FIRST SECURITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF KOSOVO DRAFT

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 000395

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PREL UNSC UNMIK YI
SUBJECT: FIRST SECURITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF KOSOVO DRAFT
UNSCR


1. (SBU) Summary: On May 17, the first Security Council
meeting on our draft Kosovo UNSCR was held at the
expert-level. The Russian expert stated at the beginning of
the meeting that he had no instructions and then did not
speak again. Italy offered several substantive amendments to
the text they had co-sponsored. Panama argued for noting a
specific date in the resolution when the Ahtisaari plan would
enter into force and then gutting many of the operative
paragraphs as redundant. Experts then went into line-by-line
discussion of the text. End summary.


2. (SBU) On May 17, the first Security Council meeting on our
draft Kosovo UNSCR was held at the expert-level. France
chaired the meeting. The Russian expert stated at the
beginning that he had no instructions and could not engage on
the US, European and German draft. He reminded all that
Russia supported "a negotiated solution and implementation of
relevant, key portions of 1244" and said that "this draft
would not lead us to such a solution."


3. (SBU) Panama argued for noting a specific date in the
resolution when the Ahtisaari plan would enter into force and
then gutting many of the operative paragraphs as redundant.
Experts then went into an analysis of the text for
line-by-line comments as follows.



4. (SBU)

PP3: Slovakia said it would appreciate an explicit reference
to Kosovo as a sui generis case, adding that it might have
language to propose later. (Note: Slovakia followed-up this
request with an email to USUN. End note.) Panama argued that
maybe we should reference the UNSC trip to Kosovo to set a
context. Ghana said it agreed with Panama, but PP4 might be
better place for language on the UNSC trip, as the need for a
multi-ethnic society was a key conclusion of that trip.
Belgium argued that might dilute the key point that Kosovo
was a sui generis case and, therefore, a stand-alone
paragraph on the trip might be better.

PP7: USUN noted this was an attempt to incorporate part of
the Russian elements.

PP8: Panama said we should perhaps include a call for all
parties to cooperate. USUN argued that this resolution was
about closing UNMIK, not about getting deeply into ICTY
issues.

PP9 and 10: Panama said it had no objections but proposed an
additional pre-paragraph noting appreciation for "the Serbian
proposal", so as to be balanced. (Note: Panama made it clear,
however, that Ahtisaari's plan would be the one we would
actually be implementing.) Slovakia argued that Ahtisaari's
plan was the only one on the table and asked Panama's expert
to which Serbian plan he was referring. Italy noted that if
other ideas that had been proposed along the way were in
Ahtisaari's report, this would be repetitive. Belgium stated
that if we went into Serbian proposals then we would have to
touch on Unity Team proposals as well and there will be no
end to the text. USUN advised against balancing Ahtisaari's
text against Belgrade's paper, which was really just a
tracked-changes version of the Ahtisaari paper. The UK
supported Belgium's argument that the list would be too long.

OP1: Panama asserted that we should be more specific and say
that Ahtisaari's plan goes into effect from a certain date.
Panama asserted that would then obviate paragraphs 3, 4, 5
and 7. Italy and France said they understand this idea but
would have a hard time agreeing to it. France said it was
important for the Council to recite parts of the Ahtisaari
plan in the resolution rather than simply referring to a
60-page document.

OP2: Italy argued for adding "powers and" in front of
"authorities" and also for possibly changing "appoint" to
"rapidly appoint". USUN said this was not needed and would
confuse an otherwise minimalist text.

OP3: Italy argued for adding "shall be authorized to use all
necessary means to carry out its responsibilities" to this
paragraph to make it similar to OP4. USUN and the UK said
they thought this language did not seem appropriate for a
rule of law mission.

OP7: Panama said this is already in Ahtisaari's report so
suggested making it pre-ambular. Italy said we should

USUN NEW Y 00000395 002 OF 002


perhaps make a more direct reference to standards.

OP9: Slovakia expressed strong support for this as an
operative paragraph.


5. (SBU) As the meeting closed, members promised to take back
to their capitals notes of the day's discussion.
KHALILZAD