Identifier | Created | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|
06USUNNEWYORK597 | 2006-03-24 21:08:00 | CONFIDENTIAL | USUN New York |
VZCZCXYZ0013 PP RUEHWEB DE RUCNDT #0597/01 0832108 ZNY CCCCC ZZH (CCY ADX AB76A4 TOQ7016 615/695) P 242108Z MAR 06 FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8456 |
C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000597 |
1. (u) This is an action request. See para 6. 2. (c) Summary: In a March 22 meeting of the P-3 convened by French DPR Duclos, France and the UK emphasized to Ambassador Wolff the importance of advance preparation for the first meeting of the Organizational Committee (OC) of the Peacebuilding Commission (PBC) and shared a notional agenda for that first meeting (faxed to IO/PDAS Philo Dibble). Regarding potential chairs for the OC, the P-3 agreed on the need to identify a strong Chairman favorably disposed to P-3 priorities; and preferably to look at the overlap between OC members and incoming and outgoing Security Council members as potential Chairs. The UK stressed the importance of light, flexible innovative rules of procedure so that the PBC doesn,t turn into another rigid UN talk-shop. Amb. Wolff reemphasized the importance of establishing the PBSO from within existing resources. France and the UK agreed with that position, but said the broader EU membership is more flexible on resources. End Summary. Draft Agenda for first meeting of Organizational Committee 3. (c) French Ambassador Duclos and British Political Counselor Paul Johnston gave Amb. Wolff a notional agenda that they had coauthored for the first meeting of the Organizational Committee of the PBC. The agenda envisions a meeting where the following actions take place: a) Issuance of invitations to Bretton Woods Institutions (BWI) to participate in that and all subsequent meetings b) Before formal discussion of rules of procedure, agreement on the status of Member States and others, i.e. clarification that institutional donors (e.g. BWI) are observers, but that consensus will de facto, if not de jure, require their agreement. c) Agreement that the OC will consider applications from others wishing to be considered as institutional donors (e.g. EC/EU). d) Ideally, agreement on pre-selected Chair. e) Invitation by Chair to PBSO to circulate pre-selected draft provisional rules of procedure, with a view to revising them if necessary, after 12 months experience, at the latest. f) Ideally, agreement on 1 or 2 countries to review, pre-decided. g) If necessary, Chair would propose vice-chairs to run country-specific meetings. 4. (c) The French/UK paper also provided brief points on four key issues: the nature of the PBC, PBC output, the relationship of the PBC to the UN Security Council and the format of PBC meetings. Amb. Wolff agreed with the French and UK view that the PBC should be very practical, that the discussions at the meetings themselves should be the central achievement rather than production of long papers, and that non-standard UN rules and procedures were critical to keep the PBC from turning into a talk-shop where members just read statements. Duclos and Johnston said that advance bilateral and multilateral diplomacy with other members of the OC and the UN Secretariat will be critical to building consensus in favor of light, flexible rules and procedures. 5. (c) Johnston reiterated that there will be plenty of anti-Security Council sentiment on the PBC, so we need to be careful that the Organizational Committee doesn,t start off as a fight. We need to be careful how we play the choice of a Chair, rules and procedures, and the choice of countries for the PBC to address, so these issues don,t act as fuel to re-ignite latent disagreements. The proposed Danish seminar bringing participants back to the basic purpose for establishing the PBC will be helpful, he opined. 6.(c) ACTION REQUEST: The issues contained in the French/UK paper will be discussed at a P-5 plus Tanzania and Denmark meeting on Monday at 4PM. Please provide guidance prior to the meeting. Paper was faxed to IO/PDAS Dibble. Potential Chairs for the Organizational Committee 7. (c) Due to plans for staff changes at the UN, the pool of obvious, well qualified, potential candidates to chair the PBC is not large. Candidates that fall in the category of "good but unavailable" were: Denmark (Amb. Loj departs post before March ,07) and Germany (expecting a new Permanent Representative). All agreed Japan would be excellent and were not too concerned that Japan will get a new PermRep in the spring. (We understand, however, that Japan doesn't want to chair the PBC.) The UK opined that Tanzania would be good from a country standpoint, but their Ambassador was not a strong Chair when he presided over the Security Council. 8. (c) Amb. Wolff opined that it would be useful to have a Chair that was an incoming Security Council member in order to reinforce the PBC,s link to the Security Council. He said we need to decide also who we absolutely don't want in the Chair. The P-3 agreed to continue discussions. Candidate Countries 9. (c) Amb. Wolff stressed that choosing a country with a peacekeeping operation as one of the first countries for the PBC to review would be useful, since the P-5 argued for their own permanent membership on the PBC based on the peacekeeping link. France said the PBC should avoid difficult countries like the Congo, Sudan and Haiti for its pilot studies. Amb Duclos suggested the PBC consider less complicated post-conflict countries, such as Burundi, Liberia, Guinea Bissau or Sierra Leone. It would not be useful to consider Haiti, since Haiti already has a core group that includes the international financial institutions, and the Latins are pleased with the core group. Resources 10. (c) Amb. Wolff reemphasized that the Peacebuilding Support Office must be established from within existing resources. France and the UK agreed to reiterate that view to their Fifth Committee colleagues. BOLTON |