VZCZCXYZ0028
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0581/01 3051518
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 311518Z OCT 08
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8624
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1383

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000581 
 
SIPDIS 
 
UNCLASSIFIED 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SNAR KCRM UN
SUBJECT: October 23 UNGASS CONSULTATIONS ON DRAFT ANNEX 
 
-------- 
SUMMARY 
-------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) On October 23 Namibian Ambassador Selma Ashipala-Musavyi, 
chair of the CND, briefed the WEOG group on the draft annex or 
Action Plan (emailed to Department previously). Prior to the 
briefing, a number of WEOG members met to discuss their reaction to 
the draft. There was general agreement on having the 2009 Political 
Declaration, to which an Action Plan Annex is expected to be 
attached, reaffirm the 1998 Declaration. However, Australia, 
supported by the U.K. and several other EU members, questioned the 
structure of the Action Plan Annex.  UNVIE believes the Action 
Plan's structure is sound, though the language needs to be tightened 
and the content streamlined.  USG should continue to be sensitive to 
the broad support Ambassador Ashipala enjoys within the G-77 
community, as well as UNVIE's own positive relationship with her. 
--------------------------------------- 
Structure Dominates Informal Discussion 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Prior to the formal WEOG session with Ambassador Ashipala, 
several WEOG members assembled for an informal discussion. All in 
attendance expressed a desire for the 2009 Political Declaration to 
re-affirm the 1998 Declaration. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Nevertheless, there was widespread concern over the 
structure of the Action Plan draft Ambassador Ashipala submitted for 
member states' consideration. While all agreed the document is too 
long and needs to be shortened, the members also expressed the 
feeling the document is A) imbalanced with respect to supply and 
demand issues; B) could be read as a new Action Plan, rather than 
one supplementing the 1998 document; and C) is not sufficiently 
forward-looking nor concrete in its assessments of work needed to be 
done. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Sweden informed the meeting that the European Commission 
created an alternative structure that contains: 1) a chapeau 
explicitly reaffirming the 1998 Declaration; 2) a section on supply; 
3) a section on demand; 4) 2 sections on cross-cutting issues, such 
as international coordination and cooperation, data collection and 
evaluation. When asked if this structure was something other EU 
countries could rally around, most seemed to suggest yes, with no 
dissenters. (Note: Not all WEOG countries were in attendance at the 
informal meeting. End Note.) 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Countries at the informal admitted restructuring the 
Action Plan would need to be carefully managed so as not to open up 
the substance for re-negotiation, or undercut Ambassador Ashipala. 
With that in mind there was discussion that any alternative draft 
would need to come from the chair, and not from any specific group 
of member states. Some in the meeting raised the possibility of 
Sweden acting as intermediary given the relationship between 
Ambassadors Lundberg and Ashipala. (Note: The two co-chair the 
working group on finance and governance. End Note.) 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
Ashipala Defends Structure at Formal Meeting 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) At her briefing for the WEOG, Ambassador Ashipala laid out 
her vision for the next two months. She reiterated her desire for 
negotiations on the Action Plan to be concluded by mid-December, at 
which time she would circulate a draft Political Declaration. She 
envisions the new Political Declaration as a short document, 
reaffirming and supplementing the 1998 Declaration, and focusing on 
gaps to be filled as well as emerging issues. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) At the next UNGASS meeting on November 3 and 4, Ambassador 
Ashipala will re-circulate the draft Action Plan, in a version that 
will cite documentary sources, such as specific resolutions, for 
each. She envisions section by section discussions and negotiations. 
She does not want to see negotiations on each paragraph, but many 
delegations wonder whether this can be avoided. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Most comments and questions directed to Ashipala at the 
WEOG briefing related to concerns with structure. UK asserted that 
conclusions of the working groups were reached by experts. Since 
they were not politically negotiated texts, UK argued, they should 
not form the basis of the Political Declaration or the Action Plan. 
Australia asked if the structure will evolve into what they hope is 
a more comprehensible and forward-looking document. The European 
Commission worried about the imbalanced structure-one section on 
demand and four sections on supply-saying that the Action Plan's 
content should be drawn not only from the working groups but also 
from the NGO Forum's "Beyond 2008" conclusions and UNODC's "Fit for 
Purpose". Netherlands and Canada supported that position. Canada, 
Sweden, Germany and France all expressed concern that the Action 
Plan did not adequately reaffirm the 1998 Declaration, and that the 
current Action Plan could be seen as replacing it. 
¶9.  (SBU) Ambassador Ashipala reiterated that the Action Plan to be 
circulated on November 3 will retain its current structure. She 
expressed her belief that attempts to renegotiate the Action Plan's 
structure are a fruitless exercise, but she is agreeable to it if 
the member states so desire. She suggested that concerns over 
imbalance between supply and demand should be considered during 
November 3-4. She also tried to tamp down concerns about whether the 
Action Plan adequately reaffirms the 1998 Declaration, saying such 
concerns should be taken up during the Political Declaration 
negotiations in January. 
 
-------- 
COMMENT 
-------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) Our subsequent conversations with Australia and key EU 
advocates for a revised structure led us to believe that they have 
the ulterior motive of incorporating harm reduction into the draft 
annex. Our conversations with some G-77 representatives revealed 
strong support for Ambassador Ashipala, who was given the mandate to 
draft the anenx. These G-77 contacts also showed no appetite for 
structural revision of the draft, especially if the idea came from 
the developed countries. In light of our overall satisfaction with 
the draft content, we should continue to push for tighter language, 
more streamlined content, and clarity that the 2009 document will be 
supplemental to, not replacement of, the 1998 action plan. 
Ambassador Ashipala enjoys broad support within the G-77 community, 
and Mission enjoys an excellent working relationship with her. END 
COMMENT. 
 
Schulte