VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0768/01 2391442
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 261442Z AUG 08
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4862
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 8516
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA IMMEDIATE 0969
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI IMMEDIATE 2303
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN IMMEDIATE 0957
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 2019
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO IMMEDIATE 0978
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME IMMEDIATE 0998

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000768 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL KUNR UNSC IN BR PK IT JP GM
 
SUBJECT: UN SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM: PGA STILL TRYING TO 
BRIDGE THE DIVIDE BETWEEN THE G-4 AND UFC 
 
REF: A. USUN NEW YORK 716 
     ¶B. USUN NEW YORK 654 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: On August 22, General Assembly President 
Kerim gathered together Perm Reps from Japan, the UK, 
Pakistan, Egypt, Djibouti, and the U.S. for a discussion of 
compromise language for the report of the Open-Ended Working 
Group (OEWG) on Security Council expansion to the General 
Assembly which must be discussed at the next OEWG meeting, 
scheduled for September 2.  The G-4 (represented by Japan) 
and the Uniting for Consensus (represented by Pakistan) blocs 
remain apart on whether to launch inter-governmental 
negotiations (G-4 position) or first have a discussion of the 
parameters (UFC position) of such a negotiation in the OEWG. 
The UK offered one possible compromise -- discuss parameters 
during the first months of the 63rd session until the end of 
calendar year 2008 and then launch intergovernmental 
negotiations at the start of 2009.  The two blocs are also 
opposed on whether negotiations should be governed by 
consensus/"general agreement" (UFC) or the "widest possible 
agreement" (G-4).  Egypt suggested that the "widest possible 
agreement" be defined as greater than the two-thirds required 
by the Charter.  Ambassador Khalilzad urged the G-4 to move 
on giving some assurances to the UFC on rules and procedures 
for intergovernmental negotiations but did note that 
discussions of such assurances should be time-bound.  He also 
advocated in favor of standing by consensus/general agreement 
as the basis for negotiations in return for the launch of 
those negotiations.  While no agreements were reached, the 
PGA's office said they would revise the draft language for 
the OEWG report based on the discussion and circulate it to 
delegations in advance of the September 2 OEWG meeting.  End 
summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) General Assembly President (PGA) Srgjan Kerim 
hosted August 22 another meeting of his hand-selected group 
of states (Japan, the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Egypt) to 
discuss compromise language on UN Security Council expansion 
for the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) report to the General 
Assembly.  To help him bridge the divide between the G-4 
position represented by Japan, which seeks immediate launch 
of intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council 
expansion, and the Uniting for Consensus (UFC) position 
represented by Pakistan, which seeks a discussion of the 
modalities and parameters of the negotiation prior to the 
launch of negotiations, he invited the Permanent 
Representative of Djibouti Ambassador Roble Olhaye, one of 
the four Vice Chairpersons of the PGA's Security Council 
expansion Task Force, and Ambassador Khalilzad.  Ambassador 
Dzundev, the PGA's Chef de Cabinet, opened the meeting by 
asking the four representatives for concrete proposals to the 
PGA's original draft decision, reported in ref B.  He noted 
that the PGA needs to circulate revised language before the 
next meeting of the OEWG, scheduled for September 2. 
 
Pakistan 
-------- 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Pakistani Perm Rep Ambassador Munir Akram stressed 
that he is trying to bring along a "less flexible" UFC bloc 
and that they are not prepared to launch inter-governmental 
negotiations until there is a discussion of the modalities 
and parameters for negotiations, per the PGA's fourth pillar. 
 The PGA responded that the UFC should not pick and choose 
pillars as from an a la carte menu since pillars four and 
seven go together, like a prix fixe menu.  (Note: Pillar 
seven reads: "Member states should refrain from steps which 
could serve to undermine the current momentum and consensus 
to continue a process with the intention of achieving 
result-oriented solutions.  End note.)  On the question of 
whether the negotiations should be governed by "general 
agreement" or "the widest possible agreement," Akram argued 
strongly in favor of "general agreement," saying that the 
OEWG was originally formed to study the issue as a consensus 
body and that to push through reform now by majority, would 
be more destructive than constructive and would result in 
"isolating an important segment." 
 
Japan 
----- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Japanese Perm Rep Ambassador Yukio Takasu stressed 
the need to move the debate to the next stage -- 
 
 
intergovernmental negotiations -- and argued in favor of 
seeking the "widest possible agreement," not "general 
agreement."  He argued that, in this context, "general 
agreement" will mean that every member state has the right to 
stop the reform process and that should not be possible.  For 
that reason, the "widest possible agreement," which should 
mean more than two-thirds, is better.  Takasu expressed 
strong disapproval of an initial discussion of the modalities 
and parameters for negotiations, stating that he could not 
promise to give up something in the pre-negotiation of 
parameters before the actual negotiations begin and urged 
that all options be kept on the table.  He observed that 
member states were not given an opportunity to negotiate the 
PGA's Seven Pillars. 
 
Egypt 
----- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Egyptian Perm Rep Ambassador Maged Abdelaziz 
pointed out that the PGA was proposing to shift the language 
in the draft decision from last year's decision of "general 
agreement" to "widest possible agreement."  If that was to be 
the case, then he suggested adding the phrase "over the 
two-thirds required by the Charter." 
 
UK 
-- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) UK Perm Rep Ambassador John Sawers noted the 
familiar tones of the discussion, the sense of frustration on 
the part of many member states with the OEWG or, as he 
nicknamed it the "never-ending working group," and the 
concern on the part of some member states that the process 
will be launched and come to a screeching halt when the 128th 
country signs on to reform.  He advocated for a set of "rules 
of the road" for the 12-month period ahead.  He suggested a 
possible bridge between the G-4 and the UFC with a discussion 
of parameters during the opening months of the 63rd session 
(until the end of 2008) and then the launch of 
intergovernmental negotiations at the start of 2009. 
 
US 
-- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Ambassador Khalilzad said there appear to be three 
options: (1) placing the issue before the GA and its usual 
rules and procedures; (2) intergovernmental negotiations 
within the OEWG using consensus; or (3) intergovernmental 
negotiations in the GA but on the basis of general agreement, 
though there are questions as to what standing that would 
have.  Since the first option is viewed by most as too great 
a step, though we may ultimately end up there, that leaves 
the last two options, he suggested.  In order to move 
forward, he urged the G-4 to move on giving some assurances 
to the UFC on rules and procedures for intergovernmental 
negotiations but did note that discussions of such assurances 
should be time-bound.  Ambassador Khalilzad urged the G-4 to 
accept general agreement as the basis for negotiations if the 
UFC agreed to launch intergovernmental negotiations in the 
63rd session. 
 
Next Steps 
---------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) The meeting concluded with no agreement between the 
two blocs, but the PGA said his office would draft revised 
language for the OEWG report, based on the meeting's 
discussion, and then circulate it to all OEWG members in 
advance of the next OEWG meeting, September 2. 
Wolff