MARCH 10 - APRIL 4 SUBSTANTIVE SESSION OF SPECIAL

UNCLAS STATE 030936 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL KPKO MARR AMGT SC GA SUBJECT: MARCH 10 - APRIL 4 SUBSTANTIVE SESSION OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS (C-34): ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE REF: STATE 21247 (NOTAL) 1.(SBU) Sensitive but unclassified. This message supplements the guidance given in reftel. 2.(SBU) Canada has circulated the draft 2008 C-34 report, containing recommendations on a range of issues (including the Office of Military Affairs, the UN's role in security sector reform, and cooperation with regional organizations),as well as requests for UN Secretariat follow-up. The C-34 will consider the draft report paragraph by paragraph from March 24 to April 4. The goal is to adopt the report by consensus on Friday, April 4. All issues should be looked at in the context described in paragraphs 3 and 4. Guidance on specific topics begins at paragraph 5. 3.(SBU) The U.S. supports vigorous, appropriately staffed and equipped UN management of UN peacekeeping operations. In 2007 we supported the Secretary-General's initiative to restructure the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. We joined others on the Fifth Committee in supporting most, but not all, of his requests for additional personnel and other resources. The Fifth Committee recommended, and the GA approved, combining those additional resources with steps to improve management procedures, in order to make the most efficient use of both existing and new resources. We note that the current draft language for the C-34 report endorses a number of Secretariat requests for additional personnel that would, if approved in full, bring total personnel to the levels requested but not approved in full in 2007. We welcome the wide ranging discussion in the C-34 of how to achieve the best possible UN peacekeeping. The U.S. believes that the C-34 is an excellent forum for providing overall guidance on how peacekeeping is managed. However, specifics -- numbers of personnel in a given office, for instance -- must be left to the budget committees. We stress that the UN has not yet filled all the positions already approved, and it is less than a year since the GA approved changes in a number of management procedures. It is premature to consider additional augmentations; we should allow the steps already taken to be implemented first. You should seek to keep language general, avoiding endorsement of any specific proposals for increases. 4.(SBU) USUN should accept language that appears in the Canadian draft report that was adopted by consensus in the 2007 report. If other delegations press to renegotiate consensus language, you should advise them that, for its part, the U.S. would prefer not to reopen difficult issues but that we are prepared to do so if necessary. USUN should tell the Committee that we have noted that in several paragraphs the draft report calls for inclusion of specific tasks in peacekeeping mandates (for example, SSR or child protection); while all worthy objectives, the specifics of peacekeeping mandates are the prerogative of the Security Council, and such statements in the C-34 report are not binding on the Council. USUN may also accept any language in the current draft of the report that is not specifically discussed in paragraphs 5 and following, below. You should seek additional guidance as needed. To the extent possible, USUN should share the spotlight with like-minded countries on issues where we are seeking to delete or alter language. 5.(SBU) Section A (Introduction) and B (Guiding Principles) are taken verbatim from the 2007 report. 6.(SBU) Section C: Restructuring of Peacekeeping: The U.S. Welcomes the steps taken to date, and urges that the remaining positions, particularly more senior slots, be filled as rapidly as possible. Note for USUN: Draw on the umbrella guidance in discussing the proposals for additional staffing or amendments contained in this section. -- (a) additional staffing for the Integrated Operational Teams -- that is, staffing at the level requested but not approved in 2007 (para 15) -- oppose endorsement of increase, seek "welcomes establishment of IOTs" without any mention of additional staff; (b) finalize Terms of Reference for IOTs and clarify relationship within Secretariat -- Department believes this has been done; if SIPDIS not, and if there are no resources required, USUN may accept this; (c) elevate the rank of the Police Advisor to that of other senior advisors in the Department (para 18) -- USUN should oppose any changes to staffing and position grades approved in 2007, and should seek to defer any such discussions to Fifth Committee; (d) give responsibility for procurement to DFS and wherever possible to use local procurement (para 23) -- inappropriate for C-34 discussion, this complex issue should be handled by budget committees. Further, "stimulation of local economic recovery" through local procurement is not a peacekeeping task. USUN should seek to delete; can accept language asking Secretariat to report if there is sufficient evidence that centralized procurement is impeding peacekeeping efforts; and (e) reconsideration of second A/SYG for DFS (para 24) -- the GA made its decision on this issue less than a year ago, and it is premature to reconsider it. 7.(SBU) Section D: Safety and Security: The U.S. shares the concern of other Member States about the safety of UN personnel. Most of this section is unchanged or has only slight modifications from the 2007 language, with some paragraphs eliminated. Para 36: This paragraph should be deleted. Any decision on use of contracted guard services should be made on a mission-specific basis. Further, the "UN" does not set troop ceilings, the Security Council does. This language is inappropriate for a C-34 report. Paras 39 and 40 -- we are also concerned about such issues as hostage taking and parties to conflict using UN field positions as cover. However, since legal remedies will vary depending on specific circumstances in each country, we are not persuaded that a Secretariat study of hypothetical legal responses to these acts would be helpful. The U.S. recommends that these issues be dealt with on a country-specific basis. Para 41 -- USUN should seek a formulation which is more general, such as "explore appropriate mechanisms for addressing the use of IEDs." The draft language is too specific; "jamming devices" are effective in some but not all instances. Para 46 -- USUN should seek to delete the reference to "regret" at the lack of progress on monitoring/surveillance technologies. This paragraph should focus on the Special Committee's request for a report on the project and alternatives. 8.(SBU) Section E: Conduct and Discipline: The U.S. continues to be a strong proponent of the highest standards of conduct and discipline. We welcome the inclusion of welfare and recreation arrangements for all categories of UN peacekeeping personnel. Note for USUN: As stated in ref A, the U.S. will consider any proposals for modifications of its MOUs with the UN on a case-by-case basis and cannot comment in advance on any specifics. However, we have no objection to the general language (para 54) encouraging the UN to proceed with implementation. 9.(SBU) Section F: Strengthening Operational Capacity: --Office of Military Affairs: The U.S. supports a strong military planning and advisory capacity at UN headquarters that will promote quick stand-up of new missions and rapid provision of appropriate technical support in the event of changing circumstances or amended mandates. USUN should seek to remove language from the C-34 report (para 64) welcoming the "strengthening" of OMA. This is one of many instances seeking staffing at the full levels requested in ¶2007. Since the GA decided to approve a lower level, and not all positions have yet been filled, it is premature to welcome any further increases. Fallback language: "The Special Committee notes the recommendations for additional positions for the Office of Military Affairs, and expects that the Fifth Committee will examine the proposals in detail." Similarly, the reference to "strengthening and restructuring" in para 65 should be deleted; these actions have already been taken by the GA, in 2007. The DPKO requests for additional positions will be addressed by the Fifth Committee. Para 66: We understand that the strategic military cell is to be moved from UNIFIL to DPKO without any increases in staffing. If this is the case, the Department has no objection to this paragraph. Please advise if this is not the case. Para 67: As discussed earlier, the GA approved certain increases and grade levels less than a year ago. Any discussion of amendments to ranks of particular positions should take place in the Fifth Committee, not the C-34; USUN should seek to have this paragraph deleted. USUN may if appropriate express support for the measures advocated in para 69 (development of a "concept" on use of military police units) and para 70 (search for innovative solutions to force and enabler generation). --UN Police Capacities: The U.S. recognizes and applauds the central role played by UN police in helping to establish the rule of law in post-conflict situations. We support the call for a comprehensive review of the Police Division. Para 71 -- elevate the rank of the Police Advisor to that of other senior advisors in the Department -- USUN should oppose any changes to staffing and position grades approved in 2007, and should seek to defer any such discussions to Fifth Committee; --Rapid Deployment: The U.S. supports efforts to improve the UN's capacity for rapid deployment. If asked: The U.S. believes this is a desirable outcome. We regret that we, as well as many other Member States, cannot make this a priority in view of other commitments of resources. We hope it will be possible to revisit this initiative in the future. --Integrated Planning: We support appointment of an advocate for the integrated mission planning process (IMPP) within the Secretariat. This task should be given to an existing member of the team. The Department defers to USUN on whether this is an appropriate role for the U/SYG for Management or his/her delegate. --Mission Leadership: In addition to the reiteration of language from last year's report calling for qualified candidates from troop-contributing countries for senior mission leadership, the U.S. supports inclusion of language underlining the desirability of increasing the number of women assigned to such positions. --Strengthening UN Headquarters: Para 82 is garbled. USUN is requested to seek clarification. --Doctrine and Terminology: The U.S. commends the extensive work and broad consultation that resulted in the development of the new UN Peacekeeping Operations Principles and Guidelines. We support its dissemination as suggested in the report. The new language in para 88 and 89 could lead to a reopening of the contentious question of "agreed principles, guidelines and terminology governing peacekeeping." USUN should seek to eliminate it, without raising the "consent" issue. You should stress instead that the UN guidelines are an internal document. While it will be widely used as a reference, it should not be opened up for debate or further editing by Member States. If other delegations press to open a discussion on "agreed principles, guidelines and terminology," you should advise them that, for its part, the U.S. also had concerns about the documents, and, while we would prefer not to reopen difficult issues, we are prepared to do so if necessary. You should advise Washington promptly if the U.S. has no support on this approach. --Other Issues: USUN should seek the deletion of para 90, which is an oblique reference to the proposed cadre of 2500 civilians, which the Fifth Committee reviewed and rejected in 2007. If this is not possible, you should try to change focus to the improving and speeding up of recruiting civilians in general, as stated in para 91 -- that is, underline the need for strong civilian skills without endorsing the creation of permanent positions. Para 93: as discussed in recent telephone calls and e-mails, the proposal for civilian observers is a Swedish initiative. USUN should follow up with the Swedish delegation on the margins of the C-34 session. We have no objection to a study of the proposal. 10.(SBU) Section G: Strategies for Complex Peacekeeping Operations: --General: The United States fully supports close coordination of development efforts by international and bilateral aid agencies with the security and national reconciliation programs supported by peacekeepers. This integrated approach is the most likely to produce sustainable results. USUN should be alert to efforts to introduce language transferring voluntary development costs to assessed peacekeeping costs. --Peacebuilding: Rather than "coexisting," the United States believes that peacekeeping and peacebuilding are closely connected. Peacebuilding programs such as rule of law programs conducted at an early stage lay the groundwork for long-term stability. We note that these programs must be integrated from the outset. Para 101: USUN should seek clarification of the reference in this paragraph to "linkage between budgetary benchmarks and the Security Council reporting process." You should also seek clarification on the reference in paragraph 102 to the PBC strengthening its capacity and intensifying dialogue on such issues as security sector reform. It is not clear what outcome or action is intended. Para 103: We welcome DPKO's increasing dialogue with an expanded universe of partners, as long as this does not interfere with its core function of planning and managing peacekeeping operations. Para 104: The U.S. is concerned that this paragraph as drafted risks blurring the distinctions between the roles and responsibilities of DPKO and DPA. USUN should seek modified language which encourages appropriate cooperation and coordination between the two departments, rather than predetermining how that should be done. -- Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR): This section of the report appears unnecessarily long and detailed. The C-34 should be giving overall policy guidance, rather than engaging in technical, expert-level discussions of practice. The U.S. agrees that reintegration programs should be planned from the beginning, as part of the overall plan of DDR; this includes seeking donor commitment up front for the reintegration phase. That said, it is often the case that a hard-won political agreement requires rapid movement to disarm and demobilize combatants, to defuse tensions and remove weapons from the equation, even if reintegration programs are not in place. USUN should seek to eliminate language throughout this section which calls for integration of development goals into peacekeeping mandates. We support efforts to take account of the special needs of women and children in DDR programs; this work should be conducted by the appropriate UN and other humanitarian groups, in close coordination with DPKO. The U.S. welcomes the request for a briefing on how headquarters support is meeting field needs. Specifically: USUN should seek the deletion of: para 106: sentences 3 and 4. In sentence 2, reintegration needs should be "planned" from the outset, not "linked to disarmament and demobilization." Para 107: First sentence should read: "The Special Committee stresses that the international donor community should make long-term commitments and sequence support to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to the entire process before it starts." The rest of the para as currently drafted is redundant. Para 112: Eliminate sentences 2 and 3. This language is unnecessarily detailed and suggests solutions which may not be suitable for all circumstances. Para 114: Delete (redundant and patronizing). --Security Sector Reform (SSR): This section of the report is also too long and detailed. As above, the C-34 report should give broad guidance, rather than technical instruction. The U.S. supports the Secretary-General's recommendations that the appropriate role for the UN in SSR, as described in para 118, is to provide technical advice and expertise on the design and requirements of SSR from the early stages of peacekeeping. We support, where appropriate, UN missions serving as a focus for government and donor programs to ensure that the best use is made of resources and that programs are mutually supportive but not duplicative. We anticipate that most SSR programs will be funded and managed by governments and/or donors. National ownership of SSR is critical to its success. However, we must also emphasize that it is critical that SSR programs be inclusive, based on principles of human rights and civilian control, The U.S. looks forward to the requested report on the relationship between SSR and DDR. USUN should seek to eliminate references in paras 120 and 124 to "clarification" of the role of the Rule of Law Unit, as well as to delete para 127, which calls for more SSR resources and reiterates the request for a separate SSR unit. The GA decided last year to establish DPKO's SSR function in the Rule of Law Unit, with 5 additional positions. There is no reason to revisit this issue so soon. --Rule of Law: Para 134: USUN should seek to eliminate references to tribunals and the ICC, ending the sentence at ".. . the need to end impunity for the most serious crimes." That is, we should avoid language advocating specific measures. Para 139: USUN should seek additional details on the "Standing Justice Capacity" described (not very well) in this paragraph. If this initiative is a proposal for additional staffing, USUN should seek language such as ".. welcomes the initiative to take a holistic approach to police, justice and corrections" and/or include "within existing resources." Para 141: If the proposed staffing of the Rule of Law office does not include any additional positions, USUN may accept this language; if this is a call for more positions, USUN should seek to eliminate any language implying support. --Gender and Peacekeeping: The U.S. deplores acts of sexual and gender-based violence, and fully supports efforts to integrate the special needs of women and girls into peacekeeping and peacebuilding programs. We underline the need for more women at senior management levels and among uniformed personnel. --Children and Peacekeeping: The U.S. supports efforts to increase child protection and to address the needs of this vulnerable population. The U.S. supports "naming" or "designating" (not "establishing") a focal point in DPKO to work with the SRSG on children and armed conflict; this should not be a new position. The U.S. does not support creation of an SRSG for violence against children; this position would duplicate and overlap the responsibilities of a number of existing positions and offices throughout the UN system. UN agencies should be addressing this issue already. --HIV/AIDS in Peacekeeping: The U.S. supports efforts to address the health of both peacekeepers and the populations they serve. --Quick Impact Projects: The U.S. recognizes the value of quick impact projects, and welcomes the call for coordination with humanitarian and development partners to eliminate overlap and ensure sustainment of the project. We expect to review any specific proposals in the mission-by-mission context in the budget committees. Note for USUN: You should seek to eliminate language on including QIPs in peacekeeping budgets (para 160). --Protection of Civilians: The U.S. supports the protection of civilians under imminent threat, within existing mandates and areas of deployment (para 161). We are not sure what is meant by "policies and guidance to ensure consistent and harmonized implementation, as well as the operationalization of lessons learned and best practices." We wonder if one-size-fits-all is in fact a productive approach to this issue. USUN should seek to have this paragraph rewritten in terms such as "The Special Committee recognizes the vulnerability of civilians in conflict situations, and welcomes steps taken to increase the ability of peacekeeping missions to respond to situations where civilians are in imminent danger." 11.(SBU) Section H: Cooperation with troop and police contributing countries: Para 162-168 were adopted in the 2007 report. The U.S. supports improved information-sharing and use of pre-deployment threat assessments. Paragraphs 170 and 171 contain several redundancies, and should be combined. We also recognize the benefit of reconnaissance visits to new missions by potential contributing countries. These visits should be financed by contributing countries or, where necessary, by DPKO within its own existing travel budgets. Use can and should be made of the considerable improvements in recent years in e-facilities, including video conferencing. 12.(SBU) Section I: Enhancement of African Peacekeeping Capacities: The U.S. is committed to assisting African countries and African organizations, including the AU and ECOWAS, to build their capacity; we support efforts to improve UN/AU coordination. USUN should oppose any efforts to broaden the language in this section (para 171-174) to imply that the UN should absorb capacity-building costs. 13.(SBU) Section J: Cooperation with regional arrangements: USUN should seek language clarifying that support for African and other regional capacity building comes from donor assistance and other voluntary funding. Para 180: We are concerned that the proposed coordination function in the Secretariat implies additional staffing and other resources. Any such coordination should be done within existing resources. If there is a proposal for additional personnel or other resources, this should be taken up by budget committees. USUN should seek clarification. Para 184 appears to be in the wrong section; since it does not refer to regional organizations, we suggest that it be moved to Section H (TCCs). 14.(SBU) Section K: Best Practices: The U.S. supports this approach. 15.(SBU) Section L: Training: The U.S. supports the recommendations. USUN should seek clarification of para 203, on the "institutionalization" of Senior Mission Administrative and Resource Training. 16.(SBU) Section M: Personnel: The U.S. supports the recommendations. All but para 216, with which we agree, were in the 2007 report. 17.(SBU) Section N: Financial Issues: We welcome the acknowledgment of the mandate and responsibilities of the Fifth Committee. Since para 219, which was included in the 2007 report, already notes that Members must pay their assessments, USUN should seek to eliminate para 220 and 221, which are redundant; as a fallback, they could be edited down and folded into para 219. The U.S. recognizes and welcomes the positive outcome of recent discussions on Contingent-owned Equipment. Para 226: the second sentence of this paragraph should end with ".. to reach a consensus", eliminating the unnecessary reference to the TCCs obtaining a smaller increase than they had sought. Para 226 also calls for a review of "troops cost [sic];" USUN should seek to avoid addition of language prejudging the outcome. 18.(SBU) Section O: Other Matters: The U.S. would like a much more detailed picture of what would be entailed in a "high-level" meeting to honor the 60th anniversary of UN peacekeeping. USUN should seek to have this recommendation, and the draft declaration that accompanies it, deleted. RICE