October 23 UNGASS CONSULTATIONS ON DRAFT ANNEX

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000581 SIPDIS UNCLASSIFIED E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: SNAR KCRM UN SUBJECT: October 23 UNGASS CONSULTATIONS ON DRAFT ANNEX -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) On October 23 Namibian Ambassador Selma Ashipala-Musavyi, chair of the CND, briefed the WEOG group on the draft annex or Action Plan (emailed to Department previously). Prior to the briefing, a number of WEOG members met to discuss their reaction to the draft. There was general agreement on having the 2009 Political Declaration, to which an Action Plan Annex is expected to be attached, reaffirm the 1998 Declaration. However, Australia, supported by the U.K. and several other EU members, questioned the structure of the Action Plan Annex. UNVIE believes the Action Plan's structure is sound, though the language needs to be tightened and the content streamlined. USG should continue to be sensitive to the broad support Ambassador Ashipala enjoys within the G-77 community, as well as UNVIE's own positive relationship with her. -------------- Structure Dominates Informal Discussion -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Prior to the formal WEOG session with Ambassador Ashipala, several WEOG members assembled for an informal discussion. All in attendance expressed a desire for the 2009 Political Declaration to re-affirm the 1998 Declaration. ¶3. (SBU) Nevertheless, there was widespread concern over the structure of the Action Plan draft Ambassador Ashipala submitted for member states' consideration. While all agreed the document is too long and needs to be shortened, the members also expressed the feeling the document is A) imbalanced with respect to supply and demand issues; B) could be read as a new Action Plan, rather than one supplementing the 1998 document; and C) is not sufficiently forward-looking nor concrete in its assessments of work needed to be done. ¶4. (SBU) Sweden informed the meeting that the European Commission created an alternative structure that contains: 1) a chapeau explicitly reaffirming the 1998 Declaration; 2) a section on supply; 3) a section on demand; 4) 2 sections on cross-cutting issues, such as international coordination and cooperation, data collection and evaluation. When asked if this structure was something other EU countries could rally around, most seemed to suggest yes, with no dissenters. (Note: Not all WEOG countries were in attendance at the informal meeting. End Note.) ¶5. (SBU) Countries at the informal admitted restructuring the Action Plan would need to be carefully managed so as not to open up the substance for re-negotiation, or undercut Ambassador Ashipala. With that in mind there was discussion that any alternative draft would need to come from the chair, and not from any specific group of member states. Some in the meeting raised the possibility of Sweden acting as intermediary given the relationship between Ambassadors Lundberg and Ashipala. (Note: The two co-chair the working group on finance and governance. End Note.) -------------- Ashipala Defends Structure at Formal Meeting -------------- ¶6. (SBU) At her briefing for the WEOG, Ambassador Ashipala laid out her vision for the next two months. She reiterated her desire for negotiations on the Action Plan to be concluded by mid-December, at which time she would circulate a draft Political Declaration. She envisions the new Political Declaration as a short document, reaffirming and supplementing the 1998 Declaration, and focusing on gaps to be filled as well as emerging issues. ¶7. (SBU) At the next UNGASS meeting on November 3 and 4, Ambassador Ashipala will re-circulate the draft Action Plan, in a version that will cite documentary sources, such as specific resolutions, for each. She envisions section by section discussions and negotiations. She does not want to see negotiations on each paragraph, but many delegations wonder whether this can be avoided. ¶8. (SBU) Most comments and questions directed to Ashipala at the WEOG briefing related to concerns with structure. UK asserted that conclusions of the working groups were reached by experts. Since they were not politically negotiated texts, UK argued, they should not form the basis of the Political Declaration or the Action Plan. Australia asked if the structure will evolve into what they hope is a more comprehensible and forward-looking document. The European Commission worried about the imbalanced structure-one section on demand and four sections on supply-saying that the Action Plan's content should be drawn not only from the working groups but also from the NGO Forum's "Beyond 2008" conclusions and UNODC's "Fit for Purpose". Netherlands and Canada supported that position. Canada, Sweden, Germany and France all expressed concern that the Action Plan did not adequately reaffirm the 1998 Declaration, and that the current Action Plan could be seen as replacing it. ¶9. (SBU) Ambassador Ashipala reiterated that the Action Plan to be circulated on November 3 will retain its current structure. She expressed her belief that attempts to renegotiate the Action Plan's structure are a fruitless exercise, but she is agreeable to it if the member states so desire. She suggested that concerns over imbalance between supply and demand should be considered during November 3-4. She also tried to tamp down concerns about whether the Action Plan adequately reaffirms the 1998 Declaration, saying such concerns should be taken up during the Political Declaration negotiations in January. -------------- COMMENT -------------- ¶10. (SBU) Our subsequent conversations with Australia and key EU advocates for a revised structure led us to believe that they have the ulterior motive of incorporating harm reduction into the draft annex. Our conversations with some G-77 representatives revealed strong support for Ambassador Ashipala, who was given the mandate to draft the anenx. These G-77 contacts also showed no appetite for structural revision of the draft, especially if the idea came from the developed countries. In light of our overall satisfaction with the draft content, we should continue to push for tighter language, more streamlined content, and clarity that the 2009 document will be supplemental to, not replacement of, the 1998 action plan. Ambassador Ashipala enjoys broad support within the G-77 community, and Mission enjoys an excellent working relationship with her. END COMMENT. Schulte