VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0345/01 0920052
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 020052Z APR 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6242
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN IMMEDIATE 1033
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA IMMEDIATE 1083
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 2231
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID IMMEDIATE 6353
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI IMMEDIATE 2525
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME IMMEDIATE 1065
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL IMMEDIATE 1022
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 8665

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000345 
 
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 REGIONAL REPRESENTATION - CONSENSUS BUILDING ON NEED FOR 
GREATER EQUITABLE GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION 
 
REF: A. USUN NEW YORK 289 
     ¶B. USUN NEW YORK 230 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: The informal plenary of the General 
Assembly met March 24 and March 31 for intergovernmental 
negotiations on Security Council expansion focusing on 
regional representation.  68 delegations spoke during the 
day-and-a-half discussion with most focusing on Article 23(1) 
of the UN Charter and the need to enhance "equitable 
geographical distribution" given current realities.  Most 
called for greater representation for Africa, Asia, Latin 
America/Caribbean, with some adding Eastern Europe.  The 
Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc was firmly against new 
additional permanent seats saying they would not enhance 
regional representation, while the African Group reiterated 
their demand for two African permanent seats with veto 
rights.  A number of small states called for a separate 
non-permanent seat for small-sized states, as did others for 
a seat for medium-sized states.  Singapore raised whether it 
was time to take a closer look at the composition of regional 
groups upon which the "equitable geographical distribution" 
formulas are based.  Liechtenstein said such an effort would 
be impossible.  Italy suggested a non-permanent seat for the 
European Union, but nine delegations spoke forcefully against 
the concept.  Brazil said that until regional sovereignty is 
commensurate with member state sovereignty such a discussion 
is meaningless.  The next session is scheduled for April 7 on 
the size of an enlarged Council and Council working methods. 
End summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Comment: Given member states' uncertainty over the 
exact definition of the topic of "regional representation," 
this was the least productive intergovernmental negotiating 
session to date.  In addition, the African Group's 
reiteration, without deviation, of its Ezulwini Consensus 
position through 19 separate speakers also resulted in a 
substantial stifling of discussion.  Though the Italian and 
Indian Perm Reps traded barbs at the end of the March 24th 
session, the March 31 interactive session was tame.  End 
comment. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council 
expansion continued on March 24 and March 31 with meetings of 
the informal plenary on the third of five key issues -- 
"regional representation."  68 countries spoke during the 
three sessions and a further eight took the floor for a 
second time during the interactive portion of the final 
session on March 31.  Afghan Perm Rep and Chairman of the 
Intergovernmental Negotiations Zahir Tanin circulated a 
letter to the membership on March 20, as he did before debate 
on the two previous issues (see reftels).  His letter 
included an extensive excerpt on the topic from the 
Open-ended Working Group's 61st session report (A/61/47). 
(Note: USUN e-mailed a copy of the letter to IO/UNP.  End 
note.) 
 
"Equitable Geographical 
Representation" 
----------------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) A number of delegations commented on the lack of 
clarity on the actual topic "regional representation."  Most 
delegations focused their interventions on Article 23(1) of 
the UN Charter and the issue of "equitable geographical 
distribution" and how to interpret that to better reflect 
current realities.  Most delegations called for greater 
representation on the Council from Africa, Asia, and Latin 
America/Caribbean, with some adding Eastern Europe.  Some 
delegations clarified that there should be additional 
permanent member seats for Africa, Asia, and Latin America 
and additional non-permanent member seats for all of the 
previously-mentioned regions and Eastern Europe.  The 
Brazilian Deputy Perm Rep called for an improvement in 
equitable geographical distribution in both categories. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) All UFC members reiterated their opposition to an 
increase in permanent seats, said that new permanent seats 
should not be denoted as enhancing equitable geographical 
distribution, and called for an improvement in the equitable 
 
 
 
geographical distribution of non-permanent seats.  The 
Italian Perm Rep said he doubted the "dogma of 
representation" put forth by the G4 that a regional group 
would feel more represented if a member from that same 
regional group obtained a permanent seat.  The Mexican Perm 
Rep specifically asked how regional representation would be 
enhanced by having a new permanent member from an area 
already over-represented (i.e. Germany).  The Turkish 
representative said that additional permanent seats would be 
to the detriment of greater regional representation and noted 
that adding four new permanent members would mean that 20 new 
non-permanent members would not be able to serve in their 
stead. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) G4 supporter and African Group member Mauritius, on 
the other hand, asked if the intent of Security Council 
reform was to get more members to serve on the Security 
Council or to make the Security Council more effective and 
efficient.  G4 member Japan said that new permanent members 
should provide "exceptional contributions to the maintenance 
of international peace and security" and then there should be 
equitable geographical distribution.  He also stressed that 
new non-permanent members should be elected by the entire 
membership but did note that each regional group uses a 
different set of criteria to choose its candidates for the 
non-permanent seats. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) 19 African states, with Sierra Leone again in the 
lead for the African Group, each uniformly reiterated the 
need to right the historical injustice of Africa's 
under-representation on the Council through two permanent 
seats with veto and five non-permanent seats. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Jamaica, representing CARICOM, suggested a 
non-permanent seat for small island developing states in 
Africa, GRULAC, and Asia and a separate non-permanent seat 
for developing or medium-sized states.  The St. Vincent & the 
Grenadines Perm Rep suggested that this be a "small island 
developing state" (SIDS) seat and noted there are 37 such 
states as designated by ECOSOC.  A number of states voiced 
support for both the small and medium-sized state proposals, 
including Mauritius, Pakistan, El Salvador, Kazakhstan, 
Liechtenstein, Malta, Mexico, Nicaragua, the Philippines, the 
Solomon Islands, and Tonga. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Nine Eastern European states, including Armenia, 
Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech 
Republic, Romania, Slovakia, and the Ukraine, called for an 
additional non-permanent seat for Eastern Europe. 
 
P-5 
--- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) The French representative reiterated France's 
support for an expansion of both categories of membership, 
its support of the G4 for permanent seats, and for an African 
presence among the permanent members.  He raised the 
possibility of an Arab permanent member and reiterated the 
intermediate option.  The Chinese representative stressed the 
need to make the Council more representative by addressing 
the under representation of African states and the access of 
other small and medium-sized states to the Council.  The UK 
representative stressed the need for broad geographic 
representation and reiterated the UK's support for the G4's 
quest for permanent seats and an African seat. 
 
Time to change regional groups? 
------------------------------- 
 
¶11.  (SBU) The Singapore Perm Rep noted that none of the 
current proposals on the table (G4, UFC, African Group) will 
result in an improvement in equitable geographical 
distribution.  He proposed looking at the current regional 
groups and seeing if they truly represent current realities. 
For example, is the distinction between the Western European 
and Others Group (WEOG) and the Eastern European Group (EEG) 
still valid post-Cold War?  (Note: The Liechtenstein 
representative later responded that WEOG is over-represented 
in the Council.  End note.)  In the Asian Group, the 
 
 
 
Singaporean continues, there is a member who is also part of 
the EU.  He suggested re-examining our basic assumptions 
regarding the concept of "region."  The Liechtenstein 
representative in the interactive portion responded to 
Singapore's statement and said that it would be almost 
impossible to revise regional configurations at this time. 
 
A role for regional 
organizations?  No. 
------------------- 
 
¶12.  (SBU) A number of other delegations also commented on 
whether there was a role for regional organizations on the 
Council.  The Italian Perm Rep later suggested that a seat 
for the European Union be alternated between WEOG and EEG 
since there is a "big gap between what the EU does and what 
it could do in the Security Council."  He noted that a 
Charter amendment would be needed to allow for a regional 
organization to participate with full member privileges at 
the UN.  (Comment: USUN viewed Italy's EU seat proposal as 
clearly meant to complicate the debate, given that it had 
little support from other EU member states.  End comment.) 
The Singapore Perm Rep noted that it is likely premature to 
discuss regional seats since even bodies like the EU which 
are suppose to have a common foreign and security policy 
remain divided on the issue of regional representation. 
 
¶13.  (SBU) Nine delegations spoke out against a role for 
regional organizations in the United Nations, with most 
saying such a discussion was premature since few regional 
organizations had common political policies.  The UK 
representative stated that individual member states serve on 
the Council and the UK does not support regional seats on the 
Council as it would not enhance the Council's efficiency. 
Spain cited Chapter II of the UN Charter which only refers to 
states as members and said the UN should not be opened up to 
regional organizations.  The Brazilian Deputy Perm Rep said 
that regions could play a role when regional sovereignty is 
commensurate with member state sovereignty.  Until that 
becomes the case, he said, a discussion of seats for regional 
organizations is meaningless.  Others suggested saving this 
topic for a future review conference. 
 
Suggestions on working methods 
------------------------------ 
 
¶14.  (SBU) Canada suggested some improvements to working 
methods to improve representation, including a return to the 
more obligatory nature of Article 35 of the UN Charter which 
states that any member "may bring any dispute" to the 
attention of the Council.  He compared the language of 
Article 35 to Rule 37 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure 
of the Security Council which only states that a member "may 
be invited, as the result of a decision of the Security 
Council, to participate, without vote, in the discussion of 
any question brought before the Security Council."  He also 
proposed that parties to a dispute be regularly included in 
Council discussions, as well as troop contributing countries 
(TCCs), especially during Council discussions of peacekeeping 
mandates (Article 44).  India later referred to this and 
commended Canada for raising it. 
 
Upcoming meetings 
----------------- 
 
¶15.  (SBU) The Chair announced that the next meeting will be 
April 7 on the "size of an enlarged Council and working 
methods of the Security Council" and then the last of the 
five key issues, "the relationship between the Council and 
the General Assembly," will be discussed on April 20. 
Rice