INSTRUCTIONS -- G-77 AND CHINA RESOLUTION "ON THE

UNCLAS STATE 159204 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AORC UN UNGA SOCI SUBJECT: INSTRUCTIONS -- G-77 AND CHINA RESOLUTION "ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OUTCOME OF THE WORLD SUMMIT FOR SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND OF THE TWENTY-FOURTH SPECIAL SESSION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY." ¶1. (U) As of November 20, negotiations on this draft resolution were not completed. The EU, OIC, and Israel are still discussing wording involving foreign occupation put forth by the OIC (OP 14). To balance the foreign occupation wording, Israel had proposed including wording containing the concept of terrorism (OP 14 bis). The chair is still hoping to arrive at a formulation to break the deadlock. Israel has indicated that if the OIC's wording is included in the resolution while Israel's language is not, it would call for a vote on the entire resolution and vote NO. ¶2. (U) In addition, OP 29 of the resolution "Urges developed countries that have not yet done so in accordance with their commitment, to make concrete efforts towards meeting the targets of 0.7 percent of their GNP for ODA to developing countries and 0.15 to 0.2 percent of their GNP to LDCs, and encourages developing countries to build on the progress achieved in ensuring that ODA is used effectively to help meet development goals and targets." The US has argued, unsuccessfully thus far, to remove the word "meeting" from this paragraph because it represents a substantive change in agreed language on ODA. ¶3. (U) If Israel calls for a vote on the entire resolution, Mission is instructed to join Israel in voting NO and deliver an Explanation of Vote, drawing from talking points in paragraph 4 below. USDel should seek further guidance from Department should any changes or revisions to the text of 19 November 2007 occur, such as a compromise on language in paragraph 14 / 14bis which could lead Israel to withdraw its plan to call for a vote, or other changes which could affect the validity of this guidance. ¶4. (U) BEGIN POINTS. -- The United States votes NO on this resolution and would like to give its Explanation of Vote. -- We regret that this resolution, which has until now not contained any references to foreign occupation, has become politicized by the inclusion of that term. The term is widely recognized to signify a position on an extremely controversial issue, one that should not taint Third Committee deliberations. -- The U.S. also takes issue with the use of committee resolutions such as these to rework and redefine the development language that was so carefully negotiated in Monterrey. Well-meaning sponsors of an expanded vocabulary unwittingly undermine the consensus that allowed donors to commit to increasing their Official Development Assistance (ODA). The addition of the verb "meeting" in OP 29 to describe the 0.7 percent of GNP for ODA as an MDG target is a case in point. -- While the U.S. has more than doubled its ODA since the Monterrey summit, we believe that a narrow focus on ODA overlooks other vital sources of financing for development. Numerous studies have shown that other international financing sources, such as private investment flows, remittances, and private philanthropy, dwarf ODA. According to recent World Bank statistics, a staggering $647 billion in private investment capital alone flowed into developing countries in 2006. -- ODA, when applied strategically and effectively in areas such as governance, health and education, and free-market reform can leverage critical changes that are vital for societies' long-term growth and attract foreign investment. By contrast, an obsession with ODA to the exclusion of these essential financing and policy factors undermines previously agreed international consensus on generating global economic growth and development. Incessant maneuvering and word-smithing around the 0.7 percent target is a case in point. It neither addresses critical governance and effectiveness issues, nor the specific needs of its recipients, END POINTS. RICE