UNGA: UNSC REFORM: INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000289

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR USUN/W AND IO/UNP; NSC FOR POWERS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL KUNR UNGA UNSC GE JA BR IN
SUBJECT: UNGA: UNSC REFORM: INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS
ON THE VETO

REF: USUN NEW YORK 230


1. (SBU) Summary: The informal plenary of the General
Assembly met March 16 and 17 for intergovernmental
negotiations on Security Council expansion focusing on the
question of the veto. 74 delegations spoke during the
day-and a-half discussion with most stating their general
aversion to the veto. The African Group and Group of Four
(G4) states (and supporters) called for an extension of the
veto to new permanent members with the caveat that they
actually not exercise it until a future review conference,
but ultimately believe the veto should be abolished. The
Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc, which does not support an
expansion of permanent members, spoke against any extension
of the veto to new permanent members. A number of other
states also opposed extension of the veto to new permanent
members, saying that a Council with ten or more veto-wielding
members would be less efficient and even less likely to
relinquish the veto in the future. Much of the discussion
centered on how to restrict use of the veto, both voluntarily
and through Charter amendments to Article 27. All five
current permanent members spoke but only the UK, Russia, and
the U.S. articulated that a change to the current veto
structure is not realistic. The next meeting will be March
24 on "regional representation." End summary.


2. (SBU) Comment: During the final session, the Indian Perm
Rep definitively linked a permanent seat to the veto; if both
were not extended than neither should be. His statement may
have sounded the death knell on an expansion of permanent
seats. The German Perm Rep's suggestion for longer-term
seats of 12-15 years under an intermediate option may
indicate an openness by G4 members to more seriously consider
the intermediate option. The intermediate option may gain
further traction in the next meeting, even though it will be
focused on regional representation which should theoretically
focus more on non-permanent seats. However, we still do not
expect real progress on reform to accelerate until well into
or after the second round of intergovernmental negotiations,
which will not start until May. End Comment.

Overview
--------------


3. (SBU) Intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council
expansion continued March 16 and 17 with meetings of the
informal plenary on the second of five key issues -- "the
question of the veto." 74 delegations spoke, including the
United States, during the three sessions, and eight
delegations re-took the floor during the interactive portion
of the final session. As he did before previous meetings,
Afghan Perm Rep and Chairman of the intergovernmental
negotiations Zahir Tanin circulated a letter to the
membership on March 13. This one included an excerpt on the
"question of the veto" from the Open-ended Working Group's
61st session report (A/61/47). (Note: USUN e-mailed Tanin's
March 13 letter to IO/UNP. End note.) In both his March 13
letter and in his remarks on March 16 and 17, Tanin expressed
satisfaction with delegations' statements clarifying their
original positions and occasionally demonstrating flexibility
through new proposals, thereby "injecting life blood" into
the negotiations.


4. (SBU) The tone in these meetings quickly turned acerbic,
beginning with the Indian Perm Rep's derogatory reference to
the Italian Perm Rep as the "leading light of the UFC" who
was arithmetically challenged. The Italian Perm Rep returned
the compliment in the last session, referring to the Indian
Perm Rep as the "lodestar of the G4" who did not correctly
interpret his intervention even though a hard copy was
provided. The session ended with a plea from the Jamaican
Perm Rep for an improvement in the tone and for greater
respect for the diversity of interventions since more than
just the two main blocs are participating.

Almost unanimous aversion to veto
--------------


5. (SBU) 62 of the 74 delegations called for abolition of
the veto, with most describing it as "anachronistic." Others


said the historical circumstances that led to its development
no longer exist. Many complained that the use of the "hidden
veto" or "pocket veto" (the threat of a veto) had increased.
The Italian Perm Rep noted that "there is hardly ever a need
to resort to the veto, since the very prospect of its use
suffices to shape the Council's consultations and subsequent
decisions." (Comment: The Norwegian expert told PolOff that
while many European delegations publicly complain about the
veto, they privately acknowledge that they are fine with the
status quo. End comment.)


6. (SBU) The membership was divided, however, with 34
delegations (or 70 including all members of the African
Group) wanting to perpetuate this "anachronistic" practice
and extend it to new permanent members, and 28 delegations
not wanting to enlarge the club and/or attempting to restrict
permanent members' future use of the veto. As an example of
the first group, the Syrian Perm Rep specifically castigated
a "well-known state" for its use of the veto to protect
Israel and called for Council reform to take away this right
but also noted that Syria believes new permanent members
should get the same privileges as current permanent members.
The Nicaraguan Perm Rep also said the veto should be
eliminated because it is undemocratic but then he called for
new permanent members to be given the same veto rights as
current permanent members.


7. (SBU) The second group is composed of a diverse group
states, some who support additional permanent members without
the veto and some who are against additional permanent
members. For example, Uruguay supports the G4's quest for
permanent seats but is against the extension of the veto to
new permanent members and will table amendments to that
effect. The Guatemalan Perm Rep noted that a Security
Council with ten members wielding the veto could result in
more dysfunction than currently exists. The Ukraine Perm Rep
urged the promotion of a veto-free Council and said that
non-permanent members could already collectively cast a veto
with seven negative votes. A large number of delegations,
including the United States, did specifically state that the
veto question should not stand in the way of Council
expansion. Several states, including Switzerland, noted that
their domestic ratification processes would never support a
proposal that included an extension of the veto.

African States insist on extension
of veto for new permanent members
--------------


8. (SBU) The Sierra Leone Perm Rep, speaking for the African
Group, said that the veto should be abolished but that "as
long as the veto right exists, it should be extended to new
permanent members." He reiterated the Ezulwini Consensus
that calls for two permanent seats for African states with
"all of the privileges and prerogatives of current permanent
members." 16 other members of the African Group reiterated
this viewpoint, with four more taking the floor during the
interactive session at the end. The Namibian Perm Rep
stressed that it would be completely unacceptable to have two
categories of permanent members, one with the veto and one
without it. The Ethiopian Perm Rep said that, while African
states insist on the right of the veto for new permanent
members, there are no plans to actually exercise the veto.
The Egyptian Perm Rep said it was not acceptable to delay
this issue until a future review conference.


9. (SBU) The Cuban Perm Rep spoke in favor of the African
position and said that since most Council issues are linked
to Africa, African members should enjoy the same prerogatives
as other permanent members. In general, he noted that Cuba
would prefer that the veto be limited and then eliminated.

G4 joins African states, willing
to defer use of veto for 10 years
--------------


10. (SBU) The Group of Four (G4) countries closely aligned
themselves with the African Group on this issue, calling for
the veto to be abolished but, if not, it should be extended
to all new permanent members. The Indian Perm Rep reminded


the membership that the Charter actually provides in Article
27 (3) that a party to a Chapter VI dispute should not vote
and, by extension, use its veto, but that the current P-5
have flaunted this provision. He said that only with the
addition of new permanent members with veto power would there
be sufficient "peer pressure" to return to enforcement of
this provision. The Brazilian Perm Rep echoed this, saying
that the only way to reform the exercise of the veto is
through the addition of new permanent members with the veto
who are committed to a more transparent Security Council.
The Indian Perm Rep noted that if new permanent members do
not receive the veto, then Article 27(3) would have to be
specifically amended to exclude them since it currently reads
"concurring votes of the permanent members."


11. (SBU) In an attempt to show flexibility, the Indian Perm
Rep said the veto should be extended immediately to new
permanent members but its exercise would be postponed until a
future review conference. At the end of the last session,
the Indian Perm Rep underlined the "almost unanimity of
unhappiness with the veto," but the choice is either to
extend permanence and the veto or to not extend either.
(Comment: With that statement, the Indian Perm Rep firmly
placed his country's future permanent seat squarely with the
African Group's position -- permanent seats must come with
the veto. Given the P-5's resistance to veto extension, this
will not likely prove a fruitful avenue of pursuit. End
comment.)


12. (SBU) The German Perm Rep showed more flexibility on the
veto issue and suggested three possibilities: (1) new
permanent members be given the veto but not exercise it until
after a review conference; (2) permanent members without a
veto; or (3) postpone discussion of the issue until a review
conference. He stressed that the veto issue should not block
reform of the Security Council. He then suggested that an
alternative might be to consider "real, long-term members of
12-15 years" that could participate in the long-term planning
of the Council in order to alter the power structure of the
Council. The UK Perm Rep later responded to this variation
on the intermediate option by noting that his
government was open to the proposal and not wedded to a
particular term limit.


13. (SBU) The Japanese Perm Rep added that the membership
should be realistic in its proposals about veto restrictions,
especially those that are legally binding. He voiced support
for voluntary initiatives, such as explanations of vote, that
would enhance transparency.

UFC
---


14. (SBU) The Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc, given its
opposition to new permanent members, remains stridently
against the extension of the veto and instead seeks to
restrict its use. The Italian Perm Rep said, "While it may
have been born out of historical necessity, it no longer has
any plausible justification in a community of sovereign
states governed by the...Charter and strengthened by
...international norms and practices..." He proposed a
moratorium on the current use of the veto. As another
alternative to provide greater regional involvement, he
suggested that future Council action on a certain region
would require the unanimous support of all Council members
from that region. The Spanish Perm Rep said it is difficult
to match the veto to the concept of the sovereign equality of
member states, and the existence of the veto does not lead to
greater efficiency and effectiveness on the part of the
Council. The Pakistani Perm Rep stressed that the veto
question should not be left for a future review conference.

Specific proposals to amend
Article 27: Council voting
--------------


15. (SBU) Many delegations did acknowledge that it was
unrealistic to pursue attempts to abolish the veto, given
Article 108 of the UN Charter (all five permanent members
must ratify any Charter amendment),and instead sought to


restrict its use. The Costa Rican Perm Rep advocated
restrictions on the use of the veto, stressing that
"responsible use of the veto can strengthen the Security
Council, rather than weaken it." The following specific
proposals were made:

-- The Philippines Perm Rep noted that Article 27 makes a
distinction between voting on procedural matters and voting
on all other issues, that the concurrence of the permanent
members is needed only on non-procedural matters. He called
for an amendment to Article 27 to define procedural matters
to include the admission of new members; the suspension of
members; the expulsion of members; the use of Article 94; and
advisory opinions of the ICJ. The Venezuelan Perm Rep added
to this list, saying a veto should not be used in the
selection of a new Secretary-General.

-- The Mexican Perm Rep said that Mexico has held the same
view since 1945 -- the use of the veto should be restricted
to Chapter VII of the Charter. The Argentine, Colombian,
Canadian, Vietnamese, and Mongolian Perm Reps agreed on the
need to restrict the veto to Chapter VII issues, and
sanctions issues,
according to the Colombian.

-- The Philippines Perm Rep termed the Council an "agent of
member states" and said there should be a deterrent for the
misuse of veto power. Both he and the St. Vincent and the
Grenadines Perm Rep called for a veto to be overturned by an
absolute majority vote in the GA or by a two-thirds vote in
the Security Council so the Security Council would not be
subservient to one permanent member. The Mexican, Argentine,
and Vietnamese Perm Reps supported the GA overriding a
Council veto with a vote of two-thirds. The Solomon Islands
Perm Rep said the GA should hold the Council accountable for
every veto cast.

-- The Spanish, Colombian, and Netherlands Perm Reps
suggested that there be an increase to two in the number of
vetoes cast to prevent Council action. The Spanish Perm Rep
recalled that this was a U.S./UK proposal at Dumbarton Oaks
in 1944. The Egyptian Perm Rep suggested even a triple veto,
as long as new permanent members are extended the veto.

-- The Guatemalan Perm Rep did raise replacing the current
voting and veto system with a weighted voting system based on
relevant contributions to peacekeeping and/or the budget. No
other delegations commented on this.

-- The Philippines, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Singapore,
Mexico, Argentina, Belgium, Barbados, Costa Rica, Fiji,
Canada, Liechtenstein, Grenada, the Czech Republic, and
Rwanda all called for non-use of the veto in matters of
genocide, crimes against humanity, and crimes against
international humanitarian law. The Rwandan Perm Rep
highlighted the Council's failure to act in 1994 in Rwanda.
The Netherlands Perm Rep referred to a Small Five States (S5)
group proposal from 2006 (A/60/L.49 - not adopted) and also
suggested including the Secretary-General's recent suggestion
to include matters involving the "responsibility to protect"
on the list of subjects upon which a veto cannot be cast The
St. Vincent and the Grenadines Perm Rep called for these
limitations on the use of the veto to be legally binding.

-- The Philippines, Netherlands, Colombia, Barbados, Fiji,
Liechtenstein, Singapore, Ukraine, South Africa, and Mongolia
all called for explanations of vote for all vetoes. The
Pakistani Perm Rep suggested that these explanations of vote
could be reviewed by the GA and then referred to the ICJ for
arbitration.

P-5
---


16. (SBU) Veto reform ultimately rests with the current
permanent members since Article 108 of the UN Charter states
that amendments to the Charter require ratification by
two-thirds of the members of the UN, including all the
permanent members of the Security Council. Several
delegations tried to bait the permanent members into action.


The St. Vincent and the Grenadines Perm Rep said that if the
P-5 does not accept reform, their future actions will be
rendered illegitimate. The Canadian Perm Rep said, "Modest
change is only unrealistic if those who possess it won't
consider it."


17. (SBU) All five permanent members spoke over the course
of the three sessions, but only Russia, the UK, and the
United States clearly articulated the view that a change to
the current veto structure is not realistic. The Russian
Deputy Perm Rep said it was unrealistic to count on changes
to current member prerogatives and that it would be wrong to
raise questions about the existing competencies of members of
the Council. He urged the membership to focus on those
aspects of reform that are highly relevant. The UK Perm Rep
reminded the room that the veto was a historical fact meant
to overcome the deficiencies of the League of Nations. He
stated that it should not be extended to new permanent
members since it would not add to the effectiveness of the
Council. He, too, stressed the need for an expansion that
will "win the support of Charter amendments."


18. (SBU) Ambassador Wolff, speaking at the end of the
second session, again stressed the need to bear in mind that
whatever formula emerges for an expansion of Council
membership must factor in Charter requirements for
ratification, so, as a practical matter, we should avoid
dwelling excessively on proposals that are unlikely to be
fruitful avenues of pursuit. After reviewing U.S. openness
in principle to a limited expansion of both permanent and
non-permanent members, though any consideration of permanent
members must be by definition country-specific in nature, he
said that the United States is not open to an enlargement of
the Security Council with a change to the current veto
structure.


19. (SBU) The French Perm Rep did not specifically address
his country's position on extending the veto. Instead, he
described the "heavy responsibility" of the veto and noted
France's exercise of it only 18 times, most recently in 1989.
He urged the membership not to block reform with discussion
of the veto and urged a closer review of the intermediate
option and postponement of the veto question until a review
conference in the future. China, speaking during the third
session, also avoided setting down a marker. The Chinese
representative, while noting the historical nature of the
veto, described it as a mechanism that forced the Council to
act with permanent member unanimity and ensured the need for
sufficient support from non-permanent members. He
specifically noted that China was the only developing country
among the P-5 and had prudently exercise its veto power since
assuming the Chinese seat in 1971. He ended with a call for
the Council to improve its working methods and efficiency.

Next meetings
--------------


20. (SBU) At the end of the March 17 session, Tanin
announced the dates of the upcoming meetings. The next
meeting will be March 24 on "regional representation,"
followed by a meeting April 9 on the "size of an enlarged
Council and working methods of the Security Council" and a
meeting April 21 on "the relationship between the Council and
the General Assembly."
Rice