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

UNCLAS  ROME 002810 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
FROM THE U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME 
 
STATE FOR IO/EDA, L/HRR, DRL/MLA, E, EB/TPP/ATP 
USAID FOR EGAT/AG - HOBGOOD 
USDA/FAS/ICD FOR REICH AND HUGHES 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: AORC PHUM EAGR EAID EFIN FAO
SUBJECT:  RIGHT TO FOOD: INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORKING GROUP 
MAKES PROGRESS ON VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES 
 
REF:  (A) 03 ROME 1380;  (B) 03 ROME 4443; 
 
      (C) 03 ROME 5747;  (D) ROME 1236 
 
This cable contains sensitive but unclassified sections 
that are intended strictly for internal USG use. 
 
¶1.  (U)  Summary:  The third (and supposedly final) 
session of the Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) for 
the Elaboration of Voluntary Guidelines to Support the 
Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in 
the Context of National Food Security met in Rome from 5 
to 10 July 2004.  Delegates made substantial progress on 
many points, but time ran out before they could reach 
agreement on a final text.  The major stumbling block was 
G-77 insistence -- against strong EU opposition -- to 
characterizing the section on the International Framework 
as "guidelines."  The U.S. delegation was successful in 
introducing language consistent with USG positions on 
market systems, food aid and women's rights.  The U.S. 
was also successful in narrowing the definition of "right 
to adequate food" so that it neither implies an 
entitlement nor a right to a remedy for those without 
food. 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  Cuba, supported by other Latins, held hostage 
a U.S.-proposed amendment that food would not be used as 
a political weapons domestically, holding out for 
insertion of comparable language on unilateral measures 
in the international section.  Language introduced by 
Syria on the duties of an occupying power and language 
introduced by Cuba on unilateral measures and the use of 
food as a political/economic weapon remained unresolved 
when the talks ended.  We were successful in containing 
the international section largely to a rhetorical 
reiteration of text from recent international conferences 
such as UNCTAD XI, WSSD, and Monterrey. 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  Although North-South tensions flared when an 
impasse was reached in the early morning hours of 
Saturday morning, delegations meeting in a final plenary 
session later in the day (1) recognized that substantial 
progress had been made and (2) in principle accepted the 
Chairman's proposal for more intersessional work and an 
additional IGWG to be held in October to finalize the 
text.  Consistent with the FAO's practice of organizing 
representation by regional groups, the U.S. negotiated 
jointly with Canada; we were mostly like-minded and 
cooperated extremely well.  Delegates welcomed the North 
America's constructive and positive role in the 
negotiations.  End summary. 
 
OVERVIEW 
-------- 
 
¶4.  (U)  The third session of the IGWG met in Rome under 
the skilled chairmanship of Iranian Permrep Mohammad 
Noori.  A compilation of text proposals made at IGWG2 (2- 
5 Feb 2004) and subsequently consolidated and cleaned up 
by the Bureau at its meeting of 26-29 April 2004, served 
as the basis for the negotiations.  Apart from opening 
and closing plenary sessions, negotiations for most of 
the week took place in three separate, concurrent Working 
Groups, focusing on the Introduction/Preface, the 
International Framework, and the actual Voluntary 
Guidelines, respectively. 
 
¶5.  (U)  In an effort to streamline the Working Groups' 
discussions, the Chair -- with the support of the Bureau 
-- urged delegates to speak only on behalf of their 
regional groups, and he announced that new text proposals 
would be accepted only if supported by at least two 
regional groups.  These ground rules helped speed up the 
discussions, even if they were not always strictly 
observed.  (The European Regional Group was particularly 
divided, with Norway and Switzerland unabashedly pursuing 
their own agenda distinct from that of the EU.)   As at 
the previous IGWG, stakeholders (NGOs) were able speak to 
any agenda issue -- through their spokespersons -- on a 
equal footing with governments and international 
organizations, but were not allowed to propose text or 
participate in decision-making. 
 
¶6.  (U)  The U.S. delegation was headed by Richard 
Behrend (Director, IO/EDA), and included Willem Brakel 
 
 
(U.S. Mission), Christopher Camponovo (DRL/MLA), 
Katherine Gorove (L/HRR), and Sharon Kotok (IO/EDA).  The 
delegation worked closely and smoothly with the two 
Canadian representatives, one from the human rights and 
the other from the legal office in the Department of 
Foreign Affairs and International Trade. 
 
WORKING GROUP I - INTRODUCTION/PREFACE 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  Working Group I developed a Preface that 
begins with references to the Millennium Summit and World 
Food Summit goals on reducing world hunger.  The text 
then outlines the historical basis of the mandate for the 
Voluntary Guidelines in the World Food Summit Plan of 
Action and Declaration of the World Food Summit: five 
years later.  A key USG concern in the prefatory and 
introductory text had been proposed language on the 
substantive content and scope of an international "right 
to adequate food."  The U.S. delegation was successful in 
restraining attempts to characterize such a right as an 
entitlement or in defining it in a way that would be at 
variance with the long-standing USG position -- that such 
"rights" are to be progressively realized by a State and 
are non-justiciable in nature.  References to obligations 
of countries were limited to States Parties to the 
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural 
Rights.  Language that would have given undue stature to 
General Comment 12 of the Committee on Economic, Cultural 
and Social Rights also was successfully rebuffed. 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  Also referred to the Working Group was 
Guideline 15 (on Crises and Emergencies), which was 
considered together with one paragraph in the 
introductory section.  Although there was some 
preliminary agreement on the content of the paragraphs 
that would pertain to food issues and armed conflict, 
language introduced by Syria on the duties of an 
occupying power proved contentious.  The Syrian delegate, 
supported by others in the G-77, attempted to introduce 
extensive language from the Additional Protocols to the 
Geneva Conventions, which USdel strenuously opposed.  At 
the eleventh hour, the Swiss delegation proposed 
compromise language verbatim from the Fourth Geneva 
Convention that would have been acceptable to the U.S.; 
however, the clock ran out after negotiations on the 
International Dimension collapsed.  Consequently, all of 
the language pertaining to armed conflict and occupation 
still remains unresolved. 
 
WORKING GROUP II - INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶9.  (SBU)  In the section entitled International 
Dimension, IGWG3 negotiators reached agreement in the 
following areas, drawing on consensus language from major 
recent international meetings: Objective, International 
Cooperation, Role of the International Community, 
Technical Cooperation, and International Trade. 
Similarly, agreement was reached regarding paragraphs on 
External Debt, Official Development Assistance, 
Partnerships with NGOs/CSOs/Private Sector, and Promotion 
and Protection of Human Rights.  Agreed language on 
International reporting indicated that "states may report 
on a voluntary basis on relevant activities and progress 
achieved in implementing the Voluntary Guidelines...." 
 
¶10.  (SBU)  A particular concern for the USG was that the 
IGWG not accept any language implying criticism of the 
U.S. embargo of the Cuban regime that went beyond 
standard language agreed at other international fora. 
The U.S. delegation was especially vigilant to avoid a 
document containing, through juxtaposition of text, the 
erroneous implication that the U.S. was somehow using 
food as a weapon against the Castro government.  An added 
USdel worry was that, if all outstanding issues were 
resolved with the exception of implicitly anti-U.S. text, 
there might be pressure on all other delegates to agree 
to a document from which the USG would then have to 
dissociate itself. 
 
¶11.  (SBU)  At the same time, discussions in Working 
Group II exposed a major fault line between North and 
South.  G-77 representatives became increasingly 
 
 
insistent that elements of the International Dimension be 
elevated to a status equivalent to that of the Voluntary 
Guidelines for national, domestic action.  The EU had 
expressed flat opposition to any Guidelines with 
international content, leaving Working Group II 
stalemated on this key issue.  North America took a more 
nuanced approach to this question, and therefore was in a 
position later to serve as an intermediary in this 
discussion. 
 
WORKING GROUP III - GUIDELINES 
------------------------------ 
 
¶12.  (SBU)  Working Group III made its way methodically 
through 18 draft Voluntary Guidelines.  Good progress was 
made in finding consensus language rooted in practical 
measures.  The titles of the Guidelines give an 
indication of the scope of this exercise: 
 
     (1)     Democracy, Good Governance and Human Rights 
     (2)     Economic Development Policies 
     (3)     Strategies 
     (4)     Market Systems 
     (5)     Institutions 
     (5bis)  Stakeholders 
     (6)     Legal Framework 
     (7)     Access to Resources and Assets 
     (8)     Food Safety and Consumer Protection 
     (9)     Nutrition 
     (10)    Education and Awareness Raising 
     (11)    National Financial Resources 
     (12)    Support for Vulnerable Groups 
     (13)    Safety Nets 
     (14)    International Food Aid 
     (15)    Crises and Emergencies - referred to WG II 
     (16)    Monitoring, Indicators and Benchmarks 
     (16bis) The Rule of Law 
     (17)    National Human Rights Institutions 
 
¶13.  (SBU)  Working Group III finalized language for 
nearly all the Guidelines it considered, with the 
specific exception of Guidelines or portions of 
Guidelines with international content, which were all 
referred to Working Group II at the insistence of the EU 
and with the tacit support of North America.  Guidelines 
3.10, 4.6, 4.8, 4.9, 4.10, 8.8, 11.1 fell into the latter 
category.  Guideline 1.2 on food as a tool for political 
and economic pressure at the national level was held up 
by the G-77 pending resolution of similar language in the 
international context.  Due to lack of time, WG III did 
not complete negotiation of Guideline 16 bis (Rule of 
Law) and it did not resolve one outstanding point in 
Guideline 14.2 regarding food safety standards in 
international food transactions. 
 
MERGING THE OUTPUT OF THE WORKING GROUPS 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶14. (SBU)  The initial aim of the Chairman and Bureau had 
been for the Working Groups to complete their respective 
texts in the first four days, allowing the last day of 
IGWG3, Friday, for a plenary session to merge their 
efforts and to deal with crosscutting issues or other 
unresolved questions.  Nevertheless, despite having held 
up to three negotiating sessions per day -- morning, 
afternoon and evening sessions running until 10:00 p.m. - 
- for four full days, the working groups still had not 
fully completed their respective tasks by Friday evening. 
At midnight on Friday evening, the Chairman decided to 
convene a joint meeting of Working Groups II and III in 
Friends-of-the-Chair format to thrash out areas of 
overlap between the International Dimension text and the 
actual Guidelines, notwithstanding that neither Working 
Group had finished its task.  His stated intention was to 
continue negotiations through the night until the entire 
document was complete. 
 
¶15.  (SBU)  In parallel, the Chair asked Canada to head a 
small negotiating group to resolve the OECD/G-77 split on 
the status of the International Dimension.  In these 
talks, the G-77 remained insistent, and their proposals 
for how to characterize the international issues included 
references to a Plan of Action that gave international 
cooperation far more weight and emphasis than the EU and 
 
 
other OECD were prepared to accept in a document 
ostensibly geared to actions "in the context of national 
food security."  Upon reaching this impasse, the G-77 
caucused, and at about 3:00 a.m. returned to the Friends 
of the Chair, where they declared the gap to be 
unbridgeable in the near term, and called for an end to 
IGWG3 discussion.  Chairman Noori dissolved the meeting 
at about 3:15 a.m. on Saturday morning. 
 
FINAL PLENARY - NEXT STEPS 
-------------------------- 
 
¶16.  (U)  The IGWG reconvened in plenary session midday 
on Saturday.  Chairman Noori's conclusion, seconded by 
all regional group spokespersons, was that negotiators 
had made a lot of progress at IGWG3.  It was noted that 
there was a willingness on all sides to resume 
negotiations at a later date, but that IGWG3 had run out 
of time.  Noori proposed the following course of action: 
 
-- The Secretariat will circulate the complete negotiated 
text as we left it early Saturday morning, together with 
a brief Chairman's report on IGWG3. 
 
-- The Chairman will convene meeting(s) of the Bureau (or 
Rome-based alternates) to continue its work. 
 
-- A Friends of the Chair meeting  -- 3 per region -- 
would meet for one or two days during or on the margins 
of the Committee on Food Security meeting of 20-24 
September to continue negotiation of the text. 
 
-- An additional meeting of the IGWG, probably of two 
days' duration, would be convened in October (subject to 
availability of donor funding) to complete and formally 
approve the text. 
 
-- The final text would be submitted to the FAO Council 
of 22-27 November. 
 
¶17.  (U)  Most delegations seemed generally satisfied 
with this course of action.  Speaking for North America, 
U.S. delegate thanked the chairs of the three Working 
Groups, made note of the progress that had been made 
during the week, but also pointed to several important 
issues that remained unresolved and cautioned against 
unrealistic expectations.  USdel welcomed the Chair's 
proposal and noted U.S. willingness to continue working 
with the aim of reaching a consensus text in October. 
 
FAO SECRETARIAT INFORMATION PAPERS 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶18.  (U)  At IGWG3 the Secretariat circulated a series of 
draft information papers addressing aspects related to 
the mandate of the IGWG: 
 
     IGWG RTFG/INF5 - Right to Food Principles vis--vis 
     Rules Governing International Trade; 
 
     IGWG RTFG/INF6 - Food Aid and the Right to Food; 
 
     IGWG RTFG/INF7 - Justiciability of the Right to 
     Food; and 
 
     IGWG RTFG/INF8 - Monitoring the Implementation of 
     the Right to Adequate Food. 
 
Member states were invited to provide their comments by 
the end of August.  Although the contents of these papers 
are unlikely to influence the conclusion of the 
negotiation, they will become relevant as states begin to 
implement the Voluntary Guidelines.  It therefore will be 
important for USG agencies to study these reports and 
provide a response to the Secretariat. 
 
¶19.  (U)  Also, the Secretariat prepared and circulated 
colored maps indicating the "Level of Protection of the 
Right to Adequate Food based on Provisions from the Text 
of National Constitutions."  Revealingly, the map showed 
a striking disconnect between countries' food security 
and their constitutional protection of the right to food. 
Countries indicated to be with "no protection" included 
the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, Denmark and UK, whereas 
 
 
countries credited with having an explicit reference to 
the right to food in their constitutions included 
Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Ethiopia and North 
Korea. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶20.  (SBU)   Although IGWG3 did not complete negotiation 
of the Voluntary Guidelines, it made unexpectedly 
significant progress, thanks in part to the effectiveness 
and persuasiveness of Chairman Noori.  Despite the 
letdown of failure to finalize a document, most 
delegations seemed relatively optimistic that the 
negotiations could be concluded with the two additional 
meetings proposed by the Chair for September and October 
¶2004.  Delegates welcomed the USG's constructive and 
positive role in the negotiations.  Without having had to 
compromise on fundamental principles, we nevertheless 
were able to accommodate the wish of many delegations to 
consider voluntary measures towards implementation of a 
human rights-based approach to hunger at the national 
level. 
 
HALL 
 
 
NNNN 
 2004ROME02810 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED