UNSC/BURMA: U.S. TABLES BURMA RESOLUTION

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 000008

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/10/2011
TAGS: PREL PHUM UNSC BM
SUBJECT: UNSC/BURMA: U.S. TABLES BURMA RESOLUTION

REF: STATE 1060

Classified By: USUN Deputy Political Counselor Molly Phee, reasons 1.4
b,d.


1. (C) Summary: The U.S. formally tabled the draft resolution
on Burma (reftel) in the Security Council on January 9,
citing the need to empower the Secretary-General and his
envoy to encourage the Burmese regime to take the concrete
steps needed to address the international community's
concerns. In response, China, joined by those who had voted
against putting Burma on the Council agenda in September 2005
(Russia, Qatar, and Congo) and new Council members Indonesia
and South Africa, expressed strong opposition to any Council
action on Burma, arguing that the issue did not fall within
the Council's mandate and that a resolution would undermine
the Secretary-General's Good Offices mission because of the
regime's opposition to a Council role.


2. (C) The European members (Belgium, Italy, France, Slovakia
and UK),and Ghana rejected those arguments and spoke in
favor of a resolution. The two Latin members, Peru and
Panama, noted their serious concern about the situation on
the ground but said that they did not yet have instructions
on the text. USUN will chair expert-level consultations on
the draft on Wednesday, January 10, and will work towards a
vote in the Council on Friday.

U.S. tables Burma resolution
--------------


3. (U) Amb Wolff tabled the U.S. draft resolution on Burma in
the Security Council during consultations on the afternoon of
January 9. He noted that the issue has been on the Council's
agenda since last September, and that in November, U/SYG
Gambari asked the Council for a strong signal of support for
the Secretary-General's Good Offices mission. The purpose of
the draft resolution is to strengthen the hand of the
Secretary-General and his envoy in their engagement with the

SIPDIS
leadership in Myanmar. Ambassador Wolff announced that the
U.S. would host expert-level negotiations on the morning of
Wednesday, January 10.


4. (C) The Chinese DPR took the floor next to express
"resolute opposition" to an UNSCR, prompting all other
delegations to express their views (rather than wait for
expert-level discussions on text). While all agreed that the
situation in Burma merited the attention of the international
community, there were deep differences about whether or not
the issue falls within the Security Council's charter mandate
to address "threats to international peace and security."
Seven delegations explicitly supported passage of a
resolution (U.S., UK, France, Ghana, Slovakia, Italy and
Belgium),though some noted an interest in modifying the tone
to ensure the text is "constructive." Six delegations
explicitly opposed the resolution (China, Russia, Qatar,
Congo, Indonesia, and South Africa). Peru and Panama did
not rule out a resolution and highlighted the grave situation
in Burma, but did not offer their explicit support for the
resolution. The Peruvian PR stated he was uninstructed, and
the Panamanian PR raised questions
about what country-specific conditions warranted Council
action.


5. (C) Those that oppose Council action argued that: 1) the
situation in Burma does not constitute a threat to
international peace and security as conceived by the UN
Charter, and therefore should be handled in other UN bodies
(e.g., the General Assembly, the Human Rights Council); and
2) if the Council were to pass a resolution, it would do more
harm than good to UN engagement. (The discussion about what
constitutes a threat meriting Council action was amplified by
a public debate of the Security Council on the subject held
January 8, which included the participation of the new
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.) Indonesia and China argued

SIPDIS
that the situation in Burma did not pose a threat to the
region, and others opposed to Council action often cited the
views of these "neighbors" as well as ASEAN as strongly
influencing their position.

Is Burma a threat to
international peace and security?
--------------


6. (C) The Chinese DPR noted Myanmar had been a controversial
issue for the Council from the start and emphasized China's
"resolute opposition" to a resolution. China acknowledged
that the situation in Myanmar "has its problems," but argued
the issue is "entirely a domestic affair." He insisted that
ASEAN countries, in particular Myanmar's neighbors, did not
consider Myanmar a threat to peace and security. Indonesian

USUN NEW Y 00000008 002 OF 002


PR Jenie said that the situation in Myanmar "does not
warrant" the attention of the Council at this stage, and
discussed Indonesia's bilateral and regional efforts. South
African PR Kumalo said that Myanmar does not meet the
"fundamental test" of the mandate of the Security Council,
and should be addressed by the Human Rights Council. Qatar,
Russia and Congo echoed these sentiments, and said the
Council should seriously consider the views of neighbors in
determining whether a situation within a country represented
a threat beyond its borders. Russian PR Churkin said that
the views of neighbors should "dominate." (Note: South
Africa's Kumalo acknowledged that some might argue that
Pretoria's current stance was at odds with the pre-1994 call
for Council action against the apartheid regime. Not so,
said Kumalo, the issue with the apartheid regime was that it
was a "menace to its neighbors.")


7. (C) Supporters of Council action noted that the Council
had long recognized that intra-state conflicts represent a
threat to international peace and security. Ghanaian PR
Effah-Apenteng remarked that the Council had - just the day
before - held an open debate on the definition of what
constituted a threat to international peace and security
where all emphasized the "broad conceptual understanding of
contemporary threats." He said where do we draw the line is
valuable question, but that Ghana supported a broad
definition of security. Others supportive of the text
repeated this argument, and noted that the Council had
already agreed to put the issue on its agenda. UK, Ghana and
others argued that there was no "exclusivity" within the UN.
More than one UN organ could - and should - take up these
vital issues. "Darfur is on the Human Rights Council's
agenda," said Effah-Apenteng, "Does that mean we should not
discuss it here?"

Do more harm than good?
--------------


8. (C) Opponents further argued that action by the Council
would negatively affect the international community's ability
to influence positively the Burmese regime and would
specifically undermine the SYG's good offices mandate. The
Chinese DPR reported that the Burmese regime is "firmly
against the involvement of the Security Council." Indonesian
PR Jenie expressed Jakarta's fear that an UNSCR would "push
authorities to shy away from the international community and
its neighbors." He also noted that pursuing a resolution
would "divide the Council" (i.e. a U.S.-China confrontation)
and send the wrong signal to the Burmese regime. South
African PR Kumalo went so far as to suggest that Council
action in support of the SYG's good offices mission in Burma
would actually "compromise" the effectiveness of good offices
missions in Africa. Russian PR Churkin said that the Council
needed to be sure that its intervention would be beneficial,
and this UNSCR "is not a good way to start the new year."


9. (C) In response to these arguments, UK PR Jones Parry said
that current efforts to engage the Burmese Government -
including by the neighbors, the EU and other UN bodies - are
clearly not working. He and others noted that U/SYG Gambari
himself had asked for Council support the last time he
briefed the body (in November).

Peru and Panama leaning in the right direction...
...but not yet committed
--------------


10. (C) Peruvian PR Voto-Bernales noted that Peru had voted
to include the situation in Burma on the Council's agenda.
The situation of "ongoing violence" has "military
implications against minority groups" and the Council has an
important role in the prevention of conflicts. "We do not
have instructions on this resolution, but we are very
concerned."


11. (C) Panamanian PR Arias said that there was clearly
consensus that the situation in Burma poses a potential
threat to peace and security in the region. The question
before the Council, he said, was a larger one, whether or not
the issue falls within the Council's mandate. On this, there
was clearly no agreement among Council members. The
question, he said, is "how far before" the situation spills
over into the region, should the Council act.
WOLFF