RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP

UNCLAS GENEVA 000551 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR IO/RHS, DRL/MLA, L/HRR E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM UNHRC SUBJECT: RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT WORKING GROUP REF: 3/2/2007 SMELLER-IO/RHS EMAIL Summary -------------- ¶1. The inter-governmental Right to Development (RTD) Working Group completed its Feb. 26-March 2 session with an unusual compromise "consensus" agreement on the chair's conclusions and recommendations that left it up to various states to decide whether or not the report opened the door for a new legally-binding international instrument on the right to development. (NOTE: Final conclusions and recommendations e-mailed to IO/RHS. END NOTE.) After several failed attempts to get more explicit wording for a legally-binding instrument inserted into the proposed text, the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM),led by Cuba, said it would only join consensus if it could include a NAM declaration stating that it understood a particular sentence in the document to mean that the working group could begin consideration of a new RTD convention. After several hours of back-and-forth discussions, the RTD WG chair finally relented but not before giving all other delegations the same option to include their own separate statements of interpretation. The European Union, Australia, and Canada quickly said they would include annexes expressing their own view that an outcome did not necessarily mean a convention or anything legally-binding. The working group also agreed to extend the mandate of its high level task force for an additional two years. End Summary. NAM Versus the Western Group -------------- ¶2. From the outset, there were two sides during the meeting: NAM, which wanted to begin work on an RTD convention, and the Western Group (EU, Australia, Canada, and Japan),which, though not speaking as a group, said it would rather have more (read indefinite) discussion and research done on the issue. Memories of last November's contentious RTD vote in New York occasionally surfaced during the negotiations, and, at one point, the German delegate -- on loan from the German Mission in New York -- warned the chair not to mention New York again unless he was prepared to have a repeat performance in Geneva. For his part, RTD WG Chair Salama (Egypt) did a good job in keeping discussions focused and presented at least three draft versions of the working group report's conclusions and recommendations, which included suggestions on: 1) where the working group's work on the elaboration and implementation of a comprehensive and coherent set of standards might lead; 2) the focus of high level task force technical missions; and 3) renewal of the working group and high-level task force's mandate. At Salama's request, Polcouns met with him and task force chair Stephen Marks during a consultation period to discuss the USG position on right to development and reiterate our strong opposition to a legally-binding RTD instrument. EU Tactic Gets NAM Nervous -------------- ¶3. During discussions with Poloff on the margins of the working group meetings and at two Western Group meetings, the German delegate suggested a strategy of indefinite engagement with the NAM on right to development. He reasoned that since NAM had the numbers, it would be better to engage them for several more years, which would hold off actual work on a convention, while at the same time allowing donor countries to put more of the onus of good governance and rule of law on the developing countries. While not initially supportive of Salama's text, Germany and several Western Group countries said that it was probably the best we could hope for. The EU's eventual acceptance of the text, however, only seemed to raise NAM suspicion. NAM demanded more specific language in the last sentence of paragraph five that would explicitly mention an international legally-binding convention. (NOTE: The actual sentence mentions the possibility of "an international legal standard of a binding nature." END NOTE.) NAM also wanted -- and got -- a watered-down version of a paragraph on technical missions for the task force to study the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM),the ECA/OECD-DAC Mutual Review of Development Effectiveness, and the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and demanded that a three-year extension of the task force's mandate be reduced to one (it was eventually changed to two years). Japan said that its main concern was about any additional costs the working group or its high level task force would incur. ¶4. During one of several breaks called for by NAM, an OHCHR Secretariat staff member told Poloff that NAM wanted to SIPDIS extend the working group's mandate by only one year, because it feared losing control of the process. The staffer went on to say that the EU's tactic of engagement had caught NAM off-guard and its members were now scrambling to figure out what the EU was up to. Throughout the afternoon and into the early evening (the interpreters had already departed),WG Chair Salama urged NAM to accept the EU's "incredible offer," but, in the end, NAM continued to insist on specific wording for a legally-binding international convention. Everyone's a Winner -------------- ¶5. After several more breaks, NAM said it could only join consensus if it could include as part of an annex to the report a "NAM Declaration" explicitly stating that it interprets the last sentence of paragraph five to mean an international legally-binding convention. Salama pleaded with NAM not to take this unusual step and warned that he would have to open the door for other delegates to do the same if they so wished. NAM refused and, as expected, the EU, Australia, and Canada immediately stated that they, too, would have their own annexes explaining their understanding of the text was that an outcome could take on other forms instead of a convention. Salama then congratulated everyone for reaching consensus. Germany said it just bought everyone two and possibly three more years without talk on a convention and that this time should be used to get more actively involved with the issue to control it. The report along with the chair's conclusions and recommendations will now go to the upcoming Council session for adoption. Comment -------------- ¶6. The chair's conclusions and recommendations put the RTD issue one step closer toward a convention, which makes the NAM's actions during the last two days of negotiations even more bewildering. Cuba has continued to flex NAM's muscle, stating on several occasions during the meeting that it already had the numbers and did not need consensus. The EU's maneuvering, however, put NAM in the awkward position of possibly not joining consensus on an RTD issue, so, as a last-minute, face-saving measure, NAM had no choice but to join consensus (albeit only with inclusion of its declaration). Look for NAM to use some of the language in this report, especially in its declaration, to advance an RTD convention in other fora in New York. END COMMENT. TICHENOR