Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08STATE30936
2008-03-25 22:32:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

MARCH 10 - APRIL 4 SUBSTANTIVE SESSION OF SPECIAL

Tags:  PREL KPKO MARR AMGT SC GA 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0006
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #0936 0852240
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 252232Z MAR 08
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 0000
INFO RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM IMMEDIATE 0000
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)
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