VZCZCXYZ0006
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #0936 0852240
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 252232Z MAR 08
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 0000
INFO RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 0000
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM IMMEDIATE 0000

UNCLAS STATE 030936 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL KPKO MARR AMGT SC GA
SUBJECT: MARCH 10 - APRIL 4 SUBSTANTIVE SESSION OF SPECIAL 
COMMITTEE ON PEACEKEEPING OPERATIONS (C-34):  ADDITIONAL 
GUIDANCE 
 
REF: STATE 21247 (NOTAL) 
 
1.(SBU) Sensitive but unclassified.  This message supplements 
the guidance given in reftel. 
 
2.(SBU) Canada has circulated the draft 2008 C-34 report, 
containing recommendations on a range of issues (including 
the Office of Military Affairs, the UN's role in security 
sector reform, and cooperation with regional 
organizations), as well as requests for UN Secretariat 
follow-up.  The C-34 will consider the draft report 
paragraph by paragraph from March 24 to April 4.  The goal 
is to adopt the report by consensus on Friday, April 4. 
All issues should be looked at in the context described in 
paragraphs 3 and 4.  Guidance on specific topics begins at 
paragraph 5. 
 
3.(SBU) The U.S. supports vigorous, appropriately staffed and 
equipped UN management of UN peacekeeping operations.  In 
2007 we supported the Secretary-General's initiative to 
restructure the Department of Peacekeeping Operations.  We 
joined others on the Fifth Committee in supporting most, 
but not all, of his requests for additional personnel and 
other resources.  The Fifth Committee recommended, and the 
GA approved, combining those additional resources with 
steps to improve management procedures, in order to make 
the most efficient use of both existing and new 
resources.   We note that the current draft language for 
the C-34 report endorses a number of Secretariat requests 
for additional personnel that would, if approved in full, 
bring total personnel to the levels requested but not 
approved in full in 2007.  We welcome the wide ranging 
discussion in the C-34 of how to achieve the best possible 
UN peacekeeping.  The U.S. believes that the C-34 is an 
excellent forum for providing overall guidance on how 
peacekeeping is managed.  However, specifics -- numbers of 
personnel in a given office, for instance -- must be left 
to the budget committees.  We stress that the UN has not 
yet filled all the positions already approved, and it is 
less than a year since the GA approved changes in a number 
of management procedures.  It is premature to consider 
additional augmentations; we should allow the steps 
already taken to be implemented first.  You should seek to 
keep language general, avoiding endorsement of any 
specific proposals for increases. 
 
4.(SBU) USUN should accept language that appears in the 
Canadian draft report that was adopted by consensus in the 
2007 report.  If other delegations press to renegotiate 
consensus language, you should advise them that, for its 
part, the U.S. would prefer not to reopen difficult issues 
but that we are prepared to do so if necessary. USUN 
should tell the Committee that we have noted that in 
several paragraphs the draft report calls for inclusion of 
specific tasks in peacekeeping mandates (for example, SSR 
or child protection); while all worthy objectives, the 
specifics of peacekeeping mandates are the prerogative of 
the Security Council, and such statements in the C-34 
report are not binding on the Council. USUN may also 
accept any language in the current draft of the report 
that is not specifically discussed in paragraphs 5 and 
following, below. You should seek additional guidance as 
needed.  To the extent possible, USUN should share the 
spotlight with like-minded countries on issues where we 
are seeking to delete or alter language. 
 
5.(SBU) Section A (Introduction) and B (Guiding Principles) 
are taken verbatim from the 2007 report. 
 
6.(SBU) Section C:  Restructuring of Peacekeeping:  The U.S. 
Welcomes the steps taken to date, and urges that the 
remaining positions, particularly more senior slots, be 
filled as rapidly as possible.   Note for USUN: Draw on 
the umbrella guidance in discussing the proposals for 
additional staffing or amendments contained in this 
section. 
 
-- (a) additional staffing for the Integrated Operational 
Teams -- that is, staffing at the level requested but not 
approved in 2007 (para 15) -- oppose endorsement of 
increase, seek "welcomes establishment of IOTs" without 
any mention of additional staff; (b) finalize Terms of 
Reference for IOTs and clarify relationship within 
Secretariat -- Department believes this has been done; if 
 
SIPDIS 
not, and if there are no resources required, USUN may 
accept this; (c) elevate the rank of the Police Advisor to 
that of other senior advisors in the Department (para 18) 
-- USUN should oppose any changes to staffing and position 
grades approved in 2007, and should seek to defer any such 
discussions to Fifth Committee; (d) give responsibility 
for procurement to DFS and wherever possible to use local 
procurement (para 23)  -- inappropriate for C-34 
discussion, this complex issue should be handled by budget 
committees. Further, "stimulation of local economic 
recovery" through local procurement is not a peacekeeping 
task.  USUN should seek to delete; can accept language 
asking Secretariat to report if there is sufficient 
evidence that centralized procurement is impeding 
peacekeeping efforts;  and (e) reconsideration of second 
A/SYG for DFS (para 24) -- the GA made its decision on 
this issue less than a year ago, and it is premature to 
reconsider it. 
 
7.(SBU) Section D:  Safety and Security:  The U.S. shares the 
concern of other Member States about the safety of UN 
personnel.  Most of this section is unchanged or has only 
slight modifications from the 2007 language, with some 
paragraphs eliminated.  Para 36:  This paragraph should be 
deleted.  Any decision on use of contracted guard services 
should be made on a mission-specific basis.  Further, the 
"UN" does not set troop ceilings, the Security Council 
does.  This language is inappropriate for a C-34 report. 
Paras 39 and 40 -- we are also concerned about such issues 
as hostage taking and parties to conflict using UN field 
positions as cover. However, since legal remedies will 
vary depending on specific circumstances in each country, 
we are not persuaded that a Secretariat study of 
hypothetical legal responses to these acts would be 
helpful.  The U.S. recommends that these issues be dealt 
with on a country-specific basis.  Para 41 -- USUN should 
seek a formulation which is more general, such as "explore 
appropriate mechanisms for addressing the use of IEDs." 
The draft language is too specific; "jamming devices" are 
effective in some but not all instances.  Para 46 -- USUN 
should seek to delete the reference to "regret" at the 
lack of progress on monitoring/surveillance technologies. 
This paragraph should focus on the Special Committee's 
request for a report on the project and alternatives. 
 
8.(SBU) Section E:  Conduct and Discipline:  The U.S. 
continues to be a strong proponent of the highest 
standards of conduct and discipline.  We welcome the 
inclusion of welfare and recreation arrangements for all 
categories of UN peacekeeping personnel.  Note for USUN: 
As stated in ref A, the U.S. will consider any proposals 
for modifications of its MOUs with the UN on a 
case-by-case basis and cannot comment in advance on any 
specifics.  However, we have no objection to the general 
language (para 54) encouraging the UN to proceed with 
implementation. 
 
9.(SBU) Section F:  Strengthening Operational Capacity: 
 
--Office of Military Affairs:  The U.S. supports a strong 
military planning and advisory capacity at UN headquarters 
that will promote quick stand-up of new missions and rapid 
provision of appropriate technical support in the event of 
changing circumstances or amended mandates.  USUN should 
seek to remove language from the C-34 report (para 64) 
welcoming the "strengthening" of OMA.  This is one of many 
instances seeking staffing at the full levels requested in 
¶2007.  Since the GA decided to approve a lower level, and 
not all positions have yet been filled, it is premature to 
welcome any further increases.  Fallback language: "The 
Special Committee notes the recommendations for additional 
positions for the Office of Military Affairs, and expects 
that the Fifth Committee will examine the proposals in 
detail."  Similarly, the reference to "strengthening and 
restructuring" in para 65 should be deleted; these actions 
have already been taken by the GA, in 2007.  The DPKO 
requests for additional positions will be addressed by the 
Fifth Committee.  Para 66:  We understand that the 
strategic military cell is to be moved from UNIFIL to DPKO 
without any increases in staffing.  If this is the case, 
the Department has no objection to this paragraph.  Please 
advise if this is not the case.  Para 67:  As discussed 
earlier, the GA approved certain increases and grade 
levels less than a year ago.  Any discussion of amendments 
to ranks of particular positions should take place in the 
Fifth Committee, not the C-34; USUN should seek to have 
this paragraph deleted.  USUN may if appropriate express 
support for the measures advocated in para 69 (development 
of a "concept" on use of military police units) and para 
70 (search for innovative solutions to force and enabler 
generation). 
 
--UN Police Capacities:  The U.S. recognizes and applauds 
the central role played by UN police in helping to 
establish the rule of law in post-conflict situations.  We 
support the call for a comprehensive review of the Police 
Division. 
Para 71 -- elevate the rank of the Police Advisor to that 
of other senior advisors in the Department  -- USUN should 
oppose any changes to staffing and position grades 
approved in 2007, and should seek to defer any such 
discussions to Fifth Committee; 
 
--Rapid Deployment:  The U.S. supports efforts to improve 
the UN's capacity for rapid deployment. If asked: The U.S. 
believes this is a desirable outcome.  We regret that we, 
as well as many other Member States, cannot make this a 
priority in view of other commitments of resources.  We 
hope it will be possible to revisit this initiative in the 
future. 
 
--Integrated Planning:  We support appointment of an 
advocate for the integrated mission planning process 
(IMPP) within the Secretariat.  This task should be given 
to an existing member of the team.  The Department defers 
to USUN on whether this is an appropriate role for the 
U/SYG for Management or his/her delegate. 
 
--Mission Leadership:  In addition to the reiteration of 
language from last year's report calling for qualified 
candidates from troop-contributing countries for senior 
mission leadership, the U.S. supports inclusion of 
language underlining the desirability of increasing the 
number of women assigned to such positions. 
 
--Strengthening UN Headquarters:  Para 82 is garbled. USUN 
is requested to seek clarification. 
 
--Doctrine and Terminology:  The U.S. commends the 
extensive work and broad consultation that resulted in the 
development of the new UN Peacekeeping Operations 
Principles and Guidelines.  We support its dissemination 
as suggested in the report.  The new language in para 88 
and 89 could lead to a reopening of the contentious 
question of "agreed principles, guidelines and terminology 
governing peacekeeping."  USUN should seek to eliminate 
it, without raising the "consent" issue.  You should 
stress instead that the UN guidelines are an internal 
document.  While it will be widely used as a reference, it 
should not be opened up for debate or further editing by 
Member States.  If other delegations press to open a 
discussion on "agreed principles, guidelines and 
terminology," you should advise them that, for its part, 
the U.S. also had concerns about the documents, and, while 
we would prefer not to reopen difficult issues, we are 
prepared to do so if necessary.  You should advise 
Washington promptly if the U.S. has no support on this 
approach. 
 
--Other Issues:  USUN should seek the deletion of para 90, 
which is an oblique reference to the proposed cadre of 
2500 civilians, which the Fifth Committee reviewed and 
rejected in 2007.  If this is not possible, you should try 
to change focus to the improving and speeding up of 
recruiting civilians in general, as stated in para 91 -- 
that is, underline the need for strong civilian skills 
without endorsing the creation of permanent positions. 
Para 93:  as discussed in recent telephone calls and 
e-mails, the proposal for civilian observers is a Swedish 
initiative.  USUN should follow up with the Swedish 
delegation on the margins of the C-34 session.  We have no 
objection to a study of the proposal. 
 
10.(SBU) Section G:  Strategies for Complex Peacekeeping 
Operations: 
 
--General:  The United States fully supports close 
coordination of development efforts by international and 
bilateral aid agencies with the security and national 
reconciliation programs supported by peacekeepers.  This 
integrated approach is the most likely to produce 
sustainable results.  USUN should be alert to efforts to 
introduce language transferring voluntary development 
costs to assessed peacekeeping costs. 
 
--Peacebuilding:  Rather than "coexisting," the United 
States believes that peacekeeping and peacebuilding are 
closely connected.  Peacebuilding programs such as rule of 
law programs conducted at an early stage lay the 
groundwork for long-term stability.  We note that these 
programs must be integrated from the outset.  Para 101: 
USUN should seek clarification of the reference in this 
paragraph to "linkage between budgetary benchmarks and the 
Security Council reporting process."  You should also seek 
clarification on the reference in paragraph 102 to the PBC 
strengthening its capacity and intensifying dialogue on 
such issues as security sector reform.  It is not clear 
what outcome or action is intended.  Para 103:  We welcome 
DPKO's increasing dialogue with an expanded universe of 
partners, as long as this does not interfere with its core 
function of planning and managing peacekeeping 
operations.  Para 104: The U.S. is concerned that this 
paragraph as drafted risks blurring the distinctions 
between the roles and responsibilities of DPKO and DPA. 
USUN should seek modified language which encourages 
appropriate cooperation and coordination between the two 
departments, rather than predetermining how that should be 
done. 
-- Disarmament, Demobilization and Reintegration (DDR): 
This section of the report appears unnecessarily long and 
detailed.  The C-34 should be giving overall policy 
guidance, rather than engaging in technical, expert-level 
discussions of practice.  The U.S. agrees that 
reintegration programs should be planned from the 
beginning, as part of the overall plan of DDR; this 
includes seeking donor commitment up front for the 
reintegration phase.   That said, it is often the case 
that a hard-won political agreement requires rapid 
movement to disarm and demobilize combatants, to defuse 
tensions and remove weapons from the equation, even if 
reintegration programs are not in place.  USUN should seek 
to eliminate language throughout this section which calls 
for integration of development goals into peacekeeping 
mandates.  We support efforts to take account of the 
special needs of women and children in DDR programs; this 
work should be conducted by the appropriate UN and other 
humanitarian groups, in close coordination with DPKO.  The 
U.S. welcomes the request for a briefing on how 
headquarters support is meeting field needs. 
Specifically:  USUN should seek the deletion of: para 106: 
sentences 3 and 4.  In sentence 2, reintegration needs 
should be "planned" from the outset, not "linked to 
disarmament and demobilization."  Para 107:  First 
sentence should read: "The Special Committee stresses that 
the international donor community should make long-term 
commitments and sequence support to ensure that sufficient 
funds are allocated to the entire process before it 
starts."  The rest of the para as currently drafted is 
redundant.  Para 112: Eliminate sentences 2 and 3.  This 
language is unnecessarily detailed and suggests solutions 
which may not be suitable for all circumstances.  Para 
114: Delete (redundant and patronizing). 
 
--Security Sector Reform (SSR):  This section of the 
report is also too long and detailed.  As above, the C-34 
report should give broad guidance, rather than technical 
instruction.  The U.S. supports the Secretary-General's 
recommendations that the appropriate role for the UN in 
SSR, as described in para 118, is to provide technical 
advice and expertise on the design and requirements of SSR 
from the early stages of peacekeeping.  We support, where 
appropriate, UN missions serving as a focus for government 
and donor programs to ensure that the best use is made of 
resources and that programs are mutually supportive but 
not duplicative.  We anticipate that most SSR programs 
will be funded and managed by governments and/or donors. 
National ownership of SSR is critical to its success. 
However, we must also emphasize that it is critical that 
SSR programs be inclusive, based on principles of human 
rights and civilian control,  The U.S. looks forward to 
the requested report on the relationship between SSR and 
DDR.  USUN should seek to eliminate references in paras 
120 and 124 to "clarification" of the role of the Rule of 
Law Unit, as well as to delete para 127, which calls for 
more SSR resources and reiterates the request for a 
separate SSR unit.  The GA decided last year to establish 
DPKO's SSR function in the Rule of Law Unit, with 5 
additional positions.  There is no reason to revisit this 
issue so soon. 
 
--Rule of Law: Para 134:  USUN should seek to eliminate 
references to tribunals and the ICC, ending the sentence 
at ".. . the need to end impunity for the most serious 
crimes."  That is, we should avoid language advocating 
specific measures.  Para 139:  USUN should seek additional 
details on the "Standing Justice Capacity" described (not 
very well) in this paragraph.  If this initiative is a 
proposal for additional staffing, USUN should seek 
language such as ".. welcomes the initiative to take a 
holistic approach to police, justice and corrections" 
and/or include "within existing resources."   Para 141: 
If the proposed staffing of the Rule of Law office does 
not include any additional positions, USUN may accept this 
language; if this is a call for more positions, USUN 
should seek to eliminate any language implying support. 
 
--Gender and Peacekeeping:  The U.S. deplores acts of 
sexual and gender-based violence, and fully supports 
efforts to integrate the special needs of women and girls 
into peacekeeping and peacebuilding programs.  We 
underline the need for more women at senior management 
levels and among uniformed personnel. 
 
--Children and Peacekeeping:  The U.S. supports efforts to 
increase child protection and to address the needs of this 
vulnerable population.  The U.S. supports "naming" or 
"designating" (not "establishing") a focal point in DPKO 
to work with the SRSG on children and armed conflict; this 
should not be a new position.  The U.S. does not support 
creation of an SRSG for violence against children; this 
position would duplicate and overlap the responsibilities 
of a number of existing positions and offices throughout 
the UN system.  UN agencies should be addressing this 
issue already. 
 
--HIV/AIDS in Peacekeeping:  The U.S. supports efforts to 
address the health of both peacekeepers and the 
populations they serve. 
 
--Quick Impact Projects:  The U.S. recognizes the value of 
quick impact projects, and welcomes the call for 
coordination with humanitarian and development partners to 
eliminate overlap and ensure sustainment of the project. 
We expect to review any specific proposals in the 
mission-by-mission context in the budget committees.  Note 
for USUN:   You should seek to eliminate language on 
including QIPs in peacekeeping budgets (para 160). 
 
--Protection of Civilians:  The U.S. supports the 
protection of civilians under imminent threat, within 
existing mandates and areas of deployment (para 161).  We 
are not sure what is meant by "policies and guidance to 
ensure consistent and harmonized implementation, as well 
as the operationalization of lessons learned and best 
practices."   We wonder if one-size-fits-all is in fact a 
productive approach to this issue.  USUN should seek to 
have this paragraph rewritten in terms such as "The 
Special Committee recognizes the vulnerability of 
civilians in conflict situations, and welcomes steps taken 
to increase the ability of peacekeeping missions to 
respond to situations where civilians are in imminent 
danger." 
 
11.(SBU) Section H:  Cooperation with troop and police 
contributing countries:  Para 162-168 were adopted in the 
2007 report.  The U.S. supports improved 
information-sharing and use of pre-deployment threat 
assessments.  Paragraphs 170 and 171 contain several 
redundancies, and should be combined.  We also recognize 
the benefit of reconnaissance visits to new missions by 
potential contributing countries.  These visits should be 
financed by contributing countries or, where necessary, by 
DPKO within its own existing travel budgets.  Use can and 
should be made of the considerable improvements in recent 
years in e-facilities, including video conferencing. 
 
12.(SBU) Section I:  Enhancement of African Peacekeeping 
Capacities:  The U.S. is committed to assisting African 
countries and African organizations, including the AU and 
ECOWAS, to build their capacity; we support efforts to 
improve UN/AU coordination.  USUN should oppose any 
efforts to broaden the language in this section (para 
171-174) to imply that the UN should absorb 
capacity-building costs. 
 
13.(SBU) Section J:  Cooperation with regional arrangements: 
USUN should seek language clarifying that support for 
African and other regional capacity building comes from 
donor assistance and other voluntary funding.  Para 180: 
We are concerned that the proposed coordination function 
in the Secretariat implies additional staffing and other 
resources.  Any such coordination should be done within 
existing resources.  If there is a proposal for additional 
personnel or other resources, this should be taken up by 
budget committees.  USUN should seek clarification.  Para 
184 appears to be in the wrong section; since it does not 
refer to regional organizations, we suggest that it be moved 
to Section H (TCCs). 
 
14.(SBU) Section K:  Best Practices:  The U.S. supports this approach. 
 
15.(SBU) Section L:  Training:  The U.S. supports the 
recommendations.  USUN should seek clarification of para 
203, on the "institutionalization" of Senior Mission 
Administrative and Resource Training. 
 
16.(SBU) Section M:  Personnel: The U.S. supports the 
recommendations.  All but para 216, with which we agree, 
were in the 2007 report. 
 
17.(SBU) Section N:  Financial Issues:  We welcome the 
acknowledgment of the mandate and responsibilities of the 
Fifth Committee.  Since para 219, which was included in 
the 2007 report, already notes that Members must pay their 
assessments, USUN should seek to eliminate para 220 and 
221, which are redundant; as a fallback, they could be 
edited down and folded into para 219.   The U.S. 
recognizes and welcomes the positive outcome of recent 
discussions on Contingent-owned Equipment.  Para 226:  the 
second sentence of this paragraph should end with ".. to 
reach a consensus", eliminating the unnecessary reference 
to the TCCs obtaining a smaller increase than they had 
sought.  Para 226 also calls for a review of "troops cost 
[sic];" USUN should seek to avoid addition of language 
prejudging the outcome. 
 
18.(SBU) Section O:  Other Matters:  The U.S. would like a 
much more detailed picture of what would be entailed in a 
"high-level" meeting to honor the 60th anniversary of UN 
peacekeeping.  USUN should seek to have this 
recommendation, and the draft declaration that accompanies 
it, deleted. 
RICE