USUN DISCUSSES PROTRACTED CONFLICTS RESOLUTION

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000155 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PREL GG MD AJ SUBJECT: USUN DISCUSSES PROTRACTED CONFLICTS RESOLUTION WITH GUAM ¶1. (SBU) On February 23, Acting Permrep Wolff met with representatives of the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) at their request to discuss their initiative of a General Assembly (GA) resolution on protracted conflicts. Speaking for the GUAM, Moldovan Permrep Grigore explained the group had introduced its issue on the GA agenda in September and now was discussing how to proceed. The GUAM thought it had a coordinated and balanced text but were ready to work to make it "more balanced and acceptable to all interested." Ideally the GUAM would achieve consensus, said Grigore, but "as we do not live in an ideal world, that might not be possible." Grigore stated that the GUAM had met recently with Russian Permrep Churkin, the EU Troika, the UK and others. He reported that Russia had said that it was flatly against the GUAM initiative and considered it "illegally placed on the agenda, which was a procedural issue it intended to pursue." Grigore also said the GUAM was cognizant that there are many parallel processes and issues at stake in the UN. ¶2. (SBU) Ambassador Wolff explained that the US wanted the GUAM as a partner and wanted a consensual outcome and that the effort at reaching consensus should be made before GUAM members tabled their resolution. Wolff said the US also faced a problem of timing because we were working on a number of other issues and our ability to deal with some parties, including Russia, might be complicated by how they reacted to the GUAM resolution. This in turn would obviously affect our ability to facilitate an ideal outcome for GUAM countries on issues important to them. These other issues included Kosovo, Abkhazia and Minsk Group work on Nagorno-Karabakh. USUN Deputy Polcounselor explained to the GUAM representatives that we could probably agree readily on criteria to be applied to efforts to resolve the protracted conflicts, but we would want any resolution to indicate that application of those criteria could dictate different results in different conflicts. ¶3. (SBU) Ambassador Grigore said he appreciated our clear message, explaining that the GUAM had heard a similarly clear message from the EU Troika. Georgian Permrep Alasania explained that the GUAM considered its relations with the US as special and was seriously considering delay on its resolution. ¶4. (SBU) Ambassador Wolff explained again that the US would insist on consensus -- if the GUAM insisted on a resolution -- rather than specific wording and he agreed to reach out to the Armenian Mission as appropriate. The Moldovan Ambassador stated that the GUAM would be appreciatiative if USUN could actively help to broker the process of coming up with a consensual resolution and hoped we could make the exercise a triumph of trans-Atlantic cooperation. ¶5. (SBU) Comment: The GUAM's unexpected move to suddenly table their resolution may have reflected the group's frustration that few regard their initiative as a priority and that there may never be "a right time" for them to table it and begin debate. USUN will approach Armenia and continue to engage the GUAM, if only to keep their issue off the GA agenda, but we will have to do so gingerly so as not to disrupt work on Kosovo, Georgia and other issues. End comment. WOLFF