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