UNGA: UNSC REFORM: THIRD ROUND OF

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000827 SENSITIVE SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR USUN/W AND IO/UNP; NSC FOR POWER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL KUNR UNGA UNSC GE JA BR IN SUBJECT: UNGA: UNSC REFORM: THIRD ROUND OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS -- FIVE KEY ISSUES AND EXPANSION IN BOTH CATEGORIES REF: A. USUN NEW YORK 634 ¶B. USUN NE YORK 609 ¶C. USUN NEW YORK 553 ¶D. USUN NEW YORK 432 ¶E. USUN NEW YORK 388 ¶F. USUN NEW YORK 345 ¶G. USUN NEW YORK 289 ¶H. USUN NEW YORK 230 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The informal plenary of the General Assembly met on September 1 and 2 for the first two of three meetings in the third round of intergovernmental negotiations (IGN) on Security Council reform. 38 delegations spoke on September 1 during the discussion on all of the five key issues, as defined in GA Decision 62/557. Almost without exception, delegations reiterated their previous positions from the first two rounds when the five key issues had been explored in more depth (see reftels). On September 2, 51 delegations spoke either in favor or against an expansion in both categories of membership (permanent and non-permanent). The Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc rejected any expansion that includes additional permanent members and questioned the Group of Four (G4)'s assertions that expansion in both categories has majority support. Most G4 members and their supporters, including the African Group, argued for an expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members and an extension of the veto to new permanent members. In the U.S. statement, Ambassador Wolff expressed support for a limited expansion in both categories in a way that diminishes neither the Council's effectiveness nor its efficiency. He underscored that the United States is not open to an enlargement of the Council with a change to the current configuration of the veto and that any expansion of permanent members must be country-specific. End summary. Sept. 1: Five key issues -------------- ¶2. (SBU) The first session of the third round of IGN on September 1 focused on all five key issues: categories of membership; the question of the veto; regional representation; size of an enlarged Council and working methods of the Security Council; and the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly. While only 38 delegations spoke, the chamber was more than half filled, demonstrating renewed interest in the negotiations after the two-month summer hiatus. Nearly all of the 38 delegations who spoke, including members of the Group of Four (G4),the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc, and the African Group, reiterated their previous positions from rounds one and two (see reftels). Estonia and Lithuania spoke for the first time in favor of an additional elected seat for the Eastern European Group. The Estonian delegate voiced support for a "small enlargement" to 22-25 members and voiced willingness to consider the interim approach. The Lithuanian delegate called for expansion in both categories in order to achieve equitable geographical distribution. ¶3. (SBU) After U.S.-Russian coordination, the Russian Deputy Perm Rep responded to some delegates' remarks and a comment in the Chair's opening remarks which called into question the Council's current legitimacy because of its current composition. The Russian Deputy Perm Rep underscored that the Security Council does not lack legitimacy. While some may use the phrase as a figure of speech, he said, using it for political ends does not contribute positively to the serious work of these negotiations. (Note: Ambassador Wolff followed up on the legitimacy point in U.S. remarks on September 2. He said, "We have heard a couple of references yesterday and today to the issue of the Security Council's legitimacy. This issue is settled by the UN Charter to which everyone here has voluntarily adhered. The Council's legitimacy is solely derived from the UN Charter, not from its composition." End note.) Sept. 2: Expansion in both categories -------------- ¶4. (SBU) During the second session of the third round on September 2, the discussion focused on the first of two potential reform models -- expansion in both categories. 51 delegations took the floor and three delegations (Italy, Pakistan, and Jamaica) took the floor for a second intervention at the end of the day. Russia was the only P-5 member who did not speak. The Chinese Deputy Perm Rep neither directly addressed nor rejected an expansion of permanent members, thereby continuing China's evasive position on the subject. He called for an "appropriate expansion" of the Council based on equitable geographical distribution and said that small and medium-sized states should have greater access to the Council. The UK and France referred to their support of the G4 for permanent seats and of the intermediate option as a way around the impasse on reform, noting that those intermediate seats could be converted to permanent seats after a review. France again voiced support for permanent seats for an African state and an Arab state. U.S. remarks -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Ambassador Wolff said that the United States supports expansion of the Security Council in a way that will neither diminish its effectiveness nor its efficiency. He said the United States is open in principle to a limited expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members but that the numbers proposed by many delegations -- such as in the mid-twenties -- would, given our long experience on the Council, result in an unwieldy body that would compromise effectiveness and efficiency. He said that any consideration of an expansion of permanent members must be country-specific in nature. The United States would not be able to support an amendment to the UN Charter where new permanent members are not specifically identified by name. In determining which countries merit permanent membership, he said the United States would take into account the ability of countries to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security and the other purposes of the United Nations. ¶6. (SBU) Ambassador Wolff reiterated that any expansion of non-permanent members to reflect better equitable geographical distribution should be done in a manner that does not diminish the Council's effectiveness and efficiency. Election of non-permanent members should remain defined by Article 18 as an important question and require for election a two-thirds majority of the membership present and voting. He underscored that the United States is not open to an enlargement of the Council with a change to the current veto structure but we remain prepared to discuss this point for as long as members would like; but we see it only leading to impasse at the expense of progress on expansion. He also stressed that whatever formula emerges for an expansion of Council membership must factor in Charter requirements for ratification. UFC bloc against expansion of permanent members -------------- ¶7. (SBU) UFC bloc members called into question holding a meeting on a specific model, though they did voice moderate support for the next day's discussion of the intermediate option. Most reaffirmed the need to focus on all five key issues. Pakistan called expansion in both categories, or the G4 model, a "model of exclusion." A number of UFC states said that proposal does not enjoy a majority of support, noting that a large number of states have yet to voice a position in IGN. The Italian Perm Rep asked what model was really being discussed - additional permanent seats with or without the veto - and then said only elected seats offer genuine accountability. He also noted that aspirants to permanent seats will change in 10-15 years because of political and economic factors and then the membership would be faced with different aspirants for more permanent seats. The Mexican Perm Rep specifically spoke against an organ which would include 11 veto-wielding parties and doubted this would lead to an increase in the Council's effectiveness. The Costa Rican delegate said it would be circulating a revised version of its 2005 document (A/49/856) describing the "cascade effects" more permanent members will have on other aspects of the UN system and argued for a moderate increase in elected members. UFC states continued to call only for an expansion of non-permanent members, saying this was the most democratic and representative solution, and that an addition of permanent seats would not make the Council more open, transparent, or accountable. G4 argue that expansion in both categories has majority support -------------- ¶8. (SBU) G4 members and their supporters throughout the session emphasized that a majority of states are in favor of an expansion in both categories and this should be the basis for negotiations. They argued that those specifically against an expansion of permanent members only number around 12-15 states. The Indian PR asked rhetorically if the UFC wanted India to schedule a straw poll to scientifically test the numbers in favor of an expansion in both categories. He said that they likely do not want such a straw poll because it would just highlight their isolation. The Italian Perm Rep responded to the challenge on September 3, saying that there are no provisions for a straw poll in the informal plenary, just general discussion. He said that if a model is to be put to a vote, then a formal plenary should be convened and a resolution put to a vote. G4 offer more details on selection of new permanent members -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Both the Brazilian and German statements, for the first time, specifically referred to the General Assembly voting on specific permanent members after they are nominated by their regional group. The German Deputy Perm Rep said that Article 23 would be the yardstick for permanent membership: "due regard ...to the contribution of Members of the UN to the maintenance of international peace and security and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to equitable geographical distribution." The G4 continued to argue that the veto should be extended to new permanent members but its use postponed until a future review. (Comment: The G4 has not offered details on how a veto postponement mechanism would be drafted in a UN Charter amendment. USUN views such an arrangement as technically non-feasible. End Comment.) The Brazilian delegate, the Vice Minister of External Relations for Political Affairs, said that Brazil had served nine times as an elected member and understood the limitations of non-permanent membership and the only way to effect the desired shift in the balance of power within the Council was to add permanent members. African Group still behind Ezulwini Consensus -------------- ¶10. (SBU) The African Group echoed, in its nine statements, the Ezulwini Consensus and called for two permanent seats for Africa and five total elected seats (including their current seats). They also rejected the intermediate proposal as not properly righting the historical injustice of Africa's non-representation in the permanent member category. ¶11. (SBU) The Ghanaian delegate recalled that Afghanistan had chaired the 1963 General Assembly conference to expand the Security Council. He suggested the formation of a mechanism, as in 1963, for a smaller but representative group of member states to engage with the P-5 in order to move the process forward and draft language which would meet with the widest possible agreement. (Comment: No other delegations reacted to this proposal during the session. End comment.) RICE