Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08UNVIEVIENNA581
2008-10-31 15:18:00
UNCLASSIFIED
UNVIE
Cable title:  

October 23 UNGASS CONSULTATIONS ON DRAFT ANNEX

Tags:  SNAR KCRM UN 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0028
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0581/01 3051518
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 311518Z OCT 08
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8624
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1383
UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000581 

SIPDIS

UNCLASSIFIED

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SNAR KCRM UN
SUBJECT: October 23 UNGASS CONSULTATIONS ON DRAFT ANNEX

--------
SUMMARY
--------

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