VZCZCXYZ0003
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0230/01 0690033
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 100033Z MAR 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6033
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN IMMEDIATE 1022
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA IMMEDIATE 1073
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 2187
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID IMMEDIATE 6343
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI IMMEDIATE 2478
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME IMMEDIATE 1047
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL IMMEDIATE 0997
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 8642

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000230 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR USUN/W AND IO/UNP; NSC FOR POWER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL KUNR UNGA UNSC GE JA BR IN
SUBJECT: UNGA: UNSC REFORM: INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS 
ON CATEGORIES OF MEMBERSHIP 
 
REF: A. USUN NEW YORK 171 
     ¶B. 08 USUN NEW YORK 1200 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: The informal plenary of the General 
Assembly met March 4 and 5 to begin the substantive phase of 
intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council expansion. 
 80 delegations spoke during the day and a half discussion on 
"categories of membership."  A core group of states 
supporting an intermediate option of longer-term,  renewable 
elected seats provided more details about their approach. 
The Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc declared its refusal to 
consider expanding permanent seats, but most of its members 
indicated a willingness to consider the intermediate option. 
The Group of Four (G4) and its supporters argued for an 
expansion in both categories and rejected the intermediate 
option.  The African Group reiterated its demand for two 
permanent seats with full privileges and also rejected the 
intermediate option.  Small states pressed their case for 
better access to the Council.  USUN spoke on the second day 
to support the Chair, after he was criticized by the Egyptian 
Perm Rep, to indicate U.S. willingness to consider an 
expansion of both categories, though any expansion of 
permanent members must be country-specific, and to underline 
that whatever formula emerges for expansion, it must factor 
in Charter requirements for ratification.  The next meeting 
will be March 16 on "the question of the veto."  End summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Comment: While 28 delegations did voice openness to 
the intermediate option during the course of the meeting, 
including Germany from the G4, the stalwarts of the G4 -- 
India and Brazil -- continued to press for expansion of both 
categories, along with many of their African and small state 
supporters in the L.69 group.  While many European 
delegations, with P-5 members France and the UK in the lead, 
and some UFC members believe the intermediate option will be 
the solution to eventually garner the support of two-thirds 
of the membership, USUN gauges that many G4 members and their 
supporters, particularly the African Group, will not be ready 
to give up on permanent membership expansion until well into 
or even after the second round of intergovernmental 
negotiations.  For example, the African Group will have to 
receive a change in formal instructions from an African Union 
summit before it will be able to declare its 53 members in 
support of the intermediate option.  At that point, the 
reform process is likely to accelerate.  End comment. 
 
Chair presses for interactive meeting 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶3.  (SBU) The substantive phase of intergovernmental 
negotiations on Security Council expansion began March 4 and 
5 with meetings of the informal plenary on "categories of 
membership."  80 delegations, including the United States, 
spoke during the three sessions.  At the start of the 
meeting, Afghan Perm Rep and Chairman of intergovernmental 
negotiations Zahir Tanin pressed member states to clarify 
their position on categories of membership and show 
flexibility, including through new proposals.  He briefly 
referred to his March 2 letter to the membership which also 
previewed how the meeting would be run and included an 
excerpt from document A/61/47 on categories of membership. 
Tanin encouraged representatives to limit their statements to 
three minutes, an instruction which a few flatly ignored, and 
promised to allow for a second round of interventions to 
promote greater interaction.  Tanin announced that the next 
two meetings would be held March 16 and 25.  (Note: USUN 
noted to a staff member assisting Tanin from the President of 
the General Assembly's office that a plenary meeting on March 
25 would conflict with the Security Council's Open Debate on 
the Middle East.  He responded that they would look at 
possible alternative dates.  He also confirmed that the March 
16 meeting will be on "the question of the veto."  End note.) 
 
UK and French press intermediate option; 
Russia and China indicate openness to it 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) While the UK and France expressed their support for 
an expansion of both categories of members (permanent and 
elected), they also promoted the intermediate option.  The UK 
 
 
Perm Rep characterized it as a third category of seats with a 
longer, renewable term, possibly 5 years.  After 15-20 years, 
a review conference would be held to judge whether to 
continue with the third category or make additional changes, 
i.e. adding more permanent seats.  He said that the third 
category of seats would be filled by those states more 
frequently elected to the Council, thereby freeing up 
two-year seats for smaller states.  In the negotiations, he 
urged the membership to refrain from concentrating on 
differences and instead focus on commonalties.  The Russian 
Perm Rep suggested openness to considering the intermediate 
model.  He stressed that the final formula should not lead to 
a split of the membership and should be above the two-thirds 
called for in the UN Charter.  The Chinese Perm Rep also 
welcomed the intermediate option and said he hoped other new 
proposals would be introduced. 
 
More details on intermediate option 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The Liechtenstein Perm Rep promoted the 
intermediate option, arguing that it was the most feasible 
option given that it meets the UFC (ten new non-permanent 
members and possible alternative rotation schedules) and G4 
(six new permanent and four new non-permanent members) 
proposals halfway; it does not create an irreversible 
situation (i.e. more permanent members); it does not lead to 
more veto rights; and it creates a system of accountability 
through elections.  The Swiss Perm Rep suggested that 
countries running for an intermediate seat should meet 
certain objective criteria, including contributions to the UN 
and peacekeeping operations.  He also stressed the absolute 
need for a review conference at a fixed date with a fixed 
scope but cautioned that any changes emanating from a review 
would require additional Charter amendments.  The Netherlands 
Perm Rep, also supported the intermediate option as a way to 
increase the Council's legitimacy and effectiveness without 
creating a new power structure, and suggested that a 
negotiating session be added to discuss the mechanics of a 
review conference. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Singapore, which supports an expansion of both 
categories of membership, is also prepared to consider the 
intermediate option, according to its Perm Rep.  He suggested 
that there be a time bar to restrict states from competing 
for longer-term renewable seats and two-year seats during the 
same period of years, i.e., if you run for "Division I" and 
lose then you should be prohibited from running for "Division 
II" for a number of years and vice versa.  This would ensure 
that states do not wage concurrent election campaigns which 
would disadvantage small states.  He also called for specific 
review criteria to be determined in advance for the review 
conference, so that it does not degenerate into a popularity 
contest.  Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Chile, Indonesia, South 
Korea all voiced support for Singapore's time bar proposal. 
 
UFC opposes expansion of permanent members; 
willing to consider intermediate option 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc members came 
out strongly opposed to any expansion of permanent members 
but in favor of an increase in elected members.  The 
Pakistani Perm Rep argued that each permanent seat added on a 
national basis is a permanent blow to the chances of others 
to sit on the Council.  He also argued for the status of the 
current permanent members "to be on the table" in terms of 
regional representation and the veto, both of which are the 
subject of later meetings.  The Italian Perm Rep, noting 
Singapore's call for criteria for a review conference, asked 
what criteria countries would be judged against for permanent 
membership and suggested, for example, their positions on 
non-proliferation or their contributions to peacekeeping 
operations, noting that Italy was fifth and Japan 80th on the 
latter list.  The Turkish Perm Rep questioned the permanence 
of new permanent members.  What if the criteria for new 
permanent members are no longer relevant or additional 
countries meet them in the future, he asked.   The Italian 
Perm Rep said that while Italy is not "hugely in favor" of 
the intermediate option, it is willing to consider it. 
 
 
 
¶8.  (SBU) In one of the more well-argued UFC statements, the 
Mexican Perm Rep said that expanding the number of permanent 
seats flies in the face of the democratization of the Council 
and against greater accountability.  Permanent members 
without a veto would create a new class of Security Council 
members and greater stratification and inequality on the 
Council.  He said that immediate re-election would allow 
those who aspire to a continuous presence on the Council to 
also be accountable to the membership and that this was 
likely the most viable compromise solution.  He expressed an 
openness to negotiate duration of mandates for non-permanent 
seats, in effect the intermediate option.  The South Korean 
Perm Rep stressed that periodic elections help promote 
accountability, and a system that allows winners to continue 
without review goes against best practices. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) The Costa Rican Perm Rep, a member of the Small 
Five States (S5) group, joined the UFC in rejecting an 
expansion of permanent members with veto rights, saying veto 
rights "should not be handed out like party favors."  He 
stressed that adding permanent members would only give more 
power to "rich members" and reminded the room of the German 
Perm Rep's comment that permanent members dominate the 
Council (see below).  He asked rhetorically whether new 
permanent members would deny the representation and interests 
of others on the Council. 
 
Group of Four rejects intermediate option; 
presses for expansion of both categories 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) The Group of Four (G-4) and its supporters weighed 
in strongly in favor of an expansion in both categories of 
membership and against the intermediate option.  After the 
first three-hour session, bloc members and supporters started 
summarizing that their position had "carried the day." 
(Comment: By the end of the three sessions, some 57 states 
(94 including all of the African Group members, even those 
who did not speak or attend) had voiced support for an 
expansion in both categories of membership but many expressed 
disagreement on other issues which will be discussed later, 
such as extension of the veto.  End comment.) 
 
¶11.  (SBU) The German Perm Rep noted that permanent members 
build up expertise in the long-run and therefore dominate 
Council discussion.  Only by enlarging the number of 
permanent members can reform happen, he said.  Citing Article 
23 of the UN Charter, he called for "countries of the South" 
to be represented as well as the largest contributors.  The 
Indian Perm Rep said that not adding permanent members will 
"just leave the oligarchy alone" and that is not reform.  He 
said that if the membership adds new permanent members, they 
can hold them accountable to implement reforms such as on 
Security Council working methods.  The Japanese Perm Rep, 
responding to UFC questions about criteria for permanent 
members, said that new permanent members should be judged by 
their "readiness, capacity, and resources" to carry out and 
monitor the decisions of the Security Council.  He referred 
to the "totality of contributions," including political, 
diplomatic, and stability. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) G-4 supporter Cuba said that whole regions cannot 
remain unrepresented in the permanent member category and 
called for seats for Africa and Latin America and the 
Caribbean.  He declared that the true power of the Security 
Council rests with the permanent five members with their veto 
right.  The only reasonable reform, he said, is to modify the 
representation of developing countries in both categories of 
membership.  He voiced opposition to the intermediate option 
and renewable terms, suggesting another category of 
membership could foment divisiveness amongst Council members. 
 
 
African Group - Quest for 
permanent seats continue 
------------------------- 
 
¶13.  (SBU) The Sierra Leone Perm Rep spoke for the African 
Group.  He reiterated the Ezulwini Consensus and called for 
 
 
two permanent seats for African states with all the 
privileges of the permanent category and not less than five 
non-permanent seats for Africa.  He stressed that only a 
Council with Africa on it as a permanent member would "right 
the historical injustice" and help contribute to 
international peace and security.  While the Algerian Perm 
Rep underlined that only the African Union would choose which 
countries would sit in Africa's seats, the South African Perm 
Rep later responded that who selects the African states can 
be determined later.  The Ethiopian Perm Rep called the quest 
for a permanent seat for Africa of "paramount importance." 
 
¶14.  (SBU) The Ugandan Perm Rep rejected the intermediate 
option, saying that it would create a "club of well-resourced 
contributors."  The Cape Verde Perm Rep said that the 
intermediate option would not be true reform since it would 
not address the two original categories of membership and 
that Africa is unlikely to give up its hope and aspirations 
for a permanent seat.  The Egyptian Perm Rep said the 
intermediate option does not fit African demands and will 
only lead to their postponement.  The Algerian Perm Rep said 
now was not the time for serious discussion of the 
intermediate option, but perhaps it would be after the second 
round. 
 
Small states 
------------ 
 
¶15.  (SBU) Many small island states, like Fiji, are G4 
supporters.  The Fiji Perm Rep voiced support for an 
expansion in both categories, noting that all states can 
contribute to international peace and security, and citing 
Fiji's peacekeeping contributions as an example.  He, like 
many representatives of small island states, called for 
better access to the Council.  Another small island state 
representative had a different perspective.  The Maltese Perm 
Rep said that an increase of permanent members would only 
"increase the privileges and prerogatives of a few for a few 
more" and called for negotiations to focus only on the 
addition of non-permanent seats.  The St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines representative, another G4 supporter, called for 
Article 23(1) of the Charter to be specific on more than just 
"equitable geographical distribution" for members of the 
Council and suggested an amendment to include "distribution 
of geography, vulnerability, and development status."  He 
rejected the intermediate option, saying it would relegate 
two-year non-permanent members to third class status. 
 
¶16.  (SBU) Several UFC members, including Italy and Pakistan, 
voiced support for a specific elected seat for small states. 
The Indian Perm Rep, commenting on the calls by small states 
for representation, noted that there is no "small state" 
category at the UN.  In response, the Maltese Perm Rep said 
that small states should present to the membership their own 
list of small states. 
 
Other proposals 
--------------- 
 
¶17.  (SBU) UFC leader Italy suggested that there should be 
new non-permanent seats for regions, including the Africa 
Group, Asia, GRULAC, and the European Union.  The UK Perm Rep 
quickly took issue with Italy's suggestion of non-permanent 
seats for regional organizations, saying the Security Council 
is for member states, not regional organizations.  The Indian 
Perm Rep later challenged the Italian proposal, noting that 
all non-permanent seats are already permanent regional seats 
and that it has not led to greater accountability.  He also 
challenged the UFC as "dismissive of Africa's request for a 
permanent seat."  They already have non-permanent seats, he 
said.  Panama voiced support for the original G4 proposal but 
noted that there was not sufficiently broad support and 
suggested an alternative intermediate category of membership: 
six new members elected for 5-year renewable terms.  If a 
state is elected for four consecutive terms in this category, 
it would become a permanent member.  The Slovenian Perm Rep 
reiterated the Slovenian President's proposal (ref B) of six 
additional permanent members plus an additional category of 
elected members with more frequent rotation (twelve countries 
would be selected to fill six non-permanent seats and would 
 
 
serve alternating two-year terms for a total period of twelve 
years). 
 
¶18.  (SBU) The Syrian Perm Rep, speaking for the Arab Group, 
said there should be an equitable geographic distribution of 
permanent seats and called for an Arab permanent seat to be 
rotated amongst Arab League members.  The French Perm Rep 
also expressed openness towards a possible permanent seat for 
an Arab state, in addition to supporting Germany, Brazil, 
Japan, and an African state.  The Bolivian Perm Rep 
introduced his own proposal -- the elimination of the 
permanent category and electing only one category of 
membership on the Security Council. 
 
U.S. Intervention 
--------------- 
 
¶19.  (SBU) After listening to two sessions of debate, USUN 
decided to speak during the last session.  Just before the 
end of the second session, the Egyptian Perm Rep lodged a 
"personal attack" against the Chair, Ambassador Tanin, 
stressing repeatedly that neither he nor the President of the 
General Assembly (PGA) has the right to lead the process, as 
that is up to the member states.  To show continued U.S. 
support for the Chair and to note the U.S. position on 
categories of membership, Ambassador Wolff commended the 
Chair's honest and professional efforts to ensure that the 
process proceeds in "good faith and with mutual respect and 
in an open, inclusive and transparent manner" (per GA 
Decision 62/557).  He reiterated Ambassador Rice's February 
19 statement that the long-term viability of the Council 
depends on its reflecting the world of the 21st century and 
that the U.S. would make a serious effort to find a way 
forward that enhances the ability of the Council to carry out 
its mandate and effectively meet the challenges of the new 
century. 
 
¶20.  (SBU) Ambassador Wolff voiced U.S. openness in principle 
to a limited expansion of both permanent and non-permanent 
members.  He stressed that any consideration of an expansion 
of permanent members must by definition be country-specific 
in nature and that we will take into account the ability of 
countries to contribute to the maintenance of international 
peace and security, and the other purposes of the United 
Nations.  He concluded by noting that whatever formula that 
emerges for an expansion of Council membership must factor in 
Charter requirements for ratification, so the membership 
should avoid dwelling excessively on proposals that are 
unlikely to be fruitful avenues of pursuit.  (Note: PGA 
Senior Advisor Ambassador Magda Enriquez Beitler told USUN 
that U.S. remarks were welcomed and helpful.  Both G4 and UFC 
supporters voiced appreciation for the U.S. statement.  End 
note.) 
Rice