... will have to be taken by the general membership
of the UN. It is for this reason that we welcome... an
opportunity for all of us to find a common ground." Nigerian
DPR Adekanye said delegations should maintain "some element
of flexibility." In a clear signal that they are willing to
do a deal with the G-4, Adekanye said that in the interest of
securing permanent seats for Africa, "Nigeria, therefore,
identifies with those Member States whose initiatives boldly
and largely take into account Africa's primary interest and
concerns."

S-5 Proposal on Working Methods
--------------


13. (U) Many delegations addressed the draft resolution on
Security Council working methods that has been tabled by the
"S-5" (Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Jordan, Costa Rica and
Singapore). The effort to put the S-5 resolution to a vote
received a lukewarm reception, reflecting concern among the
proponents of expansion that action on working methods would
undermine the case for expansion. The sponsors appeared to

back off from earlier statements that they would seek a vote
on the resolution "this summer." The Swiss said only that
they would "keep open the option" of putting the resolution
to a vote. The strongest proponents of expansion argued that
the two issues could not be separated. G-4 members, like
India, noted that many of the S-5 proposals are incorporated
in their expansion resolution. Although many countries have
refrained from calling for a vote on the S-5 resolution for
fear of losing support for expansion, if it were actually put
to a vote in the GA, it would still pass overwhelmingly, as
there remains widespread support in the GA for improvements
in the Council's working methods and little desire to impede
any progress on reform.


14. (U) The lukewarm reception for the S-5 was also partially
due to the Security Council's July 19 decision to adopt a
lengthy note on working methods based on the work of the
Japanese-chaired Informal Working Group on Documentation and
Other Procedural Questions. Though most delegations argued
that the Council's own reforms did not go far enough, many
acknowledged and complimented the work of the working group,
and the Japanese chair.
BOLTON