UN REFORM: U/S BURNS PRESSES KEY G-77 AMBASSADORS

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000996 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/15/2011 TAGS: PREL KUNR AORC UN SUBJECT: UN REFORM: U/S BURNS PRESSES KEY G-77 AMBASSADORS Classified By: Ambassador Alex Wolff, Deputy Permanent Representative, for reasons 1.4 b,d. ¶1. (C) Summary. On May 9, U/S Burns pressed the UN reform agenda with four senior G-77 Ambassadors, three in particular (Egypt, Pakistan and South Africa) who play a disruptive role on a number of U.S. priority reform issues. The meeting took place a day after the G-77 successfully forced a resolution through the General Assembly that would significantly delay the Secretariat's efforts to implement the reform proposals put forward by the Secretary-General. U/S Burns told the four that the U.S. sought an improved UN machinery, more accountable to member states and more able to deal with the major challenges of the 21st Century. The G-77 Ambassadors were focused on the June expiration of the spending cap, and encouraged agreement on a "realistic" set of objectives that would lead to the lifting of the cap. They also complained that the Secretariat was increasingly biased against developing countries and was working with the wealthy member states to fundamentally change the nature of the organization. End Summary. ¶2. (U) Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns met with four key G-77 Permanent Representatives over lunch on Tuesday May 9. Hosted by USUN Deputy PR Alex Wolff, the lunch was attended by South African PR Dumisani Kumalo (G-77 Chair),Pakistani PR Munir Akram (co-chair of the GA's management reform working group),Egyptian PR Maged Abdelaziz, and Yemeni PR Abdullah Alsaidi (OIC Chair). ¶3. (U) U/S Burns told that group that the U.S. sought to create a UN "stronger tomorrow than it is today" in order to better deal with the problems facing the world. There is a great deal of scrutiny in the U.S., however, on how the UN uses member state contributions. Management reform would remain at the top of our agenda. The U.S. seeks to improve the effectiveness of the Secretariat, which "is not serving any of our countries very well at this point." The U.S. will work to close the divisions with the G-77 and other member states, said U/S Burns, but only if we see tangible evidence that the G-77 will meet us halfway. The Secretariat is against us! -------------- ¶4. (U) The G-77 Ambassadors unanimously stated their support for the process of reform. Kumalo claimed that it was developing states, in fact, who sought stronger anti-corruption and anti-fraud mechanisms within the UN system. "If money is stolen from a UN program, it's the people of Darfur who suffer." Kumalo added that there was an urgent need to move on the reform agenda. "We agree on principles, but are getting lost in the methodology of getting to these problems." ¶5. (U) The G-77 was forced, he said, to vote against the SYG's management reform proposals (as they did on May 8) because the Secretariat was insensitive to their needs. The SYG's report was written by consultants and would have "gone down well in the private sector," but it was badly received by member states. ¶6. (U) Akram agreed: "In this house at the moment, there is a very bad atmosphere between the North and the South with the U.S. at the center of it -- not alone, but at the center." He said that developing countries did not feel that they were getting their priorities addressed (such as progress on the development follow-up to the Summit Outcome Document and the ECOSOC reform resolution). Instead, the reform agenda was being dictated by "the U.S. and our other Northern friends." Talk of "empowering" the SYG means taking power away from the smaller states in the General Assembly, he added. ¶7. (U) Delegations agreed to the imposition of the spending cap, said Egypt's Abdelaziz, in order to put pressure on the Secretariat to reform itself. But now Western countries and SIPDIS the Secretariat have formed a "coalition against the developing countries" and are using the June deadline to squeeze maximum concessions out of the G-77. G-77 states, he said, believe the U.S. wants to turn the UN into an organization in which an individual state's institutional power is based on the size of its financial contribution. This approach, threatens the one mechanism by which small and developing states have an effective voice. Abdelaziz also complained that there were too many Western officials in senior Secretariat positions. ¶8. (U) Alsaidi said, in reference to the SYG's report on mandate review, that the "Secretariat is taking sides." Akram said the latest report on a counter-terrorism strategy was another example of the SYG going "too far" in the wrong direction. "We see the Secretariat as biased." The Spending Cap as the Sword of Damocles -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Akram emphasized the importance of reaching an understanding between the G-77 and the U.S./EU/Japan on "realistic expectations" of what can be achieved by the end of June in order to lift the spending cap on the Secretariat's operations. "We need to get over the SIPDIS suspicions surrounding the spending cap," he said. "People see it as a threat." Abdelaziz predicted that if delegations did not reach an agreement on a means to lift the spending cap there would be a vote that would be disastrous for the organization. "We have the numbers and you have the money," he said. ¶10. (U) Kumalo complained that the U.S. has not been clear enough in explaining its objectives for UN reform, and many member states are frustrated by what are perceived as constantly shifting goalposts. He claimed that whenever the GA acts on reform, including on ethics reform, whistle-blower protection and financial disclosure, the U.S. quickly forgets about the successes and moves on to focus on new reform objectives. This pattern had only deepened the mistrust of the overall U.S. goal. Instead, Kumalo encouraged the U.S. to state clearly what it is required to lift the spending cap. He admitted that many delegations would use such a statement to help coalesce opposition to the U.S. position, but he said, "They're going to oppose you anyway." Mandate Review -------------- ¶11. (U) Yemen's Alsaidi, Pakistan's Akram and Egypt's Abdelaziz each specifically mentioned the fear that the mandate review process was "aimed" at the Palestinian mandates. Amb Wolff responded that the U.S. believed strongly that the Palestinian mandates were one-sided, corrosive, and did next to nothing to benefit the Palestinian people. The U.S. position was well known on these mandates, he added, but it would be a mistake to assume that they represent the total of our reform objectives. "Get off the psychiatrist's couch" -------------- ¶12. (U) Abdelaziz and Alsaidi also called for the U.S. to find a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. U/S Burns responded by noting that it was not the U.S. that precipitated this crisis. Iran has violated its commitments to the international community and has now failed to live up to multiple IAEA resolutions and a statement of the Security Council. The pressure, he said, should not be on the U.S., but on Iran. "People, particularly those in the region, need to tell the Iranians that they need to come to their senses." ¶13. (SBU) Addressing the growing North/South divide on UN matters, U/S Burns suggested (to much laughter) that member states need to "get off the psychiatrist's couch." Simply changing the rhetoric will not solve the mistrust and suspicion between states. Instead, what was needed was a practical, pragmatic, action-oriented approach to solve issues "one-by-one." Trust and confidence would come from success, he said. The U.S. will be flexible, but it has to be a two-way street. ¶14. (U) Under Secretary Burns has reviewed this cable. BOLTON