FAO DIRECTOR GENERAL DIOUF CONTINUES PRESSING FOR NOVEMBER

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 UN ROME 000023 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: FAO UN PREL EAGR EAID SUBJECT: FAO DIRECTOR GENERAL DIOUF CONTINUES PRESSING FOR NOVEMBER FOOD SUMMIT IN ROME, DESPITE U.S. MESSAGE REF: A. STATE 27760 (NOTAL) - READOUT OF DIOUF DC MEETINGS ¶B. WARLICK-DIOUF LETTER 3/10/09 ON SUMMIT PROPOSAL ¶C. USUN Rome 18 ¶1. (U) This message is sensitive but unclassified. Please handle accordingly. ¶2. (SBU) Summary. Charge met privately with FAO Director General Jacques Diouf on March 26 to review the status of issues related to food security and agriculture following the latter's official visit to New York and Washington, D.C. Despite being told repeatedly that the USG believed a food summit on the margins of the FAO Conference this November in Rome was inappropriate, Diouf continues to press forward with his plans, believing the U.S. response to date was merely an "interim" one. Charge clarified that the views expressed by USG interlocutors (refs A, B) were definitive, and represented the official U.S. Administration response. Charge strongly encouraged Diouf to place structural reform of FAO at the top of his priority list. Immediately following their meeting, DG Diouf briefed the Chair/Vice Chairpersons of Rome-based regional groupings on his plans to host a November summit, soliciting further support for this effort. End summary. -------------- DG Diouf Still Pressing Summit Idea -------------- ¶3. (SBU) On March 26, the Charge d'Affaires met privately for over an hour with the Director General of the UN's Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),Jacques Diouf, to discuss the latter's March 16-18 official visit to New York and Washington, D.C. The DG opened the 60-minute meeting with a very positive assessment of his meetings in Washington ("a great success") and thanked the USG for its "support" of his proposal to host a food security summit this November in Rome. He underscored his recognition that the USG had not yet determined its "level of participation" in this vetted summit, and was looking forward to the final U.S. position following receipt of the "interim" response (Ref B) from Acting Assistant Secretary James Warlick. He said he understood there were many urgent matters demanding the attention of Ambassador Rice and Secretary Clinton which prevented their meeting with him personally. Nevertheless, he appreciated their support for food security and looked forward to further discussion of his summit proposal. ¶4. (SBU) The Charge responded that the DG should take the letter from AA/S Warlick as the final USG response to his proposed Summit, and expressed surprise that the DG seemed to have misunderstood the message conveyed to him by DAS Gerry Anderson (Ref A). The Charge made clear that according to the written report from that meeting, the Administration sees a November summit in Rome as inappropriate, since it would interfere with ongoing reform efforts at FAO, among other things. The DG said this was not his impression from his DC meetings, and that Senator Lugar had been "even more exuberant in his endorsement" of the Summit idea. ¶5. (SBU) The Charge repeated his three main points delivered at their last private meeting (USUN Rome 18); our key interest with FAO is its successful structural reform; that FAO must become a facilitator of a global food security partnership; and, that a revitalized Committee on Food Security (CFS) is seen as part and parcel of the reform process at FAO. In other words, CFS might play a supportive role in focusing attention among a broad array of stakeholders on food security if the CFS becomes an equal partnership among the Rome-based agencies supporting a global approach to food security and agriculture. The Charge advised the DG that he and FAO management will distinguish themselves more by demonstrating commitment to reform and working to deliver operational results in the field than by orchestrating another summit. Rather, the DG should recognize that he is not alone on these issues and he can help direct the high level of political ambition that already exists among global leaders into constructive operational channels on an urgent basis in his role as Vice Chair of the UN's High Level Task Force on food security. ¶6. (SBU) The Charge pointed out that the Summit concept has neither a consensus nor a mandate from members, nor funding in the FAO budget. He recalled his experience as Chair of the UN ROME 00000023 002 OF 003 November 2008 Conference when he had to insist upon language inserted into the final report that made clear the Secretariat needed to first prepare a well-developed concept for holding a summit, that FAO's Council must approve. Diouf agreed that he required a mandate and said that is why he was going over the heads of local permreps to approach global leaders directly. The Charge encouraged the DG to carefully consider the views of members in Rome who have devoted thousands of person days over the past three years to develop the most ambitious reform program ever negotiated and approved by a UN technical agency -- a significant achievement which could burnish the DG's reputation as a trail blazer among UN organizations. Delivery on FAO reform would endure far longer and produce greater results, he noted, than would a summit. ¶7. (SBU) Still unconvinced, the DG pointed to the global food and agriculture situation as evidence of the need for a summit. The Charge responded by reiterating the message delivered to Diouf in New York; the US agrees with the diagnosis but not the cure - another summit is not the answer. The DG argued that he was "only doing his duty" as the advocate of underdeveloped countries, to respond to political calls for a summit to draw attention to the moral obligation of members to address food security urgently on a global basis. The Charge said that the June 2008 High Level Conference declaration, along with other statements such as the Accra and Paris declarations, provided a sound basis for engagement and urged the DG to focus on how to make these aspirations operational as a contributor to the HLTF and to the Comprehensive Framework of Action. -------------- Comment -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Comment: While very frank and direct, the tenor of the meeting remained cordial and the DG thanked the Charge for the frank advice and the promise to pass along his views. The DG reiterated that he was prepared to meet with the Charge at any time. He expressed appreciation for USG support for FAO reform and the strong relationship that he had with the U.S. Mission and the broader USG, and recognized the crucial role that the U.S. played in global food security issues. End comment. -------------- DG Briefs Permreps on Summit Plans -------------- ¶9. (SBU) 11. The March 26 meeting between the Charge and the DG was followed immediately by a DG-hosted "briefing" for all Regional Chairs and Vice Chairs of diplomatic missions in Rome (both the U.S. and Canada were present for the North America Group). Also present for Diouf's briefing on "the state of progress of FAO activities" were Chairs/Vice Chairs of the G-77, OECD, and the European Union. The "briefing" quickly became a venue for Diouf to solicit support for his proposed food summit in November. Diouf began by summarizing events since 2005 which he argued had led to the food crisis and claimed that he "tried everything" to get the world's attention. But, he added, a mechanism for action, i.e., a summit of world leaders, was necessary to direct attention to the issue. He believed it was his "obligation" to commence discussion on the issues of hunger and agricultural productivity, since "no one else" is doing so. He listed groups, regions, and leaders that had offered support for his proposal, but said the FAO Council (in June) must make a final decision. He believed voluntary funding would appear after a (presumably positive) Council decision was taken. He concluded his opening remarks with a cursory nod to FAO reform, saying it was going well, and that he was working well with the HLTF. ¶10. (SBU) Country responses were predictably split. The Dominican Republic went first, claiming to represent the G-77, and offering its full support. Canada countered with a resounding "no," to which Diouf responded with a 10-minute rhetorical volley. Jordan noted that Arab leaders had already agreed to a summit. Norway agreed with the need to keep the food crisis high on the political agenda, but maintained they were not yet convinced of the value-added that a Summit would UN ROME 00000023 003 OF 003 lend. Senegal, speaking for the Africa Group, noted that they sometimes questioned the need for summits, but given the current food situation, better global governance was needed. Australia, like Canada, noted the great volume of reform work to be done in FAO, and said a summit would be a major distraction from core work of the FAO. New Zealand also spoke out against a summit, arguing for a stronger FAO focus on its own reform. Belgium, while conceding the seriousness of the global food security situation, agreed that focus should be on FAO reform and counseled against a summit. Argentina spoke mainly about reform of the CFS, but added support for a food summit, saying action and political backing were needed - a view she said was largely shared throughout the Latin American and Caribbean group. Denmark largely echoed Norway's "not convinced" remarks, despite apparent sympathy towards a stronger global response. Malaysia, on behalf of the Asia group, said they were unconvinced of the value of a summit this November. China's new Permrep intervened to highlight China's long-standing support for FAO as the leading body in food and agriculture. While supportive of FAO's reform program and the CFS, he said Beijing recognized the numerous concerns by members regarding the timing of a summit (in November) and the inherent difficulties attached to preparing adequately in such a limited time period. ¶11. (SBU) Despite the lack of funding or mandate, and the clear ambivalence on the part of many delegations, the DG summed up the need for a summit saying: such an event could achieve "real decisions," taken at the highest level; only heads of state can commit all relevant national resources to invest in agriculture; and, that FAO was capable, as a "multi-tasking agency" of handling both the reform agenda and a summit. Diouf said the only barrier to moving forward on FAO's reform was the limited amount of donations by member states to the IPA Trust Fund. The DG concluded his briefing by saying he was convinced the world was headed for another "crisis," commenting that "it was not surprising that poor countries are the ones most sensitive to the urgency of the problem." HEINENSE