VZCZCXYZ0017
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0289/01 0782043
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 192043Z MAR 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6136
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN IMMEDIATE 1028
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA IMMEDIATE 1078
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 2213
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID IMMEDIATE 6348
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI IMMEDIATE 2504
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME IMMEDIATE 1058
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL IMMEDIATE 1008
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 8654

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000289 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR USUN/W AND IO/UNP; NSC FOR POWERS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL KUNR UNGA UNSC GE JA BR IN
SUBJECT: UNGA: UNSC REFORM: INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS 
ON THE VETO 
 
REF: USUN NEW YORK 230 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: The informal plenary of the General 
Assembly met March 16 and 17 for intergovernmental 
negotiations on Security Council expansion focusing on the 
question of the veto.  74 delegations spoke during the 
day-and a-half discussion with most stating their general 
aversion to the veto.  The African Group and Group of Four 
(G4) states (and supporters) called for an extension of the 
veto to new permanent members with the caveat that they 
actually not exercise it until a future review conference, 
but ultimately believe the veto should be abolished.  The 
Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc, which does not support an 
expansion of permanent members, spoke against any extension 
of the veto to new permanent members.  A number of other 
states also opposed extension of the veto to new permanent 
members, saying that a Council with ten or more veto-wielding 
members would be less efficient and even less likely to 
relinquish the veto in the future.  Much of the discussion 
centered on how to restrict use of the veto, both voluntarily 
and through Charter amendments to Article 27.  All five 
current permanent members spoke but only the UK, Russia, and 
the U.S. articulated that a change to the current veto 
structure is not realistic.  The next meeting will be March 
24 on "regional representation."  End summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Comment: During the final session, the Indian Perm 
Rep definitively linked a permanent seat to the veto; if both 
were not extended than neither should be.  His statement may 
have sounded the death knell on an expansion of permanent 
seats.  The German Perm Rep's suggestion for longer-term 
seats of 12-15 years under an intermediate option may 
indicate an openness by G4 members to more seriously consider 
the intermediate option.  The intermediate option may gain 
further traction in the next meeting, even though it will be 
focused on regional representation which should theoretically 
focus more on non-permanent seats.  However, we still do not 
expect real progress on reform to accelerate until well into 
or after the second round of intergovernmental negotiations, 
which will not start until May.  End Comment. 
 
Overview 
-------- 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council 
expansion continued March 16 and 17 with meetings of the 
informal plenary on the second of five key issues -- "the 
question of the veto."  74 delegations spoke, including the 
United States, during the three sessions, and eight 
delegations re-took the floor during the interactive portion 
of the final session.  As he did before previous meetings, 
Afghan Perm Rep and Chairman of the intergovernmental 
negotiations Zahir Tanin circulated a letter to the 
membership on March 13.  This one included an excerpt on the 
"question of the veto" from the Open-ended Working Group's 
61st session report (A/61/47).  (Note: USUN e-mailed Tanin's 
March 13 letter to IO/UNP.  End note.)  In both his March 13 
letter and in his remarks on March 16 and 17, Tanin expressed 
satisfaction with delegations' statements clarifying their 
original positions and occasionally demonstrating flexibility 
through new proposals, thereby "injecting life blood" into 
the negotiations. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The tone in these meetings quickly turned acerbic, 
beginning with the Indian Perm Rep's derogatory reference to 
the Italian Perm Rep as the "leading light of the UFC" who 
was arithmetically challenged.  The Italian Perm Rep returned 
the compliment in the last session, referring to the Indian 
Perm Rep as the "lodestar of the G4" who did not correctly 
interpret his intervention even though a hard copy was 
provided.  The session ended with a plea from the Jamaican 
Perm Rep for an improvement in the tone and for greater 
respect for the diversity of interventions since more than 
just the two main blocs are participating. 
 
Almost unanimous aversion to veto 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) 62 of the 74 delegations called for abolition of 
the veto, with most describing it as "anachronistic."  Others 
 
 
said the historical circumstances that led to its development 
no longer exist.  Many complained that the use of the "hidden 
veto" or "pocket veto" (the threat of a veto) had increased. 
The Italian Perm Rep noted that "there is hardly ever a need 
to resort to the veto, since the very prospect of its use 
suffices to shape the Council's consultations and subsequent 
decisions."  (Comment: The Norwegian expert told PolOff that 
while many European delegations publicly complain about the 
veto, they privately acknowledge that they are fine with the 
status quo.  End comment.) 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The membership was divided, however, with 34 
delegations (or 70 including all members of the African 
Group) wanting to perpetuate this "anachronistic" practice 
and extend it to new permanent members, and 28 delegations 
not wanting to enlarge the club and/or attempting to restrict 
permanent members' future use of the veto.  As an example of 
the first group, the Syrian Perm Rep specifically castigated 
a "well-known state" for its use of the veto to protect 
Israel and called for Council reform to take away this right 
but also noted that Syria believes new permanent members 
should get the same privileges as current permanent members. 
The  Nicaraguan Perm Rep also said the veto should be 
eliminated because it is undemocratic but then he called for 
new permanent members to be given the same veto rights as 
current permanent members. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The second group is composed of a diverse group 
states, some who support additional permanent members without 
the veto and some who are against additional permanent 
members.  For example, Uruguay supports the G4's quest for 
permanent seats but is against the extension of the veto to 
new permanent members and will table amendments to that 
effect.  The Guatemalan Perm Rep noted that a Security 
Council with ten members wielding the veto could result in 
more dysfunction than currently exists.  The Ukraine Perm Rep 
urged the promotion of a veto-free Council and said that 
non-permanent members could already collectively cast a veto 
with seven negative votes.  A large number of delegations, 
including the United States, did specifically state that the 
veto question should not stand in the way of Council 
expansion.  Several states, including Switzerland, noted that 
their domestic ratification processes would never support a 
proposal that included an extension of the veto. 
 
African States insist on extension 
of veto for new permanent members 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) The Sierra Leone Perm Rep, speaking for the African 
Group, said that the veto should be abolished but that "as 
long as the veto right exists, it should be extended to new 
permanent members."  He reiterated the Ezulwini Consensus 
that calls for two permanent seats for African states with 
"all of the privileges and prerogatives of current permanent 
members."  16 other members of the African Group reiterated 
this viewpoint, with four more taking the floor during the 
interactive session at the end.  The Namibian Perm Rep 
stressed that it would be completely unacceptable to have two 
categories of permanent members, one with the veto and one 
without it.  The Ethiopian Perm Rep said that, while African 
states insist on the right of the veto for new permanent 
members, there are no plans to actually exercise the veto. 
The Egyptian Perm Rep said it was not acceptable to delay 
this issue until a future review conference. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) The Cuban Perm Rep spoke in favor of the African 
position and said that since most Council issues are linked 
to Africa, African members should enjoy the same prerogatives 
as other permanent members.  In general, he noted that Cuba 
would prefer that the veto be limited and then eliminated. 
 
G4 joins African states, willing 
to defer use of veto for 10 years 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) The Group of Four (G4) countries closely aligned 
themselves with the African Group on this issue, calling for 
the veto to be abolished but, if not, it should be extended 
to all new permanent members.  The Indian Perm Rep reminded 
 
 
the membership that the Charter actually provides in Article 
27 (3) that a party to a Chapter VI dispute should not vote 
and, by extension, use its veto, but that the current P-5 
have flaunted this provision.  He said that only with the 
addition of new permanent members with veto power would there 
be sufficient "peer pressure" to return to enforcement of 
this provision.  The Brazilian Perm Rep echoed this, saying 
that the only way to reform the exercise of the veto is 
through the addition of new permanent members with the veto 
who are committed to a more transparent Security Council. 
The Indian Perm Rep noted that if new permanent members do 
not receive the veto, then Article 27(3) would have to be 
specifically amended to exclude them since it currently reads 
"concurring votes of the permanent members." 
 
¶11.  (SBU) In an attempt to show flexibility, the Indian Perm 
Rep said the veto should be extended immediately to new 
permanent members but its exercise would be postponed until a 
future review conference.  At the end of the last session, 
the Indian Perm Rep underlined the "almost unanimity of 
unhappiness with the veto," but the choice is either to 
extend permanence and the veto or to not extend either. 
(Comment: With that statement, the Indian Perm Rep firmly 
placed his country's future permanent seat squarely with the 
African Group's position -- permanent seats must come with 
the veto.  Given the P-5's resistance to veto extension, this 
will not likely prove a fruitful avenue of pursuit.  End 
comment.) 
 
¶12.  (SBU) The German Perm Rep showed more flexibility on the 
veto issue and suggested three possibilities: (1) new 
permanent members be given the veto but not exercise it until 
after a review conference; (2) permanent members without a 
veto; or (3) postpone discussion of the issue until a review 
conference.  He stressed that the veto issue should not block 
reform of the Security Council.  He then suggested that an 
alternative might be to consider "real, long-term members of 
12-15 years" that could participate in the long-term planning 
of the Council in order to alter the power structure of the 
Council.  The UK Perm Rep later responded to this variation 
on the intermediate option by noting that his 
government was open to the proposal and not wedded to a 
particular term limit. 
 
¶13.  (SBU) The Japanese Perm Rep added that the membership 
should be realistic in its proposals about veto restrictions, 
especially those that are legally binding.  He voiced support 
for voluntary initiatives, such as explanations of vote, that 
would enhance transparency. 
 
UFC 
--- 
 
¶14.  (SBU) The Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc, given its 
opposition to new permanent members, remains stridently 
against the extension of the veto and instead seeks to 
restrict its use.  The Italian Perm Rep said, "While it may 
have been born out of historical necessity, it no longer has 
any plausible justification in a community of sovereign 
states governed by the...Charter and strengthened by 
...international norms and practices..."  He proposed a 
moratorium on the current use of the veto.  As another 
alternative to provide greater regional involvement, he 
suggested that future Council action on a certain region 
would require the unanimous support of all Council members 
from that region.  The Spanish Perm Rep said it is difficult 
to match the veto to the concept of the sovereign equality of 
member states, and the existence of the veto does not lead to 
greater efficiency and effectiveness on the part of the 
Council.  The Pakistani Perm Rep stressed that the veto 
question should not be left for a future review conference. 
 
Specific proposals to amend 
Article 27: Council voting 
--------------------------- 
 
¶15.  (SBU) Many delegations did acknowledge that it was 
unrealistic to pursue attempts to abolish the veto, given 
Article 108 of the UN Charter (all five permanent members 
must ratify any Charter amendment), and instead sought to 
 
 
restrict its use.  The Costa Rican Perm Rep advocated 
restrictions on the use of the veto, stressing that 
"responsible use of the veto can strengthen the Security 
Council, rather than weaken it."  The following specific 
proposals were made: 
 
-- The Philippines Perm Rep noted that Article 27 makes a 
distinction between voting on procedural matters and voting 
on all other issues, that the concurrence of the permanent 
members is needed only on non-procedural matters.  He called 
for an amendment to Article 27 to define procedural matters 
to include the admission of new members; the suspension of 
members; the expulsion of members; the use of Article 94; and 
advisory opinions of the ICJ.  The Venezuelan Perm Rep added 
to this list, saying a veto should not be used in the 
selection of a new Secretary-General. 
 
-- The Mexican Perm Rep said that Mexico has held the same 
view since 1945 -- the use of the veto should be restricted 
to Chapter VII of the Charter.  The Argentine, Colombian, 
Canadian, Vietnamese, and Mongolian Perm Reps agreed on the 
need to restrict the veto to Chapter VII issues, and 
sanctions issues, 
according to the Colombian. 
 
-- The Philippines Perm Rep termed the Council an "agent of 
member states" and said there should be a deterrent for the 
misuse of veto power.  Both he and the St. Vincent and the 
Grenadines Perm Rep called for a veto to be overturned by an 
absolute majority vote in the GA or by a two-thirds vote in 
the Security Council so the Security Council would not be 
subservient to one permanent member.  The Mexican, Argentine, 
and Vietnamese Perm Reps supported the GA overriding a 
Council veto with a vote of two-thirds.  The Solomon Islands 
Perm Rep said the GA should hold the Council accountable for 
every veto cast. 
 
-- The Spanish, Colombian, and Netherlands Perm Reps 
suggested that there be an increase to two in the number of 
vetoes cast to prevent Council action.  The Spanish Perm Rep 
recalled that this was a U.S./UK proposal at Dumbarton Oaks 
in 1944.  The Egyptian Perm Rep suggested even a triple veto, 
as long as new permanent members are extended the veto. 
 
-- The Guatemalan Perm Rep did raise replacing the current 
voting and veto system with a weighted voting system based on 
relevant contributions to peacekeeping and/or the budget.  No 
other delegations commented on this. 
 
-- The Philippines, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Singapore, 
Mexico, Argentina, Belgium, Barbados, Costa Rica, Fiji, 
Canada, Liechtenstein, Grenada, the Czech Republic, and 
Rwanda all called for non-use of the veto in matters of 
genocide, crimes against humanity, and crimes against 
international humanitarian law.  The Rwandan Perm Rep 
highlighted the Council's failure to act in 1994 in Rwanda. 
The Netherlands Perm Rep referred to a Small Five States (S5) 
group proposal from 2006 (A/60/L.49 - not adopted) and also 
suggested including the Secretary-General's recent suggestion 
to include matters involving the "responsibility to protect" 
on the list of subjects upon which a veto cannot be cast  The 
St. Vincent and the Grenadines Perm Rep called for these 
limitations on the use of the veto to be legally binding. 
 
-- The Philippines, Netherlands, Colombia, Barbados, Fiji, 
Liechtenstein, Singapore, Ukraine, South Africa, and Mongolia 
all called for explanations of vote for all vetoes.  The 
Pakistani Perm Rep suggested that these explanations of vote 
could be reviewed by the GA and then referred to the ICJ for 
arbitration. 
 
P-5 
--- 
 
¶16.  (SBU) Veto reform ultimately rests with the current 
permanent members since Article 108 of the UN Charter states 
that amendments to the Charter require ratification by 
two-thirds of the members of the UN, including all the 
permanent members of the Security Council.  Several 
delegations tried to bait the permanent members into action. 
 
 
The St. Vincent and the Grenadines Perm Rep said that if the 
P-5 does not accept reform, their future actions will be 
rendered illegitimate.  The Canadian Perm Rep said, "Modest 
change is only unrealistic if those who possess it won't 
consider it." 
 
¶17.  (SBU) All five permanent members spoke over the course 
of the three sessions, but only Russia, the UK, and the 
United States clearly articulated the view that a change to 
the current veto structure is not realistic.  The Russian 
Deputy Perm Rep said it was unrealistic to count on changes 
to current member prerogatives and that it would be wrong to 
raise questions about the existing competencies of members of 
the Council.  He urged the membership to focus on those 
aspects of reform that are highly relevant.  The UK Perm Rep 
reminded the room that the veto was a historical fact meant 
to overcome the deficiencies of the League of Nations.  He 
stated that it should not be extended to new permanent 
members since it would not add to the effectiveness of the 
Council.  He, too, stressed the need for an expansion that 
will "win the support of Charter amendments." 
 
¶18.  (SBU) Ambassador Wolff, speaking at the end of the 
second session, again stressed the need to bear in mind that 
whatever formula emerges for an expansion of Council 
membership must factor in Charter requirements for 
ratification, so, as a practical matter, we should avoid 
dwelling excessively on proposals that are unlikely to be 
fruitful avenues of pursuit.  After reviewing U.S. openness 
in principle to a limited expansion of both permanent and 
non-permanent members, though any consideration of permanent 
members must be by definition country-specific in nature, he 
said that the United States is not open to an enlargement of 
the Security Council with a change to the current veto 
structure. 
 
¶19.  (SBU) The French Perm Rep did not specifically address 
his country's position on extending the veto.  Instead, he 
described the "heavy responsibility" of the veto and noted 
France's exercise of it only 18 times, most recently in 1989. 
 He urged the membership not to block reform with discussion 
of the veto and urged a closer review of the intermediate 
option and postponement of the veto question until a review 
conference in the future.  China, speaking during the third 
session, also avoided setting down a marker.  The Chinese 
representative, while noting the historical nature of the 
veto, described it as a mechanism that forced the Council to 
act with permanent member unanimity and ensured the need for 
sufficient support from non-permanent members.  He 
specifically noted that China was the only developing country 
among the P-5 and had prudently exercise its veto power since 
assuming the Chinese seat in 1971.  He ended with a call for 
the Council to improve its working methods and efficiency. 
 
Next meetings 
------------- 
 
¶20.  (SBU) At the end of the March 17 session, Tanin 
announced the dates of the upcoming meetings.  The next 
meeting will be March 24 on "regional representation," 
followed by a meeting April 9 on the "size of an enlarged 
Council and working methods of the Security Council" and a 
meeting April 21 on "the relationship between the Council and 
the General Assembly." 
Rice