VZCZCXRO2032
PP RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHBZ RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHDU RUEHFL RUEHGI
RUEHIK RUEHJO RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHMA RUEHMR RUEHNP RUEHPA
RUEHPOD RUEHRN RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSL RUEHSR RUEHTRO RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUCNDT #0744/01 2161433
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 041433Z AUG 09 ZDK
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7028
INFO RUEHZO/AFRICAN UNION COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO PRIORITY 1084
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 2414
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS PRIORITY 0384
RUEHLP/AMEMBASSY LA PAZ PRIORITY 0088
RUEHMU/AMEMBASSY MANAGUA PRIORITY 0139
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 1202
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 1688
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 3831
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY 0814

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USUN NEW YORK 000744 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PHUM UNSC UNGA KAWC KTIA
SUBJECT: RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT DEBATE CONCLUDES: AGENDA 
ITEM REMAINS OPEN FOR POSSIBLE FUTURE ACTION 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000744  001.3 OF 003 
 
 
Sensitive but Unclassified, NOFORN 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The Responsibility to Protect populations 
from the four crimes of genocide, war crimes, ethnic 
cleansing and crimes against humanity was endorsed 
unanimously by world leaders in the 2005 World Summit Outcome 
(A/Res/60/1). The Responsibility to Protect, more commonly 
called "R2P", was debated this week by the General Assembly 
as part of its consideration of a Secretary-General report on 
the concept. The SYG report lays out proposals for how the UN 
and Member States can implement what remains an intensely 
polarizing issue. Despite active opposition from UNGA 
President D'Escoto (PGA) (he stated his negative view on no 
fewer than five occasions), most of the 100 member states 
which spoke recommitted broadly to their 2005 agreement. This 
success was thanks to active lobbying by the "Friends of R2P" 
group co-chaired by Rwanda and Canada, and more discreet 
advocacy by the US. Only a few delegations significantly 
stepped back from that previous pledge. 
 
¶2. (SBU) (Summary Continued.) USdel's goal for the debate was 
to prevent backsliding from the 2005 commitment, a goal 
shared by the informal group of "Friends". Thus, we sought to 
avoid any outcome that could open the door to renegotiating 
language or commitments. The agenda item remains open for 
potential future action. End summary. 
 
PLENARY SESSION FOLLOWED BY INFORMAL SESSION 
 
¶3. (SBU) The Secretary General summarized his report 
(A/63/677) and its proposals on how to implement the concept 
of R2P. He outlined R2P's focus on "three pillars:" the 
responsibility of states to protect their own populations, 
the responsibility of other states to assist them, and the 
responsibility of the international community to take "timely 
and decisive action" in the event a state is unwilling or 
unable to exercise this core responsibility to its own 
people. The Secretary General asked delegations to refrain 
from politicizing the debate, as this would reduce the 
discussion to "rancor instead of hope". Q&A followed in an 
informal session. 
 
THEMATIC DIALOGUE 
 
¶4. (SBU) PGA D'Escoto organized a thematic dialogue preceding 
the plenary debate, with the not-too-veiled purpose of 
leveling a critique against champions of R2P, particularly 
the West and most of all the US, as latter-day imperialists. 
He also circulated a Concept Note that argued this position. 
D'Escoto introduced the panel by continuing to criticize the 
United States, recalling the International Court of Justice 
ruling against the United States in Nicaragua's favor in the 
mid-1980s (he pointed out that no compensation has been 
paid). Ed Luck, Special Advisor to the SYG, spoke briefly on 
the importance of enforcing all Pillars of R2P and dispelling 
"dangerous" misconceptions that R2P would license military 
intervention or establish a new legal norm. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Former Australian Foreign Minister Gareth Evans, who 
co-chaired the International Commission on Intervention and 
State Sovereignty that first coined R2P, distinguished R2P 
from humanitarian intervention, which he declared a "dead" 
concept. He stressed that R2P is rooted in our common 
humanity and is centered on protection and responsibility 
rather than a right to intervene. He emphasized the historic 
nature of the 2005 agreement and the imperative to make good 
on "never again". 
 
¶6. (SBU) Professor Thiong'o, a Kenyan writer, focused on 
economic inequity as a root cause of many instances of the 
four crimes that R2P addresses. He praised President Obama's 
"development from the bottom up" approach. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Professors Chomsky and Bricmont spoke little of R2P 
and instead focused on a critique of Western, and mainly US, 
policies. Chomsky equated R2P with humanitarian intervention, 
tracking what he described as similar rationales used 
throughout American history to justify strong states acting 
against the weak. Such examples included an accusation that 
the US (along with France and Britain) supported 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000744  002.3 OF 003 
 
 
extermination in East Timor. Chomsky also called for Security 
Council reform, noting 43 US vetoes over the past decade, 
more than any other P-5 member. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Professor Bricmont was especially hostile, arguing 
that the US was the "main obstacle" to effective 
implementation of R2P. He condemned US foreign policy, 
"Israeli aggression," US "harassment" of Hugo Chavez, and US 
missile defense systems, among a range of targets. Professor 
Bricmont argued that ending US power projection is necessary 
to restore trust in the international community and therefore 
effectively implement R2P. 
 
¶9. (SBU) In the Q&A that followed this panel, the Egyptian 
Ambassador expressed concern about the relationship between 
the GA and the Security Council, and what he labeled as 
Council failures in Lebanon and Gaza, questioning the use of 
the veto in these circumstances. Other representatives voiced 
similar concerns (Djibouti, for example, emphatically called 
for "the reform we've all been seeking".) 
 
GENERAL DEBATE 
 
¶10. (SBU) The majority of the nearly 100 speakers reiterated 
broad support for the 2005 consensus, usually re-stating the 
"four crimes" and "three pillars." Only a few delegations 
backtracked substantially from their World Summit 
commitments: Ecuador, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, 
DPRK, Malaysia, and Sudan. Several others indicated some 
qualification on their previous position: Egypt (on behalf of 
NAM), Brazil, Pakistan, China, Qatar, Sri Lanka, Iran, 
Bangladesh, and Serbia. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Several other themes recurred: an emphasis on 
prevention, including better use of early warning systems; 
the need for capacity building (including of regional and 
sub-regional bodies); the role of economic development in 
conflict prevention; enhancing the rule of law, ratification 
of the Rome Statute, and the role of other UN bodies (e.g. 
the Human Rights Council). A few delegations also explicitly 
extolled democracy as a means of preventing conflict, 
including Turkey, Botswana, Benin, Tanzania, and the 
Philippines.  Ambassador DiCarlo delivered the US statement. 
It can be viewed at 
usunnewyork.usmission.gov/press releases/20090723 146.html. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Concerns about R2P generally fell into three 
categories.  First, a number of speakers reiterated the 
concern that R2P could threaten sovereignty and encourage 
politically-motivated interventions. Delegations expressing 
this concern included: Egypt (speaking for the NAM), 
Guatemala, Pakistan, Algeria, Ecuador, Chile, China, 
Venezuela, Bolivia, Mexico, Cuba, India, Sri Lanka, Jamaica, 
Iran, Nicaragua, East Timor, DPRK, Kazakhstan, Lesotho, and 
Sudan. 
 
¶13. (SBU) Second, some called for R2P to be more explicitly 
defined in scope (further specifying application of the four 
crimes) or response (further elaborating criteria, scope, or 
authority for response). Speakers expressing these concerns 
included: Sweden (speaking for the EU), Philippines, Bosnia 
and Herzegovina, Japan, Jordan, India, Myanmar, Mexico, Sri 
Lanka, and Serbia. 
 
¶14. (SBU) Third, some delegations expressed concern about 
situations where the Council was unable to act. They recalled 
Council experience on Rwanda in 1994, and spoke of the need 
to improve Council working methods, including veto restraint 
in situations of R2P. Speakers expressing these concerns 
included Singapore, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Netherlands, 
Costa Rica (speaking also on behalf of Denmark), Republic of 
Korea, Egypt (speaking for the NAM), Jamaica, Swaziland, 
Bangladesh, Sudan, Solomon Islands, Gambia, Slovenia, 
Slovakia, Cameroon, South Africa, and Azerbaijan. Others 
focused on "selectivity" and bias of the Council in deciding 
which situations to address, including: Guatemala, Ecuador, 
South Africa, Bolivia, Jordan, Rwanda, Cuba, India, Iran, 
Bangladesh, Georgia, and Sudan. 
 
¶15. (SBU) Venezuela delivered a harsh statement, calling 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000744  003.3 OF 003 
 
 
conflict in Gaza, Afghanistan, and Iraq R2P crimes that 
should have been raised in the SYG's report. The 
representative called for former President George W. Bush and 
other unnamed US officials to be brought before the ICC, and 
accused Israel of genocide and ethnic cleansing in Palestine. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Bolivia's statement was similarly combative, 
calling on the United States (along with Peru) to return 
Bolivian high-level asylum seekers for trial, particularly 
former Bolivian president Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada. 
 
¶17. (SBU) Throughout the week, the PGA stated his position 
that the world is not ready for R2P on five occasions: in his 
Concept Note, while introducing the thematic dialogue, while 
introducing the SYG's report, before the general debate, and 
finally in his closing remarks, when he argued that the case 
for R2P was "at best uncertain". (Comment: This last 
conclusion is not borne out by the tenor of the debate. End 
comment.) 
 
¶18. (SBU) Other notable interventions included: An exchange 
of rights of reply between Russian and Georgia on the 
conflict in Abkhazia and South Ossetia; the Palestinian 
representative's allegations of Israeli war crimes and human 
rights violations and accusation of bias in the SYG's report 
for selectively including examples of the four R2P crimes 
that did not include Israeli aggression; Serbian criticism of 
the NATO bombings in the former Yugoslavia; the DPRK's 
mention of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Gaza as evidence of abuse 
of humanitarian intervention; and Gambia's call for a UNGA 
R2P committee that would, among other responsibilities, 
advise the Security Council. 
 
¶19. (SBU) Comment: While the US, the Friends of R2P, and 
other sympathetic states would like to see the UN and UN 
member states work to implement R2P, our primary objective 
for the GA debate was to hold the line on the 2005 consensus. 
We thus sought to avoid negotiation over an outcome 
resolution that could open the door to renegotiating the 
original agreement. Some allies have seen this as less of a 
risk, notably The Netherlands and Belgium. SYG SA Luck has 
also advocated for a resolution. However, our assessment is 
that the risk of reopening the text is too high and the 
benefit of a resolution too limited to warrant that approach. 
The potential for a resolution to surface remains as long as 
the agenda item remains open, theoretically until September 
¶14. We will watch this issue carefully and report any 
developments. End comment. 
RICE