VZCZCXYZ0009
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0418/01 1131739
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 231739Z APR 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6390
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 3663
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0763

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000418 
 
DEPT FOR IO/RHS, IO/EDA, L/HRR, S/GWI 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SOCI PHUM UN KWMN
SUBJECT: NEW UN WOMEN'S MECHANISM PROPOSED 
 
REF: 2008 USUN 822 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary and action request.  Members of the General 
Assembly voiced measured support for continuing deliberations on the 
creation of a new "entity" to deal with women's empowerment and 
gender equality that would be a hybrid between a full-fledged Fund 
(such as UNICEF or UNDP) and an office within the UN Secretariat. 
The details of this so-called "composite" entity will be fleshed out 
in coming months in consultations among states, facilitated by the 
permanent representatives of Spain and Namibia, with the aim of 
making a decision on establishment of the new agency by September 
¶2009.  The U.S. has an opportunity to significantly shape the 
discussions on the size, functions, command structure and budget of 
this proposed new entity.  Action requested in para 19 below on 
points to pursue.  End Summary. 
 
THREE OUT OF FOUR PROPOSALS JETTISONED 
 
¶2. (SBU) The four proposals described in reftel for the general 
parameters of strengthening the UN's ability to deal with gender 
were further elaborated in a March 5 paper and discussed at a 
General Assembly meeting March 30.  None of the first three options 
(1-status quo, 2-Fund/Programme, 3-Department of the Secretariat) 
were supported by any of the member states.  The Status Quo is seen 
as ineffective, being fraught with historical rivalries and 
infighting that have hampered effective cooperation between the 
existing Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), the Office of 
the Special Adviser on Gender Issues (OSAGI), the UN Development 
Fund for Women (UNIFEM) and the training institute located in the 
Dominican Republic, INSTRAW.  While the Status Quo, on paper, looks 
like it should be capable of handling women's issues, in reality the 
deep-seated tradition of jealously guarding turf has led to a 
fragmented, leaderless and weak set of mechanisms for dealing with 
women's issues, which has been incapable of holding the UN system or 
member states accountable for advancing or empowering women. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The second option, creation of a Fund or Programme which 
would resemble the major development agencies such as UNICEF, UNDP 
or UNFPA, initially had the support of a number of women's groups in 
the U.S. and Europe when the issue of reforming the UN's "gender 
architecture" was first broached more than two years ago.  The head 
of such an agency would sit on the UN's Chief Executives Board (CEB) 
with equivalent rank (Under-Secretary-General) to the heads of UNDP, 
UNICEF, etc.  There was little enthusiasm in the previous 
administration for creation of a 'UNICEF for women', which was seen 
as potentially being too costly and large.  An autonomous agency 
head, furthermore, would have little bureaucratic power to influence 
or hold accountable other agency heads to fulfill their gender 
mainstreaming obligations.  Consequently, the tide among developed 
countries and NGOs has now turned away from seeking a 
Fund/Programme, even though the majority of states want an enhanced 
UN gender presence "in the field", where a Fund/Programme would 
excel.  The "composite entity" (the fourth and last option in the 
paper), would keep most of the benefits of creation of a 
Fund/Programme.  However, it runs the risk of being constrained by 
the General Assembly from taking a far-reaching and pro-active 
stance towards women's issues. 
 
¶4. (SBU) No support has ever been voiced for option 3 - creation of 
a Department within the Secretariat.  The UN secretariat now has two 
offices (DAW and OSAGI) within the Department on Economic and Social 
Affairs (DESA) which have lackluster performance and contribute to 
the infighting that plagues the current arrangements.  This option 
has several major flaws -- it would have almost no presence in the 
field where progress on women's status needs to be made, and the 
head of a department would have little authority over heads of 
autonomous Funds and Programmes. 
 
QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT COMPOSITE ENTITY 
 
¶5. (U) During the GA discussion on March 30, which spilled over to 
April 1, delegations almost unanimously stated that the Composite 
Entity was the most viable, while pointing out that the 
Secretariat's background papers did not provide adequate detailed 
information about an entity which would have no institutional 
precedent.  They raised relevant questions about the size and budget 
of the composite entity, as well as the nature of intergovernmental 
oversight, and its relationship to other parts of the UN system. 
The Secretariat asked that the GA make a decision on the new gender 
entity before the end of the 63rd GA (i.e., September 2009), so that 
the entity could be established in time for the fifteen anniversary 
of the Beijing World Conference on Women. 
 
¶6. (U) Mexico, in one of the best statements of the session, asked 
for clarification of lines of authority, since the paper proposes 
that the Composite Entity will report both to an Executive Board and 
to the Secretary-General (SYG),and asked about the composition of 
the Executive Board.  They noted that only changes that are strictly 
necessary should be made, that most new posts should be in the field 
 
rather than headquarters, that the current structure should be 
rationalized within existing resources, that assessed budget growth 
should be avoided, that voluntary contributions should form the bulk 
of the budget, and that the command structure should be clear and 
simple. 
 
¶7. (U) Canada, stressing that the new entity should show leadership 
and have authority over the UN system, said the Triennial 
Comprehensive Policy Review of operational activities (TCPR) must be 
brought into the discussions of the new entity, so that gender will 
be mainstreamed into all the UN's work, and the new entity will hold 
the rest of the system accountable.  Canada also suggested that the 
new entity's Executive Board should become a third part of the dual 
UNDP/UNFPA joint executive board. 
 
¶8. (U) Japan asked how the new entity would avoid duplication on the 
ground with the gender activities of UNDP, UNFPA, and others; and 
how to responsibilities would be divided between DAW, OSAGI, UNIFEM 
and INSTRAW.  Japan advised looking into existing redundancies 
between those offices, and finding synergies between the Commission 
on the Status of Women (CSW) and the proposed Executive Board.  They 
advocated seeking voluntary funding and avoiding unnecessary 
financial expenses.  Korea raised similar points, asking for an 
organizational diagram and cost proposals. 
 
¶9. (U) The Nordics and UK stated they would make voluntary 
contributions to the new entity.  The Nordics stressed that all UN 
entities should be accountable to the new entity, that the entity's 
"normative" work should be universal in scope, but that operational 
work should be geared towards developing countries.  Cuba, speaking 
on behalf of the G-77 and NAM, said no "artificial deadline" should 
be set (i.e., September 2009), that progress must be seen on the 
other components of the System-Wide Coherence (SWC) process (i.e., 
Governance and Financing) leading to a single, comprehensive 
decision, and that development priorities should be guided by each 
country.  Other developing countries who spoke left some room for 
reaching a decision on gender architecture, as long as some progress 
was seen on the other SWC priorities.  Russia harshly criticized the 
Secretariat for presenting a skewed paper in which the Composite 
Entity was the only viable option, and costs for "unwarranted" new 
posts at headquarters and in the field were not indicated.  Russia 
also insisted on a package decision on the entire SWC. 
 
¶10. (U) The U.S., reiterating the importance of gender issues, 
concurred with the questions raised by Mexico, Japan and Korea, 
acknowledged that, of the options presented by the Secretariat, the 
Composite Option seemed the most feasible, that we need balance 
between taking a quick decision and a well-thought-out decision, 
that the new entity should be relevant to developed countries as 
well as to the developing world, and that we were ready to continue 
discussions on modalities and details of the new entity.  - 
 
FLAW IN THE SECRETARIAT'S ANALYSIS 
 
¶11. (SBU) An underlying assumption in the secretariat's paper .Is 
that "normative" functions cannot be performed by a Fund/Programme, 
and must be housed within the UN Secretariat.  The normative 
function of writing reports is seen by DAW, and to a lesser degree 
by OSAGI, as their prerogative.  These Secretariat units resent 
UNIFEM encroaching on this function by preparing reports such as 
"Progress of the World's Women 2008/2009: Who Answers to Women?" 
However, UNDP, through its annual Human Development Report, UNICEF, 
through its annual report on the "State of the World's Children", 
and UNFPA, through its reporting for the Commission on Population 
and Development,  and their numerous other reports, demonstrate 
strong normative and policy activity. 
 
POTENTIAL PITFALLS 
 
¶12. (SBU) Funding for the composite entity would come from both 
assessed and voluntary contributions.  Assessed contributions 
provide non-donor countries a larger voice, since the Fifth 
Committee and the Committee on Program Coordination (CPC) (where 
Cuba, Egypt and some other developing countries have a strong 
presence) have a hand in defining spending priorities for offices 
that are financed through assessments.  This holds true even when an 
office is only partially funded through assessments, such as the 
Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). 
Committees of the General Assembly spent months arguing over the 
documents laying out the spending priorities and mandates of OHCHR 
for the current biennium budget.  Handing authority over spending to 
the CPC and Fifth Committee may result in the new entity being 
hampered from taking a strong stance on some women's issues which 
certain countries may perceive as threatening to their interests. 
Whether the assessed budget of a new entity will be higher or lower 
than the present budget for DAW and OSAGI will depend on how large 
the Secretariat component of the new entity will be. 
 
¶13. (SBU) The UN system does not have a clear chain of command. 
 
While the SYG has authority over the Secretariat, he does not have 
any oversight role over autonomous parts of the UN system, such as 
Funds/Programmes and specialized agencies.  Kofi Annan took several 
steps to try to impose coordination upon the system, including 
creation of the Chief Executives Board (CEB), and of several 
high-level working groups.  The new entity will need to have some 
power to influence the rest of the system, since all UN agencies are 
required by GA and ECOSOC resolutions, the Beijing Declaration, and 
CSW outcomes, to mainstream gender in their mandated activities. 
The head of the new entity should be in a position to hold other 
agencies accountable for incorporating a gender perspective in their 
work.  The new head will need to be on a par with other agency heads 
who hold the rank of Under-Secretary-General (U/SYG), be a member of 
the CEB, and be able to speak to the entire UN system on behalf of 
the SYG.  Choosing the right person for the new U/SYG post will be 
key to assuring a strong, forceful, well-coordinated agency.  The 
current Special Adviser on Gender Issues is only an 
Assistant-Secretary-General (A/SYG), and therefore not able to 
direct U/SYGs, and the current Executive Director of UNIFEM, also an 
A/SYG, does not sit on the CEB.  Newer UN bodies such as UNAIDS, 
UNEP, OCHA or OHCHR might present some lessons to be learned about 
their bureaucratic structure's strengths and weaknesses. 
 
14 (SBU) Any new gender entity will never be large enough to meet 
all the needs of all the world's women, and must therefore work with 
other agencies.  The new agency must not become excuse for the rest 
of the UN system to marginalize or compartmentalize women's and 
gender issues.  The tasks of the new entity should include not only 
running projects for women, but also providing gender advisers to UN 
Country Teams who can work with other agencies in the field to 
ensure they know how to address gender issues. 
 
¶15. (SBU) The composition of the Executive Board could also 
inadvertently lead to marginalization of gender issues, if it were 
to attact only officials from ministries of women's affairs.  It 
will be important for the Board to include experts from ministries 
of economic development and finance, so that decisions will be 
backed up by ownership of the ministries with money and influence. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Some options have not been addressed by the Secretariat, 
but might have some merit.  For example, the UN Population Fund 
(UNFPA) already undertakes many activities related to women and 
gender, beyond their core focus on reproductive health.  Expansion 
of the mandate of UNFPA to include other gender issues might 
position UNFPA to become the UN system's leader on women's issues, 
and prevent the need to create an entirely new entity.  Another 
option might be to eliminate most of DAW and OSAGI, retaining two or 
three staff to serve as a technical secretariat for CSW; elevate the 
dynamic new head of UNIFEM to U/SYG rank and seat her on the CEB; 
transfer all reporting writing, normative and analytical functions 
to UNIFEM; and find an alternative UN function for the tiny office 
in Dominican Republic currently occupied by INSTRAW. 
 
¶17. (SBU) A coalition of 300 women's organizations and human rights 
NGOs, calling itself Gender Equality Architecture Reform (GEAR), has 
shared the results of its analysis and research with the UN and 
interested member states, to help provide momentum for the creation 
of a new gender entity.  USUN has been in close touch with Charlotte 
Bunch and June Zeitlin, the spokespersons for the GEAR coalition. 
 
FORMULATION OF U.S. POSITION 
 
¶18. (SBU) The U.S. needs to formulate a position on the preferred 
shape of the new entity, as informal negotiations are going to 
continue throughout the spring and summer.  Issues to address 
include: 
- the functions of the new entity; 
- its relationship with rest of UN system; 
- the level and capabilities of the head of the new entity; 
- the composition of the Executive Board and whether it should be 
added to the existing joint UNDP/UNFPA Board; 
- whether we would prefer a Fund/Programme instead of a Composite 
entity; 
- whether the US will express an intention to provide voluntary 
funding for the new entity. 
 
ACTION REQUEST 
 
¶19. (U) USUN requests Department's views on the questions above by 
May 1, to enable mission to interact effectively with others in the 
General Assembly and secretariat to shape the future UN mechanism to 
deal with women and gender. 
RICE