Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08UNVIEVIENNA454
2008-08-14 06:15:00
CONFIDENTIAL
UNVIE
Cable title:  

IAEA/BOG: MESA REBUFFS KAZAKHSTAN; AFGHANISTAN

Tags:  PARM KNNP PREL AORC IAEA KZ AF SY 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0454/01 2270615
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 140615Z AUG 08
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8312
INFO RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA PRIORITY 0041
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY 0179
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL PRIORITY 0197
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY 0288
C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000454 

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR IO/T AND ISN/RA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/12/2018
TAGS: PARM KNNP PREL AORC IAEA KZ AF SY
SUBJECT: IAEA/BOG: MESA REBUFFS KAZAKHSTAN; AFGHANISTAN
FORGES ON

REF: A) UNVIE 445 AND PREVIOUS B)
PAPPAS-DANIEL/VONBEHREN EMAIL 7/22/2008

Classified By: Ambassador Gregory L. Schulte for reasons 1.4 b and d

Summary
---------
C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000454

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR IO/T AND ISN/RA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/12/2018
TAGS: PARM KNNP PREL AORC IAEA KZ AF SY
SUBJECT: IAEA/BOG: MESA REBUFFS KAZAKHSTAN; AFGHANISTAN
FORGES ON

REF: A) UNVIE 445 AND PREVIOUS B)
PAPPAS-DANIEL/VONBEHREN EMAIL 7/22/2008

Classified By: Ambassador Gregory L. Schulte for reasons 1.4 b and d

Summary
--------------

1. (C) Acting on instructions, Kazakhstan sought to present
its candidacy for the 2008-2010 open MESA seat on the Board
of Governors to Indian MESA Chair Kumar, but was rebuffed by
Kumar who disputed Kazakhstan's eligibility and bona fides as
a MESA group member. The IAEA Statute is silent on MESA
group membership, and a 1997 list of regional groups that
included Kazakhstan under MESA has not been formally adopted
and will be considered only in tandem with the ratification
of Article VI expanding the Board. The Secretariat stands by
this list but advises that, unless MESA accepts Kazakhstan,
the group could challenge any Kazakh bid in the General
Conference. The Secretariat has advised Kazakhstan to
request group membership, but Kumar denies he has the
authority to propose it. Syria would likely seek to block
Kazakhstan's addition to MESA if it were brought to the
group. MESA will meet August 14 to consider Syria and
Afghanistan's candidacies but no resolution is expected;
another meeting is possible prior to the GC. Afghanistan
faces opposition from Pakistan within MESA and is actively
campaigning beyond the group, poised for a GC vote. Kumar
sees no prospect of Syria withdrawing unless it can be
convinced that it would lose in the General Conference.
Mission recommends backing Afghanistan given the
unlikely-to-be-resolved questions over Kazakhstan's MESA
membership. End Summary.


MESA Rebuffs Kazakhstan
--------------


2. (C) Kazakh Ambassador Abdrakhmanov informed Ambassador
Schulte on August 12 that, following the Secretary's phone
call to his Foreign Minister, he had been instructed to
submit Kazakhstan's candidacy to the MESA group for the
2008-2010 Board of Governors seat, which is now contested by
Syria and Afghanistan. However, Indian Board Chair

Ambassador Kumar effectively rebuffed Abdrakhmanov's request
on the premise that Kazakhstan is not recognized as a member
of the MESA group. In a follow up discussion with Ambassador
Schulte on August 13, Kumar argued that Kazakhstan is
therefore not eligible to run for the MESA seat. He noted
that Kazakhstan has not participated in any group
consultations in the past and has not been invited to MESA
meetings, including that on August 14 which will consider
Afghanistan and Syria's candidacies. Kumar also refused to
countenance any request by Kazakhstan to join the MESA group,
arguing that this was an issue for the Board or General
Conference to decide because MESA was a "statutory area." He
claimed not to have the authority to consider Kazakhstan's
application. The IAEA Secretariat of the Policy-Making
Organs took the opposite view, that the decision would be up
to MESA, and has so advised Kazakhstan.


3. (C) The IAEA Statute (Article VI) does not stipulate the
membership of the eight regional areas represented on the
Board of Governors. A list of regional areas or groups was
first developed in 1997 (GC/41/11),in the context of the
General Conference debate on amending Article VI. This list
clearly shows Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan as members of the
MESA group (and would extend to two other Central Asian
countries that have since joined the Agency, Kyrgyzstan and
Tajikistan.) According to the Secretariat, the list was
tacitly agreed at the time though it has not been formally
adopted by the Board or General Conference. The mechanism
for doing so was laid out in the 1999 Amendment to Article VI
of the Statute, to expand the Board (GC 43/RES/19.) It
stipulates that the Amendment would enter into force upon its
ratification and the adoption of this list of regional groups
by a 90 percent vote in both the Board and General
Conference. This provision was part of a deal brokered at
the time that would allow Israel to be formally recognized as
a member of MESA in exchange for agreement to expand the
Board. The Amendment to Article VI has not yet been ratified
by two-thirds of the member states and thus the list has not
been brought to the Board/GC for a vote. Nevertheless, the
Secretariat uses it as a reference point. (Note: Prior to the
development of this list, group membership was "by
tradition," as it is elsewhere in the UN system. End note.)


4. (C) The Secretariat stands by the list, but acknowledges

that as a practical matter, Kazakhstan must be accepted by
the MESA group or face potential complications in the General
Conference. Under Rule 79 of the General Conference Rules of
Procedure, election to the Board of Governors is by s-ecret
ballot and there are no nominations (i.e. Kazakhstan cannot
nominate itself.) Member states can technically vote for any
eligible member of the group (excluding those already on the
Board or just completing their term.) However, Rule 85 (d)
stipulates that a vote for a country which is not a member of
the group would be invalid. According to the IAEA Legal
Office, if the General Conference voted for Kazakhstan, the
MESA group could challenge this ballot if it did not
recognize Kazakhstan as a group member. While Kazakhstan
could "petition" the Board or General Conference to be
considered a member of MESA, the MESA group could also
challenge any Board/GC decision being imposed on the group.


5. (C) The Secretariat has thus counseled Kazakhstan to
approach the group and discounts Kumar's protestations that
the Chair does not have the authority to consider a request
for group membership. If the Chair refuses, Kazakhstan can
also approach other group members to make its case, the
Secretariat advised. However, if the group were to make a
decision on Kazakhstan's membership, there is no guarantee
that it would be affirmative. Syria, hearing of Kazakhstan's
interest, requested that the Chair provide an "official" list
of group members. Excluding the Central Asians, nine of the
remaining 15 MESA members are Arab states plus Iran. Kumar
also tried to claim that Kazakhstan had been participating in
Eastern Europe group consultations. The Secretariat
confirmed that Kazakhstan does not participate in the Eastern
Europe group and does not appear on the rotation scheme for
Eastern Europe Board membership for 2006-2016 (Note: Armenia
and Azerbaijan are part of Eastern Europe. End Note).


6. (C) Comment: Kazakhstan is left in a statutory limbo, a
"lacuna," as the Indian Chair called it. If the MESA group
does not accept it, Kazakhstan and the three other Central
Asian IAEA-member countries, have the same status as Israel;
excluded from any regional group and ineligible to run for
the Board. End Comment.

Go With Afghanistan
--------------


7. (C) Setting aside the "weight" of the Afghan or Kazakh
candidacies, Kumar advised Ambassador Schulte that an up or
down vote on Syria versus Afghanistan would be more
straightforward without the additional complication of
determining group membership. Afghanistan has been a MESA
member since its inception. Kumar also indicated that Sri
Lanka has expressed an interest in running for the MESA seat
but has not put forward its candidacy. Kumar has encouraged
the Afghan CDA's lobbying efforts, and counseled that
Afghanistan needed to appear as a "serious candidate," not a
last minute challenger to Syria. Neither Kumar nor Afghan
CDA Monawar expected the MESA group to come to any consensus
on August 14. Time permitting, there would probably be
another MESA meeting before the General Conference.


8. (C) Kumar also saw no prospect of Syria withdrawing from
the race unless it can be convinced that it would lose a GC
vote in an embarrassing defeat to Afghanistan. Monawar is
preparing for such a vote as he sees no prospect of consensus
in MESA. In addition to Syria and Iran, he fully expected
Pakistan to oppose Afghanistan's candidacy and explained that
there was a bilateral issue of Pakistan having dumped nuclear
waste in Afghanistan during the Taliban era. Pakistan
circulated a dipnote on August 12 "reminding" MESA members
that Syria had earlier put its candidacy forward and
stipulating that Pakistan would run for the next Board, in
accordance with its "established pattern" of serving every
other term (i.e. since the Statute prohibits consecutive
terms for elected members.)


9. (C) Monawar also provided Acting Counselor more insight as
to why Afghanistan is seeking the MESA seat. In addition to
5 million USD in IAEA technical cooperation projects, he sees
Board membership as leverage over Iran and asked Mission to
advise Washington that Afghanistan wants to position itself
on the Board as a regional "bridge" to the West. Monawar
also planned to praise the India nuclear deal in the August
14 MESA meeting as a benefit to the nonproliferation regime.



10. (C) Seeing MESA as a "lost cause," Monawar has already
approached some GRULAC members and reported that Brazil is

very opposed to Syrian Board candidacy. Acting Counselor
encouraged him to seek African support, beginning with South
Africa, if it comes to GC vote. Japan also continues to be
solicitous and helpful to Afghanistan (in part lobbying for
Permrep Amano's DG candidacy). Acting Counselor broached the
issue of Afghanistan's MESA candidacy with the French EU
Presidency on August 12. French CDA was open to supporting
Afghanistan as an alternative to Syria, especially if the
Secretariat could not sort out Kazakhstan's group membership.
The Italian Ambassador told Ambassador Schulte that the EU
would certainly side with Afghanistan over Syria.

Comment
--------------


11. (C) Given the lack of clarity about Kazakhstan's group
membership on the part of the Secretariat and MESA, Mission
sees little prospect for Kazakhstan to have a "clean" vote in
the General Conference. With this question mark over
Kazakhstan, Mission recommends fully backing Afghanistan in
light of its eagerness to serve on the Board and pro-U.S.
positions. Afghanistan can rally EU, like-minded and most
GRULAC support as an alternative to Syria and some Arab
states may also vote for Afghanistan since this would be a
secret ballot (Note: The heated debate on the Arab League
Israeli Nuclear Capabilities Resolution in the GC could,
however, cause the Arabs to close ranks. End note.)
Afghanistan would need to rally Africa and Asia group support
and split the NAM. The best case scenario would be for
Afghanistan to garner enough support to convince Syria to
withdraw prior to the GC. Failing that, there can be no
guarantee of success in a GC vote, but Afghanistan has a
decent chance. We can also urge Kazakhstan to clarify its
MESA status after the GC so that it can be poised to run in
2009 when two MESA seats will be open.
SCHULTE