VZCZCXRO1150
PP RUEHBZ RUEHIK RUEHYG
DE RUCNDT #0503 1712329
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 202329Z JUN 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2110
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHBW/AMEMBASSY BELGRADE PRIORITY 0160
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 0984
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
RUEHPS/USOFFICE PRISTINA PRIORITY 0915

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000503 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL UNSC UNMIK YI
SUBJECT: CHURKIN ON KOSOVO UNSCR: STEPS FORWARD SOMETIMES 
LEAD TO WRONG TARGET 
 
 
¶1. (U) Sensitive but unclassified -- please protect 
accordingly. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Summary: During Security Council consultations on 
June 20, France, on behalf of the co-sponsors, tabled a 
revised draft resolution on Kosovo.  Ambassador Wolff and the 
UK Deputy Permrep delivered comments supporting the 
resolution.  Russian Permrep Churkin, said the resolution's 
automaticity was a shortcoming that made it "radically 
different" from Russia's elements, which were still on the 
table. End summary. 
 
¶3. (SBU) During Security Council consultations on June 20, 
France tabled under any other business a revised draft 
resolution on Kosovo on behalf of European members of the 
Security Council, the United States and Germany.  In tabling 
the resolution, French Charge Lacroix stated that the 
Security Council needed to act responsibly to establish 
stability in the region. Speaking for the UK, Charge Pierce 
explained that the resolution had been recrafted to address 
the concerns of many members and "one in particular."  Pierce 
reminded all that EU Foreign Ministers had stated on June 18 
in Brussels that they reaffirmed support for Ahtisaari's 
settlement.  Pierce went through the resolution explaining 
differences from the previously tabled text and pointed to 
preambular paragraph four, in particular, as containing 
language on the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia that 
Russia had stated would be acceptable to it.  Pierce also 
pointed to other important differences in the resolution, 
including a reference to the Guiding Principles of the 
Contact Group, a preambular paragraph saying the status quo 
was not sustainable, operative paragraph one that "builds on 
a proposal from Panama", and operative paragraph two that 
calls for further discussions between Belgrade and Pristina 
to see if an agreement could be achievable. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Speaking for the US, Ambassador Wolff stated that 
the new draft was the culmination of work that had involved 
18 months of intense negotiations with the parties.  It was 
time for the Council to decide on an issue that was 
difficult, but could not be ignored or put off.  Agreement 
between the parties was unlikely, but we expected the parties 
to negotiate in good faith, he said. Serbia and Kosovo's 
future in Europe were frozen until we closed the final 
chapter of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. 
 
¶5. (SBU) In a strong intervention, Russia's Permrep Churkin 
said there was a clearly a misunderstanding as pre-paragraph 
4 contained no input from Russia as it had not engaged in any 
discussions on the text for reasons of principle.  On the 
draft in general, Churkin said that it was a step forward, 
but that, as Einstein had once explained, space is a tricky 
thing and sometimes one can make steps forward without 
getting any closer to their target.  The paragraph putting 
the Ahtisaari plan into effect does not allow any serious 
negotiations but only "mock negotiations," said Churkin.  The 
Security Council would be abdicating its responsibility and 
we would have to take a decision now based on something 
happening several months in the future, Churkin said.  "This 
shortcoming in the resolution continues to make it radically 
different from our proposal," concluded Churkin, "which 
remains on the table." 
 
 
 
 
WOLFF