INDIAN OFFICIALS PRESS PDAS WARLICK ON UN REFORM,

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 NEW DELHI 002918 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/19/2012 TAGS: PREL PGOV KUNR IN SUBJECT: INDIAN OFFICIALS PRESS PDAS WARLICK ON UN REFORM, UNSC PERM SEAT Classified By: DCM Geoffrey Pyatt for Reasons 1.4 (B, D) ¶1. (C) Summary. In side meetings around the U.S.-India Peacekeeping Joint Working Group, Indian officials: -- pressed PDAS Warlick to support India's bid for a permanent UN Security Council; -- briefed on India's efforts within the G4 and the wider UN membership for the perm seat; -- agreed on the need for closer consultations with the U.S. on UN reform; and -- claimed today's India deserved a larger share of important UN positions. PDAS Warlick: -- sought India's advice for ways to move UN reform forward; -- encouraged India to play a leadership role in the UN, particularly in building bridges between the G77, the Non-Aligned Movement and the general membership; -- suggested ways to improve coordination between our missions in New York, such as building on the relationship between our Deputy Permanent Representatives; -- expressed U.S. concerns over the framework concept for UNSC expansion; and -- reiterated U.S. commitment to a mechanism to reform the Human Rights Council. End Summary. -------------- An Agreement On The Need For Closer Consultations On UN Reform -------------- ¶2. (C) Joint Secretary (UN Political) Sanjiv Arora asked to meet with PDAS Warlick for 30 minutes prior to beginning to U.S.-India Peacekeeping Working Group. At the outset of the private meeting, Arora said he wished to discuss the UN reform process, and PDAS Warlick provided his view that while reform had stalled several months back, the atmosphere in New York had improved and it was now a more opportune time to get the process back on track. The U.S. and India share many of the same goals on UN reform, Warlick said, and are uniquely positioned to effect reform. He suggested that the U.S. and India focus on what can be achieved in the current environment. Arora agreed that, following high expectations for reform when the first push was made in 2005, efforts had stalled. The Peace Building Commission was a good sign that reform may be moving again, he said. Arora agreed the U.S. and India had common interests and urged closer contact and more frequent consultations on UN reform, adding that he had heard from India's Mission in New York that the desire to engage more closely was mutual. Arora defended India's 
loyalty to the G77 and Non-Aligned Movement, saying India was trying to play a moderating role within the groups, looking at issues in their totality, while building bridges with the larger UN membership. Arora cited the C34 special committee on peacekeeping operations as an example of India playing a positive role in bringing a compromise formulation to an impasse situation. PDAS Warlick urged India to play the bridging role Arora had described, and said that the U.S. would be responsive to good ideas on how to advance UN reform. -------------- Arora, K.C. Singh Push For A Permanent Indian Security Council Seat -------------- ¶3. (C) India -- and several other members states, according to Arora -- were expecting to see UNSC reform meaningfully discussed at the upcoming UN General Assembly. However, it appeared to Arora as though such discussions had stalled. India is eagerly awaiting the facilitators' report on the issue, which he expected would be ready by the end of July NEW DELHI 00002918 002 OF 004 and would be the impetus for "serious" negotiations. India is seeking expansion of both permanent and non-permanent seats on the Security Council. Given the new friendship between India and the U.S., Arora said there is a strong public expectation in India that the U.S. will support of India's bid for a permanent seat. Arora advised that in order to move the UN reform issue forward, the U.S., as the global leader, should send a signal that it is open to engaging with the wider membership. He argued the U.S. could offer a clearer and stronger formulation on the need for reform. He said he also hoped the U.S. would offer stronger support for India's permanent seat candidacy. India remains engaged with its G4 partners at "senior levels," Arora explained, but remains flexible toward considering other ideas. India is also consulting "across the board" with African countries. PDAS Warlick replied that the U.S. has reached no conclusions yet on how UNSC reform might take place, and is listening to proposals. He asked Arora if India is inclined to support one of the interim proposals, to which Arora replied India is "not comfortable" with interim solutions, adding that he believed the concept was not gaining currency among wider member states. Arora worried that should the facilitators' report propose interim solutions to the permanent Council issue, it could cause African Union countries to break from consensus. ¶4. (C) In response to Warlick's inquiry as to how committed India is to the G4 process, Arora said there have been ups and downs with the G4; however, no other proposal which has been put on the table has matched the G4 plan. The G4 continues to seek expansion in both categories, Arora reported, but is flexible on the numbers. Turning specifically to the number of African seats he saw on an expanded Security Council, Arora said India has always strongly supported Africa's aspirations to play a larger role on the Council, and India wants expansion to address the issue of adequate representation both regionally and among developing countries, but will not provide a specific number. In terms of support from other permanent UNSC members, Arora said that France has expressed willingness to co-sponsor any resolution put forth by the G4, and referred to President Putin's trip to New Delhi in January where Putin publicly reiterated Russia's support for India's candidacy. China has said it is committed to the reform process and to supporting developing countries, he said, although he expected China will always maintain reservations about India. When asked about perceptions that Europe would be over-represented should Germany be given a permanent seat, Arora said that New Delhi hasn't taken a position on Europe's (over)representation, but suggested that a framework be developed to determine credentials for permanent seat membership. PDAS Warlick expressed concern that a framework method could lead to unpredictability and could polarize members who felt they had credentials as good as those who were selected from a blank framework. ¶5. (C) PDAS Warlick met later in the day with Additional Secretary (International Organizations) K.C. Singh. Relating SIPDIS that the U.S. is now open to work positively on UN Reform efforts to expand the UNSC, Warlick asked for Singh's impression on progress. Singh acknowledged the evolution in the U.S. position, which he had heard about from the Japanese. He reported that Africa has adopted an extreme position, with internal conflicts between Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa stalling the process. Referring to the facilitators' report on expansion, Singh speculated that it would have had the support of almost 99 countries. He noted concerns about the nature of proposed new categories of membership, such as those involving semi-permanent members in five- or ten-year stints. According to Singh, Japan had two NEW DELHI 00002918 003 OF 004 requirements: any proposal should earn the support of two-thirds of the members and not be rejected by the P5. Singh did not think that China would use its veto against the will of two-thirds of the UN. Warlick expressed relief that the G4 would not attempt to bypass the P5. Singh stated that India and Japan would reject any effort to make the non-permanent seats renewable, which he felt would compel a state to vote with a mind towards pursuing re-election. ¶6. (C) Recalling the history of the G4, Singh described the original proposal of six new permanent members (two from Asia, two Africa, one Latin America and one Europe) and four non-permanent seats. However, worries about the potential for an African stalemate over the two countries compelled the G4 to revise the proposal, Singh continued. Now the proposal has been recast to be two seats for the developed world, which is not specific about any one continent, one for Africa, one for Asia and one for Latin America, with two-to-four non-permanent seats added. Singh added that the new proposal included a mechanism by which a two-thirds membership vote could remove a country from the UNSC during its tenure, adding that Russia and China are uncomfortable with this. ¶7. (C) Noting that Under Secretary Burns has engaged with the Brazilians about the G4 process on an ad hoc basis, Warlick wondered how the U.S. should relate to the G-4. Singh clarified that India was not looking for a U.S. public endorsement, which could put some countries off. Instead, he advised that the U.S. could support the framework, as opposed to individual countries. As he put it, a few phone calls from Secretary Rice to key counterparts would have much more impact than public declarations. MEA Joint Secretary Sanjiv Arora, also present, interjected that U.S. endorsement of India would play extremely well domestically, and Singh clarified that he was talking about how U.S. support would affect UN electoral politics. ¶8. (C) With travel planned for New York June 21 to discuss the G4 proposal, Singh observed that Africa has proven difficult to corral. Because of President Lula,s support from Afro-Brazilians, Brazil has backed off. But several states, such as Botswana and Benin, have openly criticized the process, and Singh believed that enough African nations would vote for the framework concept. Singh suspected that Germany also feared for its membership because of the submersion of European identity as the EU expands, and the perceived over-representation of European countries on the UNSC already. The framework concept, said Singh, would not name any countries. Warlick counseled that a one-step process of voting for the framework and charter might make more sense; after admitting to some confusion about the mechanics, Singh agreed. He observed that many of the U.S. suggestions about reform have "filtered back" to the G4 proposal. -------------- Singh, Puri: India Deserves Bigger Role In UN Decision-Making -------------- ¶9. (C) Singh told Warlick India was frustrated with its lack of representation in the decision-making process. Despite Indian efforts to increase its presence in the UN, Singh lamented that, "we have no say in decision-making, no say in composition." India has suggested candidates for positions, but has been told by the Secretary General's office that India filled its quota with an Indian on the SYG,s staff (Chief of Staff Vijay Nambiar) and another sent abroad (Atul Khare, Special Representative of the SG for East Timor). "We need some reflection of the role we are playing in the field," he urged. Warlick described how the U.S. also NEW DELHI 00002918 004 OF 004 believes it is under-represented in the UN, and regularly suggests qualified candidates. Singh asserted that India will start playing "hardball," and threaten to withdraw its troops from peacekeeping missions if the Secretary General continues to refuse Indian candidates. Warlick attempted to dissuade Singh from this strategy, but Singh countered, "That's the only leverage we have." ¶10. (C) In a separate meeting, Joint Secretary (United Nations Economic and Social) Manjeev Singh Puri, after lobbying for an Indian permanent seat on the UNSC, also urged that India be given more leadership opportunities at the UN. "If you want change, you need to put us on the inner track," Puri replied. He also highlighted that the GOI agrees with USG desires for transparency and accountability in UN financial matters, but underlined India's view that "UN reform must be major, not just tinkering--especially regarding UNSC decision-making and membership." Turning to UN peacekeeping operations, Puri said the GOI was concerned with the chain of command structures and hoped that any changes would not leave boots on the ground exposed. -------------- Bypass Sen For Closer Cooperation In New York? -------------- ¶11. (C) Warlick raised with K.C. Singh the issue of continuing tensions between the U.S. and India in New York, and said he hoped to find a way to reflect the broad common ground shared by both countries. Singh agreed about the necessity of building better coordination in New York, admitted that PermRep Sen had been the source of much of India's problems, and offered to meet with the U.S. Permanent Representative or Acting PermRep on June 22 in New York. He suggested that the U.S. and Indian UN missions establish a "number two" dialogue led on the Indian side by Deputy Permanent Representative Ajay Malhotra. -------------- Human Rights Council: -------------- ¶12. (C) In response to Singh's inquiry on the Human Rights Council (HRC),Warlick assured Singh that the U.S. remained committed to an effective human rights mechanism in the UN system. "We still recognize the need for an HRC that works," he reiterated. Singh welcomed Warlick,s assurance, noting that the U.S. and India have more in common. Warlick clarified that the U.S. supports periodic reviews as a way of singling out gross human rights violators. Singh pointed out that the process makes it easier for India to work with the U.S. in the HRC. Puri, discussing the USG decision to abstain from participating in the HRC and work through the Third Committee, reported the GOI wants the USG involved and engaged in the HRC, as "only the US can bring credibility and sensibility to the Council." PDAS Warlick said he appreciated GOI sentiments, but the current HRC's single-minded pursuit of Israel made it impossible for the U.S. to participate. ¶13. (U) This cable has been cleared by PDAS Warlick. MULFORD