VZCZCXRO1006
PP RUEHRN
DE RUEHUNV #0129/01 0851520
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 261520Z MAR 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9217
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1554
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 0197
RUEHRN/USMISSION UN ROME 0055
INFO RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 1330
RUEHXX/GENEVA IO MISSIONS COLLECTIVE
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN 0128
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 0645
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1121
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0638
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0976

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 UNVIE VIENNA 000129 
 
DEPT FOR IO/T, EB/IFT/ODF AND L/PIL 
EMBASSIES FOR ECON/POL 
 
SIPDIS 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ABUD AORC EAID EINV ETRD KCRM KUNR UNCITRAL AU UN
 
SUBJECT: FRANCE SOFTENS VIEWS ON UNCITRAL REFORM, SEEKS GUIDELINES 
FOR CHAIRPERSONS 
 
REF: 08 UNVIE VIENNA 000036, 08 UNVIE VIENNA 000038 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  (U) The French mission on March 3 hosted an informal meeting to 
discuss UNCITRAL's working methods and rules of procedure. 
Representatives of 20 countries, the European Commission, and the 
UNCITRAL Secretariat attended the meeting.  Switzerland, Colombia, 
Russia, Belarus, Spain, and the U.S. contributed to the discussions. 
 France's main objectives are to establish guidelines to assist 
chairpersons of UNCITRAL meetings, with regard to consensus decision 
making and the participation of non-governmental organizations 
(NGOs), and to increase the transparency of the UNCITRAL 
Secretariat.  France has significantly softened its approach since 
2007 (see reftels), and is merely seeking clarification of existing 
rules rather than the introduction of new ones.  The U.S. 
counter-position, that the Commission has been a very productive 
technical and non-political UN body that should not be rendered less 
effective through introduction of over-constraining rules, continues 
to resonate with other Missions. 
 
¶2.  (U)  The French mission opened the meeting by thanking the 
Secretariat for its work on clarifying working methods, adding that 
substantial progress had been made, but several outstanding points 
still needed to be resolved.  The discussion then turned to France's 
four main topics: the definition of consensus, status of observers, 
the work of the Secretariat, and language use.  Dominique Bellenger, 
the UNCITRAL expert from Paris, opened each segment of the 
discussion with an appeal for formalized rules, but the 
representative from the French mission would summarize his comments 
on each point by proposing more informal solutions, suggesting 
French flexibility and willingness to compromise.  End summary. 
 
------------------ 
Defining Consensus 
------------------ 
 
¶3.  (U) The French proposed formal rules defining consensus -- 
specifically when and how consensus can be broken.  Their objective 
is to develop guidelines for the chairpersons of working groups, who 
are typically non-experts on UN procedures.  France opposed 
paragraph 14(b) of the draft Secretariat paper (A/CN.9/676), which 
states that "formal objection by a delegation. . . is to be treated 
as an implicit request for formal voting."  France's view is that if 
there is a formal objection, discussions should go on until 
consensus is reached and voting should be used only as a last 
resort.  This view was supported by a majority in the meeting, 
although few supported it when formal meetings were held last year. 
Belarus added a third option, that the formal objection be noted in 
the report, without blocking consensus, which is consistent with 
existing practice.  That option appears favored in the Secretariat's 
latest Note on rules and procedures. All states and the Secretariat 
agreed that voting should be avoided at all costs and used only as a 
last resort. 
 
----------------- 
NGO Participation 
----------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) The main French grievance is the lack of transparency with 
regard to the participation of NGOs.  The French proposed 
establishing formal observer status for UNCITRAL in two categories, 
for general and specific expertise.  In their subsequent comments, 
however, France admitted that all they really wanted was the 
Secretariat to share information about which NGOs are invited to 
participate in UNCITRAL meetings.  The Secretariat explained that it 
had assumed the role of pre-screening NGO applicants on behalf of 
member states, who had the right to reject an NGO application, 
although this has never happened.  The vast majority of applications 
is non-controversial and routinely approved, according to the 
Secretariat, and any questionable or borderline cases are forwarded 
to member states for approval. 
 
¶5.  (U) When asked by the U.S. whether it wanted member states to 
assume the Secretariat's role of screening NGO participation, France 
replied no, it just wanted more transparency in the form of a list 
of NGO participants. The U.S. for example, along with any other 
states that indicate an interest such as France, are routinely 
appraised of applications for attendance. France accepted the 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000129  002 OF 003 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
Secretariat's rather flexible criteria for NGO participation (in 
A/CN.9/676, paragraph 26).  The Republic of Korea noted that it 
would be impractical for member states to approve the participation 
of every NGO in advance, and suggested that they be approved at the 
beginning of each meeting.  When pressed by the U.S. about whether 
they would have such decisions made only in June, the French again 
said no, the Secretariat could send out note verbales at any time to 
announce proposed NGO participants.  The French bottom line appears 
to be that the Secretariat should keep member states informed about 
which NGOs have been invited to participate. 
 
---------------------------- 
Role of NGOs During Meetings 
---------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (U) The French paper states (in para. 6.1) that NGOs are 
entitled to comment "on a specific point at an early stage, prior to 
the actual deliberations."  The U.S. has expressed its opposition to 
that and concern that NGOs continue to be allowed to freely 
contribute during the course of deliberations, and its opposition to 
anything that would restrict their participation.  The U.S. asked 
France to clarify whether this proposal would allow NGOs to speak 
only at the beginning of meetings and remain silent for the rest of 
the session.  France agreed that NGOs should be able to contribute 
throughout the session, and clarified that their main point is that 
NGOs have no formal role in decision-making (a position with which 
the U.S. agrees). 
 
----------------------- 
Work of the Secretariat 
----------------------- 
 
¶7.  (U) This segment of the meeting was primarily a dialogue between 
the French and the Secretariat.  The main complaint of the French, 
again, was lack of transparency.  France wants the Secretariat to 
publish the dates and participants of informal expert group meetings 
on the UNCITRAL website.  The Secretariat responded that in the last 
several years, the only country that has asked for this information 
was France, and the information was provided as requested.  The 
French balked, saying countries should not have to ask for 
information; it should be provided to them.  The Secretariat noted 
its reservations about publicly releasing information about specific 
participants and that in any case there were only a few such 
meetings each year.  The crux of the issue apparently is different 
interpretations of the concept of transparency.  The French say the 
Secretariat lacks transparency because states must ask for 
information.  The Secretariat counters that it is transparent 
because it always provides information when asked.  UNVIE's 
suggestion is to strike a middle ground between the "push" and 
"pull" interpretations of transparency, by proposing that the 
Secretariat list the dates and subjects of informal expert groups on 
its website, but provide potentially sensitive information on 
participants only upon request. 
 
--------------- 
Language Parity 
--------------- 
 
¶8.  (U) The French again raised their long-standing concern about 
the drift toward use of only one language in working meetings and 
proposed that the future guidelines stress the importance of the 
principle of parity of the two working languages.  France noted that 
in Vienna especially (compared to New York, Geneva, and Nairobi, for 
example), there was a strong tendency to use English as the only 
working language.  The Swiss representative gave an impassioned 
speech on the merits of multilingualism, and lamented that many 
speakers of the five other official languages used English during 
meetings even when full interpretation was available.  The 
Secretariat gave its usual reply that it does what it can subject to 
budgetary resources and provides language services on an "as 
available" basis. 
 
 
------------------------------ 
Closing on a Conciliatory Note 
 
UNVIE VIEN 00000129  003 OF 003 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
------------------------------ 
¶9.  (U) COMMENT: France closed the meeting by reassuring states that 
it merely wanted to "improve UNCITRAL, nothing more" and that its 
only wants to "clarify, not change" the rules and working methods of 
UNCITRAL.  These were welcome comments because they represent a 
substantial shift from December 2007 and they align France with the 
prevailing view of UNCITRAL member states, including the U.S., that 
no significant revisions to UNCITRAL's rules are needed. 
 
¶10.  (U) The Secretariat noted, both during the meeting and in 
private consultations the day before, its strong desire to put the 
working methods issue to bed this year.  UNVIE fully concurs with 
this objective and is optimistic that a guidelines document can be 
developed by July that will clarify the Commission's rules without 
substantively altering them. 
 
 
---------------------------- 
COMMENT: UNVIE'S SUGGESTIONS 
---------------------------- 
 
¶11.  (U) UNVIE's view is that draft guidelines for chairpersons on 
the application of consensus would help reduce ambiguity and ensure 
consistency across various UNCITRAL working groups.  Such 
guidelines, however, must be informal, flexible, and not overly 
restrictive.  UNVIE shares France's concerns about the transparency 
of the UNCITRAL Secretariat, because if there is an appearance that 
it withholds information, the Secretariat opens itself to suspicions 
that it is working behind the backs of some or all member states. 
UNVIE's suggestion is that the UNCITRAL Secretariat should 
distribute to member states a list of participating NGOs for each 
working group and plenary meeting.  The list should be distributed 
well in advance of the meetings, to allow time for member states to 
review the list and raise any formal objections or propose 
additional NGOs who may be invited to participate.  On the language 
parity issue, it is UNVIE's view this remains the lowest priority of 
France's four areas of reform.  The U.S. should keep a low profile, 
because regardless of how strongly the principle of parity is 
stressed, there will be little or no substantive changes to current 
language practice given the current budget constraints of UNOV 
conference services.  End Comment. 
 
SCHULTE