VZCZCXRO8824
OO RUEHTRO
DE RUCNDT #0553/01 1532152
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 022152Z JUN 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6659
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN IMMEDIATE 1091
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA IMMEDIATE 1139
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 2361
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID IMMEDIATE 6407
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI IMMEDIATE 2660
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME IMMEDIATE 1112
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL IMMEDIATE 1126
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 8747

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 USUN NEW YORK 000553 
 
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: START OF SECOND ROUND OF 
INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS IN INFORMAL PLENARY 
 
REF: USUN NEW YORK 432 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary and comment: The informal plenary of the 
General Assembly met on May 22 and 26 for the start of the 
second round of intergovernmental negotiations on Security 
Council expansion.  The two sessions, during which 51 
delegations spoke, focused on the Chair's agenda for the 
second round of intergovernmental negotiations and his 
overview paper which attempted to encapsulate the main 
options presented on the five key issues during the first 
round of negotiations.  The Group of Four (G4) largely 
accepted the Chair's overview paper while the Uniting for 
Consensus (UFC) bloc called it overly simplified and not 
sufficiently comprehensive.  The African Group also rejected 
it, saying it did not properly capture their position on the 
veto and categories of membership.  The Chair also asked the 
membership to discuss the concept of "review and challenge." 
The G4 largely suggested that a review could be meaningful 
after reforms had been in effect for at least 15 years and 
said that any "challenge" to the position of longer-term 
Council members should be commensurate to the bar which they 
had to pass to become longer-term Council members.  The UFC 
said it was premature to discuss a review without first 
clarifying the actual reforms and rejected the concept of 
"challenge" since it implies a step towards a permanent seat 
which they do not support.  Many African states also refused 
to discuss the concept of a review, saying it only applied to 
the intermediate option which they did not favor.  While 
France and the UK voiced support for the review concept, 
Russia, China, and the U.S. suggested caution. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Summary and comment cont.: As expected, much of the 
debate focused on procedural aspects of the Chair's agenda 
and overview paper and not on the substance of the reform 
process.  While Ambassador Tanin continues to strike the 
right tone in emphasizing that member states drive the 
process and he is trying to help catalyze it, we do not 
foresee any breakthroughs during this round.  Both the 
African Group and India remain focused on additional 
permanent seats with veto rights while the UFC will have 
nothing to do with additional permanent seats.  The stand-off 
will continue for at least another round as the African 
position will not change before the next African summit at 
the end of June.  As a result, there is little pressure for 
the U.S. to do more than continue to urge all parties to 
participate in the process "in good faith with mutual respect 
and in an open, inclusive and transparent manner," as called 
for in General Assembly Decision 62/557.  End summary and 
comment. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) The first meeting of the second round of 
intergovernmental negotiations on Security Council expansion 
took place on May 22 and 26.  51 delegations spoke at least 
once during the six-hour discussion over two days of the 
informal plenary and only one state (Italy) took the floor a 
second time during the interactive portion at the end of the 
session.  Most of the discussion focused on Afghan Perm Rep 
and Chairman of the Intergovernmental Negotiations Zahir 
Tanin's May 18 letter and overview paper.  (Note: USUN 
e-mailed a copy of the letter and paper to IO/UNP on May 19. 
End note.) 
 
Chair's May 18 letter and overview 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) In his letter, Ambassador Tanin outlines a three 
meeting schedule for the second round of intergovernmental 
negotiations (May 22, June 11, and June 23).  In his 
19-paragraph overview paper, he first reviews the first round 
of intergovernmental negotiations and then places the five 
key issues under the headings of Chapter V of the UN Charter, 
clustering the five key issues into two groups for the second 
round: (1) composition and (2) functions and 
powers/voting/procedure.  For each of the five issues he 
lists the main options presented during the first round. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Ambassador Tanin also proposes that the first 
meeting of the second round discuss the concept of any 
"review or challenge," a concept raised by a few delegations 
during the first round; followed by a focus in the second 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000553  002 OF 005 
 
 
meeting on the "composition" issues of size, categories of 
membership, and regional representation; and a discussion in 
the third and final meeting of the relationship between the 
General Assembly and the Council, the veto, and working 
methods.  In his letter, Tanin stressed that the overview is 
to serve as a "point of departure and reference for the 
second round" and "meant to catalyze, not circumscribe."  He 
also notes that there will be a third round. 
 
G4 welcomes overview and 
schedule for second round 
------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Brazil spoke first for the Group of Four (G4) and 
said it was okay with the overview though it would have 
preferred a more intensive negotiating schedule for the 
second round.  The German Perm Rep also voiced support for 
the overview paper but said the section on regional 
representation should also note the Charter's focus on both 
equitable geographical distribution and a member state's 
contributions to the maintenance of international peace and 
security as the yardstick for their eligibility to serve on 
the Council.   The Japanese Perm Rep voiced strong support 
for the overview paper, noting the interconnected nature of 
the clusters and the need not to repeat the debates of the 
first round.  He urged the membership to cease arguing over 
the overview paper and focus on the actual substance of the 
reform process.  The new Indian Perm Rep called on the Chair 
to note in the future the degree to which each proposal 
receives support. 
 
UFC disputes overview 
paper and rejects agenda 
------------------------ 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc members 
overwhelmingly agreed that the Chair's overview was "too 
simplistic" and not sufficiently comprehensive since it 
failed to incorporate the various proposals suggested during 
the first round, including the Italian/Colombian proposal; 
the S-5 proposal on working methods reform; and the proposal 
to include a seat for small, island, developing states. 
Spain said it was premature to reduce all proposals to just 
three options under each issue.  Turkey said that the veto 
should be linked to categories of membership, a point echoed 
by the African Group and other UFC members.  A number of UFC 
states, including Costa Rica, also stressed that member 
states, not the Chair, should be outlining the format for the 
next round.  The Pakistani Perm Rep specifically stated that 
he was unable to support the format and agenda proposed in 
paragraph 19 of the overview paper and called for an overview 
and agenda consistent with Decision 62/557. 
 
African Group also not pleased 
------------------------------ 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Sierra Leone spoke on behalf of the African Group 
and said that it had "difficulty with the reordering of the 
issues" under the Chapter V UN Charter headings since the 
order of the five key issues had been established in Decision 
62/557.  He also voiced concern with the selectiveness of the 
overview, saying that the references to size should be more 
specific instead of only the two options -- low-twenties and 
mid-twenties.  The African Group's most significant concern 
was that the African position on the veto was not properly 
reflected within the options of both the veto and categories 
of membership.  Sierra Leone and a number of other African 
states emphasized that their first preference is for 
abolition of the veto and this is not reflected as an option 
in the Chair's overview paper.  This point was also noted by 
a number of non-African states, including the Philippines and 
Italy.  Nigeria, along with several other African states, 
stressed that member states' proposals should not be 
considered on equal footing.  Those proposals that have the 
support of 53 countries  (i.e., the African Group) should 
take precedence over those with more limited support. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) African Group member and UFC bloc member Algeria 
heavily criticized the Chair's overview report, saying that 
it did not measure up to the African Group's own report sent 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000553  003 OF 005 
 
 
to the African Union.  The Algerian Perm Rep did presciently 
note that the informal plenary was in more of a "debating 
mood rather than a negotiating mood."  The Egyptian Perm Rep 
reminded the informal plenary that the African Group would 
select its own representatives for any African seats in the 
Council. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) The Perm Rep from St. Vincent and the Grenadines 
reminded the membership of the Chair's statement that his 
"pithy" overview paper "does not purport to be the sole basis 
for moving forward" and urged those that are using the paper 
as a "wedge" to "not give it the importance it does not seek 
nor deserve."  He cautioned against a retreat to the 
methodology of the OEWG and said the informal plenary is at a 
"crossroads of progress and stagnation" where it can continue 
its "aimless and endless debate" or move forward.  The Cuban 
representative also warned the membership to be careful not 
to let the intergovernmental negotiations become a repetition 
of well-known positions and arguments, as was the case in the 
OEWG.  He urged the membership to "shed proposals that do not 
enjoy real support" and said it would not be acceptable for 
real reform to be postponed indefinitely. 
 
Concept of review/challenge 
--------------------------- 
 
¶11.  (SBU) A number of countries raised general questions 
about the concept of a review conference, including timing, 
duration, and scope, but did not suggest concrete answers to 
their questions.  The Belgian representative suggested that 
there should be a period of 20 years between when the reforms 
take effect and the holding of a review conference.  The 
Liechtenstein representative also attempted to respond. 
While the Chair had grouped "review" and "challenge" 
together, he suggested that "challenge" might be an outcome 
of a future review.  He said that any review of Council 
reform should be scheduled for a defined moment and the scope 
of that review should be defined in advance.  He also 
suggested that the scope might encompass further enlargement; 
categories of seats; and use of the veto.  He said it would 
be better to have a one-off review event and not create a 
system of endless reviews of the Council. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) G4 member Brazil suggested that a review, 
scheduled for at least 15 years after any reform takes 
effect, should "encompass all aspects of reform."  Germany 
also stressed that for a review to be "meaningful" it needs 
to take place after the reforms have been in effect for a 
significant period of time and suggested a minimum of 15 
years, saying that new longer-term Council members must be 
allowed time to grow into their role.  In terms of the 
concept of "challenge" to longer-term Council members, 
Germany and India both suggested that the bar for any 
challenge be commensurate with and not less than the bar for 
permanent membership on the Security Council. 
 
¶13.  (SBU) Most UFC countries expressed their position that 
it was premature to discuss a review conference before 
clarifying the actual reforms.  They rejected the concept of 
"challenge" as a G4 concept since it implies a step towards a 
permanent member seat and they continue to not support 
additional permanent members.  Any longer-term members under 
an intermediate option would not be possible future permanent 
members, in their opinion.  The Italian Perm Rep noted that 
"review and challenge" were not one of the five key issues 
noted in Decision 62/557.  The Republic of Korea Deputy Perm 
Rep said he was not convinced that "review/challenge" was an 
integral part of the reform process and that it was premature 
to discuss it before broad agreement takes shape. 
 
¶14.  (SBU) Many African states also refused to examine the 
concept of "review," saying that it applied only to the 
intermediate approach and they do not subscribe to that 
option.  Others, like Namibia, questioned what could be 
discussed on review if there still was no agreement on the 
concepts for a reformed Council.  The South African 
Ambassador said that a review process would be needed and 
that it should not be linked to just an intermediate 
approach. 
 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000553  004 OF 005 
 
 
¶15.  (SBU) The Singapore Perm Rep stressed in his 
intervention that Singapore does not support a review for its 
own sake.  A review should mean the possibility of a 
permanent seat and suggested that if an aspiring permanent 
member passes three separate reviews spaced ten years apart 
then that member state should become a permanent member of 
the Council. 
 
P-5 
--- 
 
¶16.  (SBU) The French representative again stated France's 
support for permanent seats for the G4, an African state, as 
well as an Arab state.  He voiced their readiness to consider 
the intermediate solution and said that any review would 
depend on the type of reform selected but the bottom line 
objective is lasting and effective reform.  The UK Deputy 
Perm Rep called on member states to show flexibility on all 
sides and recommended strong consideration of the 
intermediate model for which a review mechanism would be key 
to assessing its effectiveness.  He said that by the end of 
the 63rd session the UK hoped the basic objectives of reform 
would be agreed. 
 
¶17.  (SBU) The Russian Perm Rep stressed that the overview 
should be treated as a point of departure, not as a 
substitute for negotiations which are up to the member 
states.  He noted that the overview does not include options 
not to change the current configuration of the veto or 
Council working methods.  (Note: The third veto option in the 
overview paper (no extension of the veto to any new permanent 
members) is essentially no change to the current veto 
configuration.  End note.)  He also stressed that it is too 
early to discuss a review and suggested it would be more 
logical to do so after a decision had been taken in favor of 
the interim model.  The Chinese Deputy Perm Rep noted that 
the five key issues are interconnected, regardless of how 
they are grouped.  He described the overview as a "highly 
generalized summary" that falls short of reflecting new 
proposals and solutions.  He said it may be hard to reach an 
agreement on a "review" before reaching general agreement on 
the five key issues. 
 
¶18.  (SBU) Ambassador Wolff delivered the U.S. intervention 
and welcomed the Chair's letter and overview paper, noting 
that no paper could ever fully meet the objectives of each 
and every member state but that it is a fair attempt to 
highlight the key options on the table from the first round. 
Noting the difficult underlying issues, he said that the 
Chair's distillation of the five key issues into two clusters 
for the membership's focus is workable.  He noted that 
"should negotiations on one cluster move more swiftly, that 
could be helpful to the overall process."  He said there is 
no reason to complicate discussion of "composition of an 
expanded Council -- which we see as the crux of the 
effort...with a theological debate on the relationship 
between the General Assembly and the Council" as the latter 
is already settled by the Charter.  Similarly, he stressed, 
"a discussion of Council working methods continues to proceed 
with concrete results in the Council's active Informal 
Working Group on Documentation and other Procedural 
Questions."  He said that insisting on "changing the current 
veto structure is not a productive use of time for our 
deliberations,"  though the U.S is prepared to discuss any or 
all of these issues for as long as is needed.  On the concept 
of a review, Ambassador Wolff urged prudence, saying "we 
believe it is unlikely that we will have more than one 
opportunity to amend the Charter on the issue of Security 
Council composition in the foreseeable future" and urged a 
focus on a set of reforms that "do not depend on recourse to 
a future review conference or the abstract notion of 
'challenges.'" 
 
Questions about how to wrap up 
current session/OEWG Report 
------------------------------ 
 
¶19.  (SBU) Portugal raised the question of how to conclude 
the work of the informal plenary during the 63rd session and 
referred to Decision 62/557's call for a report from the OEWG 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000553  005 OF 005 
 
 
at the end of the session.  Indonesia also questioned what 
the product would be at the end of the present round. 
Neither suggested an answer.  The Chair did not tackle this 
issue in his closing remarks. 
 
Chair's closing thoughts 
------------------------ 
 
¶20.  (SBU) In his closing remarks, the Chair noted that the 
point of the overview paper was to reflect the main thrust of 
the first round and to "catalyze, not circumscribe" the 
process.  He underscored that the member states are still 
leading the process.  He said that the member states should 
feel free to raise whatever issues they deem are important 
during the next two discussions of each of the clusters, so 
that by the end of June all five key issues will have been 
considered separately and jointly during the first and second 
rounds of the intergovernmental negotiations. 
 
RICE