This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 004424 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/ERA, IO/UNP 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/15/2013 
TAGS: PREL UNGA UN EUN USEU BRUSSELS
SUBJECT: EC ON UN: A COMMITMENT TO "MILITANT 
MULTILATERALISM" 
 
REF: A. A) BRUSSELS 4143 
 
     ¶B. B) BRUSSELS 3263 
     ¶C. C) BRUSSELS 3210 
 
Classified By: USEU POLOFF TODD HUIZINGA, FOR REASONS 1.5 (B) AND (D) 
 
 ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: On September 10, the EC issued a policy 
paper on the "European Union and the United Nations: The 
Choice of Multilateralism." The paper is meant to "catalyze" 
debate within the EU, and to dovetail with the European 
Security Strategy (reftels) now being developed.  Full of 
genuflection to "global governance" and projects such as the 
International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Kyoto Protocol, 
the EC paper advocates what it terms "militant 
multilateralism." EC officials confirm that one of the 
Commission's ultimate, but long-term, objectives is to become 
a full, voting member of all UN bodies that handle issues 
over which the Commission has jurisdiction within the EU.  We 
see little new in the paper that would have immediate effect 
on U.S. interests, although it confirms European support for 
a concept of multilateralism that could ultimately be a 
hindrance to the pursuit of U.S. foreign-policy interests if 
the UN system fails to act.  END SUMMARY. 
 
-------------------------- 
MULTILATERALISM IS THE KEY 
-------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U) On September 12, Poloff met with three officials from 
the European Commission's External Relations 
Directorate-General, Office of UN Affairs:  Willy Kempel, 
Klas Nyman and Thomas Huyghebaert, to discuss the 
Commission's Policy Paper, or "Communication."   These 
officials affirmed that the purpose of the paper was twofold: 
 not only to enhance the EU's role in the United Nations, but 
also to strengthen the UN and thereby the "multilateral 
system."  They pointed to passages to that effect from the 
paper's introduction:  "The European Union's commitment to 
multilateralism is a defining principle of its external 
policy....  The EU has a clear interest in supporting the 
continuous evolution and improvement of the tools of global 
governance....  Europe's attachment to multilateralism - and 
to the United Nations, as the pivot of the multilateral 
system - will help determine whether, and how, the 
institutional architecture (of multilateralism)...can 
continue to serve as the bedrock of the international 
system....  An active commitment to an effective 
multilateralism means...promoting a forward-looking agenda 
that is not limited to a narrow defense of national 
interests." 
 
--------------------------- 
PAPER REFLECTS EU CONSENSUS 
--------------------------- 
 
¶3. (C) Although the prerogative of formulating the EU's 
Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) lies with the 
member states and the Council -- not with the Commission -- 
our interlocutors predicted that the member states would not 
criticize the Commission for overstepping the bounds of its 
authority in this paper.  The ideas expressed, they said, 
reflect a widely held consensus in the EU on the importance 
of the UN, the multilateralist approach, and of the EU's role 
in strengthening multilateral institutions.  They said that 
member states had not been consulted during the more than 
year-long process of drafting the paper, but added that, by 
definition, a Commission Communication is an internal 
Commission paper.  Member states, they said, are never 
consulted during the drafting of a communication. 
 
------------------------------ 
PAPER MEANT TO SPARK DEBATE... 
------------------------------ 
 
¶4. (C) The ideas in the paper are meant to stimulate debate, 
not to be the final word, according to our Commission 
interlocutors.  Now that the communication has been released, 
they said, the Commission wants the member states and the 
European Parliament to bring their views into the mix.  Our 
interlocutors said various EU working groups (which are made 
up of member-state and Commission officials and meet monthly 
to provide input on foreign-policy issues) would discuss the 
paper and provide input in the period from October to 
December.  Then, they said, EU Foreign Ministers or heads of 
government were expected to release formal conclusions at the 
end of the Italian EU presidency in December. 
 
------------------------- 
AND FEED INTO ESS PROCESS 
------------------------- 
 
¶5. (C) Our interlocutors added that the paper is also meant 
to support the European Security Strategy (ESS), which is 
currently being drafted and may be approved at the EU Summit 
capping the Italian EU Presidency in December.  They noted 
that one of the three strategic objectives of the ESS is 
"building an international order based on effective 
multilateralism."  This policy paper, they said, contains the 
Commission's thoughts on how to build that order. 
 
-------------------------- 
GOOD OR BAD NEWS FOR U.S.? 
-------------------------- 
 
¶6. (C) Some of the language in the paper gives rise to 
concern regarding its possible ramifications for U.S. 
interests in the UN.  The promotion of the Kyoto Protocol and 
the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC), for 
example, are highlighted as examples of important EU 
accomplishments in the multilateral system, and the paper 
claims to aim at adoption of a "militant multilateral poise" 
for the EU.  The paper states that "the role of the UN and in 
particular the UNSC as a final arbiter on the consequences of 
non-compliance as foreseen in multilateral regimes - needs to 
be effectively strengthened."  In this sense, the Commission 
paper is somewhat in conflict with the ESS drafted by 
Solana's staff in the Council.  The latter document suggests 
there may be times when action is needed when the UN fails to 
face up to a problem.  The Commission's document, which is 
replete with loosely defined terms such as "global 
governance," implies a greater commitment to action only 
through the UN system -- and may define more correctly the 
prevailing view among EU member states. 
 
¶7. (C) Our contacts asserted that the paper should be good 
news for the U.S.  They said that the paper aimed at:  (1) an 
effective, efficient UN, which would be good for all of the 
UN's members; (2) a unified EU voice in the UN, which would 
make the EU a more reliable and efficient partner of the 
U.S.; and (3) early and transparent coordination with the 
EU's partners in the UN (above all, with the U.S., they said) 
on key issues.  They said that, in order for the strategy to 
work, the EU would have to be zealous at getting U.S. ideas 
early on and bringing them into EU deliberations. 
 
------------------------------- 
ADDITIONALITY LONG-TERM EC GOAL 
------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (C) The paper also refers to the desirability of pursuing 
full EC membership in UN-system agencies dealing with areas 
for which the EC has responsibilities within the EU (such as 
the FAO and the Codex Alimentarius, in which the EC, 
respectively, has or soon will have full membership).  Our 
contacts responded that "the long-term objective" was to 
achieve full voting membership for the Commission in all such 
UN agencies, apart from the question of whether EU member 
states would also retain voting membership in the same 
agencies.  They hastened to add, however, that additional 
voting rights for the Commission were not a principal 
near-term objective of Commission UN policy. 
 
¶9. (C) COMMENT:  We do not expect this policy paper to have 
much effect in the near term.  The ideas and recommendations 
in the paper reflect a well-known consensus within the EU on 
the importance of the UN and the multilateral approach, and 
the desire within the EU to strengthen the EU's role in the 
UN.  Member-state views on the specifics of the paper are not 
yet clear, but we suspect it will receive broad support. 
What the paper illustrates is that an important EU 
institution, the European Commission, is committed to a 
multilateralist approach that often tends to assert UN 
primacy over "narrow" national interests or unilateral (read 
"U.S.") actions.  Also, the Communication's timing to 
coincide with the EU debate on the ESS may bolster the aspect 
of the ESS that, while coming to an assessment of global 
security threats similar to that of the USG and stressing the 
importance of the transatlantic alliance, pays homage to a 
concept of "international order based on...multilateralism" 
that many in the EU have interpreted as an effort to broaden 
and strengthen binding international agreements, such as 
Kyoto and the ICC.  The EC desire to enhance its status in 
certain UN organizations is one we need to follow closely. 
There may be organizations where EC funding is crucial to 
achieving our objectives (UNHCR comes to mind) in which a 
status above simple observer might be in our interest, but in 
other organizations a stronger EC role would be inappropriate 
-- and even harm our ability to work bilaterally with one or 
more EU member states to achieve our objectives.  END 
COMMENT. 
 
FOSTER