VZCZCXYZ0017
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0061/01 0341512
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 031512Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8105
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHDS/AMEMBASSY ADDIS ABABA IMMEDIATE 2226
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN IMMEDIATE 1143
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA IMMEDIATE 1234
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 2702
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID IMMEDIATE 6446
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI IMMEDIATE 3006
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA IMMEDIATE 0949
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME IMMEDIATE 1191
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL IMMEDIATE 1254

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