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