UNSC REFORM: CHINA NOT READY FOR P-5 MINISTERIAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000325

SIPDIS

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

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/27/2019
TAGS: PREL KUNR UNGA UNSC CH FR UK RS IT
SUBJECT: UNSC REFORM: CHINA NOT READY FOR P-5 MINISTERIAL
STATEMENT ON SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM

Classified By: Ambassador Alex D. Wolff for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (C) UK Deputy Perm Rep Pierce hosted a P-5 meeting to
discuss whether a statement could be released following the
planned P-5 Foreign Ministers' discussion in London on
Security Council expansion. She asked if other P-5 members
could agree with the idea of issuing a statement on the
subject and whether the UK text was a basis for such a
statement. Chinese Deputy Perm Rep Liu said China would be
pleased to participate in the London meeting (at the Deputy
Foreign Minister-level) but was opposed to a P-5 statement on
the subject. When pressed, Liu stated that China believes it
is too early for such a statement and it would set the P-5 up
as a target for attack, which is not a risk at present, by
other groups during intergovernmental negotiations in New
York. He urged his P-5 counterparts to wait and use a
statement at a later date when it could serve as an
appropriate stimulus. Now was not such a time.
Nevertheless, Liu said China is willing to exchange views on
the subject in the P-5 and believes it is important to reach
a common understanding about what permanent members are
willing to support.


2. (C) French Deputy Perm Rep Lacroix said that France would
welcome a P-5 statement and wondered if having a meeting and
not issuing a statement might open the P-5 to criticism.
Nonetheless, in view of the Chinese position, Lacroix thought
it did not make sense to discuss the text. Russian Deputy
Perm Rep Dolgov said Russia welcomes the meeting in London
and, if there is agreement within the P-5 on a statement,
Russia would be willing to engage with comments for such a
statement. He said that he had no instructions to push for a
statement but it had to have the support of the entire P-5.
Ambassador Wolff said that the U.S. could support a text that
is agreed by all of the P-5 and that we could also engage
with comments on a text. He shared that the Italians have
heard of the P-5 meeting in London and were concerned that
any P-5 statement, given the P-5's unique role, might unduly
tilt the intergovernmental negotiating process before it
plays out. (Comment: Italian Perm Rep Terzi called
Ambassador Wolff before the meeting and expressed deep
concern about a P-5 statement. He said that Italy would be
demarching P-5 members in capitals. Terzi subsequently sent
a letter to Ambassador Rice, which he said was at the
instruction of his minister. See para 4. End comment.)


3. (C) Pierce asked Liu to advise Beijing that the other
four members of the P-5 could support a P-5 statement and ask
if Beijing is prepared to reconsider and engage on a "short
and bland" statement of P-5 intention. Russian DPR Dolgov
told Ambassador Wolff after the meeting that he thought the
Chinese might come on board for a brief, nonsubstantive
statement at the Foreign Ministers' meeting itself.


4. (SBU) Begin text of letter from Italian Perm Rep Terzi to
Ambassador Rice:

Excellency, Dear Susan,

I have this morning received urgent instructions from my
Minister, the Hon. Franco Frattini, to convey through You
(sic) to the US Government our deep concern about an
initiative, which has been proposed for a P5 Ministerial
statement on the reform of the Security Council. It is our
understanding that a UK draft is currently discussed (sic)
among the P5 Missions in New York, implying that the
negotiations underway in the informal plenary session of the
General Assembly should aim at an "interim" or "intermediate"
solution for the SC reform.

My Government is concerned by the unforeseeable direction
that a statement of this kind could impress on the overall
negotiating process. The discussion on the three main
elements, among the five recognized by all as the crucial
matters for the negotiation, has generated an intense flow of
proposals which need to be further tested and compared among
the different parties which have shown specific interest in
the discussion.

As shown by the Ministerial meeting in Rome which took place
at the initiative of Minister Frattini last February, and by
the subsequent positions expressed in the General Assembly,
Italy, as many other Member States, has advanced specific and
innovative proposals aimed at facilitating a compromise
solution.


A formal statement by the P5 which may take side, or
instrumentally considered to do so, for positions which need
to be thoroughly examined and discussed, could expose the
whole process to the serious risk of being tilted toward an
unforeseeable direction.

The recognized authority of the P5 will be of fundamental
help throughout the process, by encouraging the negotiators
to pursue the established schedule in a spirit of moderation,
full transparency and common purpose towards a solution which
can garner the widest possible political acceptance by member
States, rather than supporting and promoting a prematurely
specified outcome for the Security Council reform.

I would like to express my deep appreciation for Your (sic)
personal attention in this matter.

With my best regards,
Yours very truly,
Giulio Terzi
End text.
Wolff