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