UNGA: SC REFORM: FOURTH ROUND ENDS; CHAIR TO

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000061 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: SC REFORM: FOURTH ROUND ENDS; CHAIR TO PRODUCE DOCUMENT FOR NEXT ROUND REF: 09 USUN NEW YORK 1120 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The informal plenary of the General Assembly met on January 19 and 20 for its second and final meeting of the fourth round of intergovernmental negotiations to discuss "areas of convergence." While the 52 delegations and one observer who spoke covered the subject of the meeting, the liveliest discussion focused on a December 23, 2009 letter sent to the Chair by 140 delegations. The letter spearheaded by two Group of Four (G4) members -- Germany and Japan -- asked the Chair to draft a text to identify areas of convergence. While the Chair did no drafting in advance of the January 19 meeting, he agreed to do so for the fifth round, which will not likely commence until April. Throughout the meeting, interventions focused on which delegations had not been asked to sign the letter (many Uniting for Consensus delegations) and which had signed it and why. The limited discussion of areas of convergence focused on the veto, working methods, and the Security Council's relationship with the General Assembly. G4 and African Group members also underscored their convergence on an expansion in both categories. Ambassador Wolff and the Russian Perm Rep both underscored that positions remained quite far apart and there were more areas of divergence than convergence. Only eight African Group members spoke during the session, with several indicating interest in modifying the African common position at the African Union Summit to allow for greater negotiating flexibility. See para 14 on likely next steps. End summary. ¶2. (SBU) The informal plenary of the General Assembly met on January 19 and 20 for its second and final meeting of the fourth round of intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council reform. 52 member states and one observer (Holy See) spoke during the seven-hours of meetings on January 19 and ¶20. All five permanent members spoke, while only eight African Group members intervened. While the session was to focus on "areas of convergence," as set forth in the Chair's November 16, 2009 letter to the membership, many delegations also focused on a letter 138 member states sent to the Chair, Afghan Perm Rep Tanin, on December 23, 2009. (Note: During the session, there were announcements that two more countries had signed the letter, bringing the total to 140. End note.) The 12/23 letter, spearheaded by Japan and Germany, requests from the Chair a "text with options to serve as a basis for negotiations...to enable the informal plenary...to immediately embark upon negotiations on the basis of such a text, in order to identify areas of convergence and to find a solution that can garner the widest possible support among member states." ¶3. (SBU) The Chair, in his January 13, 2010 letter to the membership (copy e-mailed to IO/UNP),acknowledged receipt of the 12/23 letter and included a copy of it, but demurred on producing a text. The Chair said he would carefully study the appeal as "we move towards a text-based fifth round." During his opening remarks on January 19, the Chair noted he had also received letters from the African Group, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC),the Arab League, the Small Five States (S-5),and the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) groups, reacting to the December 23rd letter, but he did not circulate those letters to the membership. UFC reacts sharply to 12/23 letter but welcomes compilation text -------------- ¶4. (SBU) The Pakistani Perm Rep was the most vocal UFC bloc member deriding the 12/23 letter. He questioned why the organizers of the letter did not circulate it to all member states for signature and alleged that most UFC members had specifically not been invited to sign it (Argentina, Italy, Malta, Mexico, Spain, Turkey),though he admitted that the Indian Perm Rep had discussed the letter with him personally in Copenhagen in mid-December. The Italian Perm Rep said that while his delegation had not been approached to sign the 12/23 letter, they might have signed it with a few edits (i.e., the letter contains no mention of Decision 62/557). The Pakistani Perm Rep did rhetorically question those delegations that signed the letter, insinuating that they had misunderstood what they were signing. He raised the Italian/Colombian proposal and reminded the Chair of the UFC request that it be circulated as a conference document and challenged the G4 to submit their own proposal. He encouraged all member states to introduce proposals and then have member states gather in a "partisan committee" to try to effect compromise, not to eliminate proposals. The Italian Perm Rep expressed bafflement as to why the Chair had decided to circulate the 12/23 letter to the membership and not any of the others. He wondered if Tanin had been swayed by the large number of signatories. He underscored that any document from the Chair must include all five key issues from Decision 62/557. The Mexican Perm Rep asked EU member states what effect the Lisbon Treaty would have on Security Council representation by European states. (Note: He did not receive an answer. End note.) ¶5. (SBU) The Costa Rican Perm Rep delivered the most personal attack on the Chair during the session. (Note: Costa Rica is a Small Five States (S5) member that hews closer to the UFC position on expansion than other S5 members who favor an expansion in both categories. End note.) He criticized the Chair for not circulating the other groups' letters and suggested such a decision had compromised the Chair's objectivity and suggested that the President of the General Assembly (PGA) should resume chairmanship of intergovernmental negotiations. He also said that any increase in permanent seats in the Council must retain the current ratio of two non-permanent seats for every one permanent member. (Note: The Indian Perm Rep later challenged the ratio, saying that when the Council was first created the ratio was six non-permanent members to five permanent members. End note.) G4 refers to letter and presses for negotiating text -------------- ¶6. (SBU) G4 members in their remarks emphasized the 140 states who did sign the 12/23 letter and the need to work toward a concrete outcome. The Indian Perm Rep said that the only signal the letter was meant to send was to those who were opposed to reform and that they should re-consider their position. Germany urged the Chair to provide a paper to serve as a negotiating basis and noted that they had hoped to have such a paper before this session and the African Union Summit to facilitate a discussion on areas of convergence. G4 members uniformly highlighted an expansion in both categories as a major area of convergence between the G4 and African Group positions. Brazil also highlighted the need for an improvement in Council working methods. The Japanese Perm Rep identified the following areas of convergence: a reformed Council in the mid-twenties with some restrictions on the veto; working methods reform; and respect between the Council and the Assembly on each other's distinct role. He said there was no convergence on an extension of the veto to new members and that the concept of equitable geographical distribution should not undermine the primary concept of a country's contributions to the maintenance of peace and security. He, too, urged the distribution of all groups' letters, and called for the Chair to put forward a text expeditiously to allow the membership to move forward to substantive negotiations. (Comment: The Japanese had commented bilaterally that they are open to a text that includes all positions and proposals, including those of the UFC, and are not seeking to narrow down the options at this point, unlike other delegations calling for a negotiating text. End comment.) Many signatories of 12/23 letter call for text of all proposals -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Throughout the session, those who had signed the 12/23 letter explained that they had signed it with full and complete understanding of its contents. The majority of these states also called for the Chair to produce a composite paper incorporating all member state proposals. Indonesia called for the text to highlight areas of convergence. The Cuban representative said that while all member states should have been invited to sign the 12/23 letter (Cuba signed it), it had breathed "some dynamism into the process." The St. Vincent and the Grenadines Perm Rep also noted that while all states should have been invited to sign the 12/23 letter, the fact that they were not did not invalidate it since it was only a letter to the Chair, not a decision. The Mauritian Perm Rep said that the largest convergence amongst member states is on the need for a text. Some discussion of areas of convergence -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The majority of member states briefly highlighted an enlarged Council in the mid-twenties; the need to enhance the Council's working methods; and the need for greater accountability to the general membership as the main areas of convergence. Others added the need to abolish the veto or extend it to all members as other areas of convergence. As stated previously, the G4 and African Group members added expansion in both categories as the primary area of convergence. While the Indonesian representative noted that there was some convergence on an expansion in both categories, the least divisive approach might be the intermediate approach. P-5 statements -------------- ¶9. (SBU) As during previous session, there was a clear separation between the positions of the P-5 with France and the UK on one end and the U.S., Russia, and China, on the other. The French Perm Rep said that it was time to move to a new phase and called for a text prepared by the Chair. The UK Deputy Perm Rep said that a text should be circulated by the Chair but member states would need to narrow down the options. Both France and the UK reiterated their preference for the intermediate option as a possible area of convergence. The Russian Deputy Perm Rep noted that while Russia had not signed the 12/23 letter it was worthy of attention and the membership seemed to agree that intergovernmental negotiations should move forward in a "dynamic way." Nevertheless, he noted that, substantively, positions do remain quite far apart. He urged member states not to consider just the numbers but also the quality of an expansion. He said that within the group of signatories of the 12/23 letter there was a wide divergence of opinion on how to expand the Council. He urged any document to facilitate transparent negotiations with the broadest number of delegations so that progress can be made towards a convergence on substance. The Chinese Perm Rep stressed that any document should reflect all member states' positions. ¶10. (SBU) Ambassador Wolff acknowledged member states' interest in moving the process forward but underscored that the U.S. believes member states should drive forward the negotiating process by developing their own documents and proposals, not subcontracting them to the Chair. But, if the Chair is to play a role it would be to reflect all proposals and positions of member states. He underscored that there were more areas of divergence than convergence. On the veto, he stressed that the permanent members have spoken out in favor of no change to the current configuration of the veto and, given the Charter requirements for ratification, veto abolition is not pragmatic. On Council working methods, he said the Council shall determine its own rules of procedure, as set forth in Article 30 of the UN Charter, but that interested member states should address their queries, concerns, and suggestions to the Council's active Informal Working Group on Documentation and Other Procedural Questions. On the relationship between the Security Council and the General Assembly, he underlined the fundamental constitutional issue and the fact they are co-equal principal organs. He emphasized that the U.S. position is for limited expansion in both categories of membership but any discussion of an expansion of permanent seats must be country-specific and take into account the ability of countries to contribute to the maintenance of international peace and security. He also said that any expansion should neither diminish the Council's effectiveness nor its efficiency, and an increase to the mid-twenties would seriously compromise both. African Group - will position be modified at AU Summit? -------------- ¶11. (SBU) Only eight African delegations spoke during this intergovernmental negotiation -- the lowest showing to date. The Sierra Leone Perm Rep spoke on behalf of the African Group and urged the Chair to share with the membership the other letters groups had sent to him, as did the Egyptian Perm Rep. (Note: Sierra Leone did not sign the 12/23 letter. End note.) He underscored that any text produced should include all elements of the African Group's position. (Note: The Chair had been heavily criticized for his spring 2009 overview paper which left out portions of the African Group position. End note.) He urged that the membership's negotiations should not be subject to a pre-determined timetable. The Egyptian Perm Rep (pro-UFC) pressed the Chair for a compilation text which does not leave out any position. He wryly noted that it would have been an achievement if the 140 signatories of the 12/23 letter had all agreed on a substantive position on the issue but they had not. ¶12. (SBU) The South African Perm Rep (pro-G4) emphasized that size, veto, and regional representation will require compromise but stressed the need for an expansion in both categories of membership. He also said that the AU will begin an assessment of the negotiations. The Algerian Perm Rep (pro-UFC) noted that the African common position (the Ezulwini Consensus) will be discussed at the AU Summit, not the lack of progress in the intergovernmental negotiations. (Comment: We understand there will be pressure from certain African Union members, such as Libya and South Africa, to modify the Ezulwini Consensus at the African Union summit. The Ezulwini Consensus currently binds the African Group together by calling for two permanent Security Council seats for Africa with veto rights and two more non-permanent seats and the AU will decide which countries shall occupy those seats. Libya would like to pursue a single African permanent seat, viewing that as more realistic, while South African would like an agreement for flexibility on the Ezulwini Consensus to allow for greater negotiating latitude during intergovernmental negotiations. End comment.) Next steps by Chair -------------- ¶13. (SBU) At the end of the session, the Chair acknowledged the "nearly universal support for a text to help move the process forward." He said he would put his "full, transparent authority behind a text-based process." He said he would take into consideration all of the letters and inputs that he has received and would shortly communicate the details on how he plans to move forward to a text-based fifth round. ¶14. (SBU) At a P-3 lunch with the Ambassador Tanin on January 22, Tanin confirmed that he could not ignore the 140 signatories of the 12/23 letter but he also planned to be responsive to the full 192 members and would not do anything to divide the membership. Ambassador Tanin told Ambassador Wolff on February 2 that he will send out a letter in the days ahead requesting that member states submit to him by March 5 their positions and proposals on the five key issues so that he can compile a document for the start of the fifth round of intergovernmental negotiations in April. In order to encourage transparency, he would also be ready to meet with all interested member states/groups during that period to discuss how he should present the positions/proposals in the document that he will draft. RICE