UN SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM: PGA STILL TRYING TO

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000768 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL KUNR UNSC IN BR PK IT JP GM SUBJECT: UN SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM: PGA STILL TRYING TO BRIDGE THE DIVIDE BETWEEN THE G-4 AND UFC REF: A. USUN NEW YORK 716 ¶B. USUN NEW YORK 654 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: On August 22, General Assembly President Kerim gathered together Perm Reps from Japan, the UK, Pakistan, Egypt, Djibouti, and the U.S. for a discussion of compromise language for the report of the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on Security Council expansion to the General Assembly which must be discussed at the next OEWG meeting, scheduled for September 2. The G-4 (represented by Japan) and the Uniting for Consensus (represented by Pakistan) blocs remain apart on whether to launch inter-governmental negotiations (G-4 position) or first have a discussion of the parameters (UFC position) of such a negotiation in the OEWG. The UK offered one possible compromise -- discuss parameters during the first months of the 63rd session until the end of calendar year 2008 and then launch intergovernmental negotiations at the start of 2009. The two blocs are also opposed on whether negotiations should be governed by consensus/"general agreement" (UFC) or the "widest possible agreement" (G-4). Egypt suggested that the "widest possible agreement" be defined as greater than the two-thirds required by the Charter. Ambassador Khalilzad urged the G-4 to move on giving some assurances to the UFC on rules and procedures for intergovernmental negotiations but did note that discussions of such assurances should be time-bound. He also advocated in favor of standing by consensus/general agreement as the basis for negotiations in return for the launch of those negotiations. While no agreements were reached, the PGA's office said they would revise the draft language for the OEWG report based on the discussion and circulate it to delegations in advance of the September 2 OEWG meeting. End summary. ¶2. (SBU) General Assembly President (PGA) Srgjan Kerim hosted August 22 another meeting of his hand-selected group of states (Japan, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Egypt) to discuss compromise language on UN Security Council expansion for the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) report to the General Assembly. To help him bridge the divide between the G-4 position represented by Japan, which seeks immediate launch of intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council expansion, and the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) position represented by Pakistan, which seeks a discussion of the modalities and parameters of the negotiation prior to the launch of negotiations, he invited the Permanent Representative of Djibouti Ambassador Roble Olhaye, one of the four Vice Chairpersons of the PGA's Security Council expansion Task Force, and Ambassador Khalilzad. Ambassador Dzundev, the PGA's Chef de Cabinet, opened the meeting by asking the four representatives for concrete proposals to the PGA's original draft decision, reported in ref B. He noted that the PGA needs to circulate revised language before the next meeting of the OEWG, scheduled for September 2. Pakistan -------------- ¶3. (SBU) Pakistani Perm Rep Ambassador Munir Akram stressed that he is trying to bring along a "less flexible" UFC bloc and that they are not prepared to launch inter-governmental negotiations until there is a discussion of the modalities and parameters for negotiations, per the PGA's fourth pillar. The PGA responded that the UFC should not pick and choose pillars as from an a la carte menu since pillars four and seven go together, like a prix fixe menu. (Note: Pillar seven reads: "Member states should refrain from steps which could serve to undermine the current momentum and consensus to continue a process with the intention of achieving result-oriented solutions. End note.) On the question of whether the negotiations should be governed by "general agreement" or "the widest possible agreement," Akram argued strongly in favor of "general agreement," saying that the OEWG was originally formed to study the issue as a consensus body and that to push through reform now by majority, would be more destructive than constructive and would result in "isolating an important segment." Japan -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Japanese Perm Rep Ambassador Yukio Takasu stressed the need to move the debate to the next stage -- intergovernmental negotiations -- and argued in favor of seeking the "widest possible agreement," not "general agreement." He argued that, in this context, "general agreement" will mean that every member state has the right to stop the reform process and that should not be possible. For that reason, the "widest possible agreement," which should mean more than two-thirds, is better. Takasu expressed strong disapproval of an initial discussion of the modalities and parameters for negotiations, stating that he could not promise to give up something in the pre-negotiation of parameters before the actual negotiations begin and urged that all options be kept on the table. He observed that member states were not given an opportunity to negotiate the PGA's Seven Pillars. Egypt -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Egyptian Perm Rep Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz pointed out that the PGA was proposing to shift the language in the draft decision from last year's decision of "general agreement" to "widest possible agreement." If that was to be the case, then he suggested adding the phrase "over the two-thirds required by the Charter." UK -- ¶6. (SBU) UK Perm Rep Ambassador John Sawers noted the familiar tones of the discussion, the sense of frustration on the part of many member states with the OEWG or, as he nicknamed it the "never-ending working group," and the concern on the part of some member states that the process will be launched and come to a screeching halt when the 128th country signs on to reform. He advocated for a set of "rules of the road" for the 12-month period ahead. He suggested a possible bridge between the G-4 and the UFC with a discussion of parameters during the opening months of the 63rd session (until the end of 2008) and then the launch of intergovernmental negotiations at the start of 2009. US -- ¶7. (SBU) Ambassador Khalilzad said there appear to be three options: (1) placing the issue before the GA and its usual rules and procedures; (2) intergovernmental negotiations within the OEWG using consensus; or (3) intergovernmental negotiations in the GA but on the basis of general agreement, though there are questions as to what standing that would have. Since the first option is viewed by most as too great a step, though we may ultimately end up there, that leaves the last two options, he suggested. In order to move forward, he urged the G-4 to move on giving some assurances to the UFC on rules and procedures for intergovernmental negotiations but did note that discussions of such assurances should be time-bound. Ambassador Khalilzad urged the G-4 to accept general agreement as the basis for negotiations if the UFC agreed to launch intergovernmental negotiations in the 63rd session. Next Steps -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The meeting concluded with no agreement between the two blocs, but the PGA said his office would draft revised language for the OEWG report, based on the meeting's discussion, and then circulate it to all OEWG members in advance of the next OEWG meeting, September 2. Wolff