VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0827/01 2522221
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 092221Z SEP 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7162
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN IMMEDIATE 1108
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA IMMEDIATE 1159
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 2469
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID IMMEDIATE 6426
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI IMMEDIATE 2778
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME IMMEDIATE 1134
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL IMMEDIATE 1181
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 8774

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000827 
 
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: THIRD ROUND OF 
INTERGOVERNMENTAL NEGOTIATIONS -- FIVE KEY ISSUES AND 
EXPANSION IN BOTH CATEGORIES 
 
REF: A. USUN NEW YORK 634 
     ¶B. USUN NE YORK 609 
     ¶C. USUN NEW YORK 553 
     ¶D. USUN NEW YORK 432 
     ¶E. USUN NEW YORK 388 
     ¶F. USUN NEW YORK 345 
     ¶G. USUN NEW YORK 289 
     ¶H. USUN NEW YORK 230 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: The informal plenary of the General 
Assembly met on September 1 and 2 for the first two of three 
meetings in the third round of intergovernmental negotiations 
(IGN) on Security Council reform.  38 delegations spoke on 
September 1 during the discussion on all of the five key 
issues, as defined in GA Decision 62/557.  Almost without 
exception, delegations reiterated their previous positions 
from the first two rounds when the five key issues had been 
explored in more depth (see reftels).  On September 2, 51 
delegations spoke either in favor or against an expansion in 
both categories of membership (permanent and non-permanent). 
The Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc rejected any expansion 
that includes additional permanent members and questioned the 
Group of Four (G4)'s assertions that expansion in both 
categories has majority support.  Most G4 members and their 
supporters, including the African Group, argued for an 
expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members and an 
extension of the veto to new permanent members.  In the U.S. 
statement, Ambassador Wolff expressed support for a limited 
expansion in both categories in a way that diminishes neither 
the Council's effectiveness nor its efficiency.  He 
underscored that the United States is not open to an 
enlargement of the Council with a change to the current 
configuration of the veto and that any expansion of permanent 
members must be country-specific.  End summary. 
 
Sept. 1: Five key issues 
------------------------ 
 
¶2.  (SBU) The first session of the third round of IGN on 
September 1 focused on all five key issues: categories of 
membership; the question of the veto; regional 
representation; size of an enlarged Council and working 
methods of the Security Council; and the relationship between 
the Council and the General Assembly.  While only 38 
delegations spoke, the chamber was more than half filled, 
demonstrating renewed interest in the negotiations after the 
two-month summer hiatus.  Nearly all of the 38 delegations 
who spoke, including members of the Group of Four (G4), the 
Uniting for Consensus (UFC) bloc, and the African Group, 
reiterated their previous positions from rounds one and two 
(see reftels).  Estonia and Lithuania spoke for the first 
time in favor of an additional elected seat for the Eastern 
European Group.  The Estonian delegate voiced support for a 
"small enlargement" to 22-25 members and voiced willingness 
to consider the interim approach.  The Lithuanian delegate 
called for expansion in both categories in order to achieve 
equitable geographical distribution. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) After U.S.-Russian coordination, the Russian Deputy 
Perm Rep responded to some delegates' remarks and a comment 
in the Chair's opening remarks which called into question the 
Council's current legitimacy because of its current 
composition.  The Russian Deputy Perm Rep underscored that 
the Security Council does not lack legitimacy.  While some 
may use the phrase as a figure of speech, he said, using it 
for political ends does not contribute positively to the 
serious work of these negotiations.  (Note: Ambassador Wolff 
followed up on the legitimacy point in U.S. remarks on 
September 2.  He said, "We have heard a couple of references 
yesterday and today to the issue of the Security Council's 
legitimacy.  This issue is settled by the UN Charter to which 
everyone here has voluntarily adhered.  The Council's 
legitimacy is solely derived from the UN Charter, not from 
its composition."  End note.) 
 
Sept. 2: Expansion in both categories 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (SBU) During the second session of the third round on 
 
 
 
September 2, the discussion focused on the first of two 
potential reform models -- expansion in both categories.  51 
delegations took the floor and three delegations (Italy, 
Pakistan, and Jamaica) took the floor for a second 
intervention at the end of the day.  Russia was the only P-5 
member who did not speak.  The Chinese Deputy Perm Rep 
neither directly addressed nor rejected an expansion of 
permanent members, thereby continuing China's evasive 
position on the subject.  He called for an "appropriate 
expansion" of the Council based on equitable geographical 
distribution and said that small and medium-sized states 
should have greater access to the Council.  The UK and France 
referred to their support of the G4 for permanent seats and 
of the intermediate option as a way around the impasse on 
reform, noting that those intermediate seats could be 
converted to permanent seats after a review.  France again 
voiced support for permanent seats for an African state and 
an Arab state. 
 
U.S. remarks 
------------ 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Ambassador Wolff said that the United States 
supports expansion of the Security Council in a way that will 
neither diminish its effectiveness nor its efficiency.  He 
said the United States is open in principle to a limited 
expansion of both permanent and non-permanent members but 
that the numbers proposed by many delegations -- such as in 
the mid-twenties -- would, given our long experience on the 
Council, result in an unwieldy body that would compromise 
effectiveness and efficiency.  He said that any consideration 
of an expansion of permanent members must be country-specific 
in nature.  The United States would not be able to support an 
amendment to the UN Charter where new permanent members are 
not specifically identified by name.  In determining which 
countries merit permanent membership, he said the United 
States would take into account the ability of countries to 
contribute to the maintenance of international peace and 
security and the other purposes of the United Nations. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Ambassador Wolff reiterated that any expansion of 
non-permanent members to reflect better equitable 
geographical distribution should be done in a manner that 
does not diminish the Council's effectiveness and efficiency. 
 Election of non-permanent members should remain defined by 
Article 18 as an important question and require for election 
a two-thirds majority of the membership present and voting. 
He underscored that the United States is not open to an 
enlargement of the Council with a change to the current veto 
structure but we remain prepared to discuss this point for as 
long as members would like; but we see it only leading to 
impasse at the expense of progress on expansion.  He also 
stressed that whatever formula emerges for an expansion of 
Council membership must factor in Charter requirements for 
ratification. 
 
UFC bloc against expansion 
of permanent members 
-------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) UFC bloc members called into question holding a 
meeting on a specific model, though they did voice moderate 
support for the next day's discussion of the intermediate 
option.  Most reaffirmed the need to focus on all five key 
issues.  Pakistan called expansion in both categories, or the 
G4 model, a "model of exclusion."  A number of UFC states 
said that proposal does not enjoy a majority of support, 
noting that a large number of states have yet to voice a 
position in IGN.  The Italian Perm Rep asked what model was 
really being discussed - additional permanent seats with or 
without the veto - and then said only elected seats offer 
genuine accountability.  He also noted that aspirants to 
permanent seats will change in 10-15 years because of 
political and economic factors and then the membership would 
be faced with different aspirants for more permanent seats. 
The Mexican Perm Rep specifically spoke against an organ 
which would include 11 veto-wielding parties and doubted this 
would lead to an increase in the Council's effectiveness. 
The Costa Rican delegate said it would be circulating a 
 
 
 
revised version of its 2005 document (A/49/856) describing 
the "cascade effects" more permanent members will have on 
other aspects of the UN system and argued for a moderate 
increase in elected members.  UFC states continued to call 
only for an expansion of non-permanent members, saying this 
was the most democratic and representative solution, and that 
an addition of permanent seats would not make the Council 
more open, transparent, or accountable. 
 
G4 argue that expansion in both 
categories has majority support 
------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) G4 members and their supporters throughout the 
session emphasized that a majority of states are in favor of 
an expansion in both categories and this should be the basis 
for negotiations.  They argued that those specifically 
against an expansion of permanent members only number around 
12-15 states.  The Indian PR asked rhetorically if the UFC 
wanted India to schedule a straw poll to scientifically test 
the numbers in favor of an expansion in both categories.  He 
said that they likely do not want such a straw poll because 
it would just highlight their isolation.  The Italian Perm 
Rep responded to the challenge on September 3, saying that 
there are no provisions for a straw poll in the informal 
plenary, just general discussion.  He said that if a model is 
to be put to a vote, then a formal plenary should be convened 
and a resolution put to a vote. 
 
G4 offer more details on selection 
of new permanent members 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Both the Brazilian and German statements, for the 
first time, specifically referred to the General Assembly 
voting on specific permanent members after they are nominated 
by their regional group.  The German Deputy Perm Rep said 
that Article 23 would be the yardstick for permanent 
membership: "due regard ...to the contribution of Members of 
the UN to the maintenance of international peace and security 
and to the other purposes of the Organization, and also to 
equitable geographical distribution."  The G4 continued to 
argue that the veto should be extended to new permanent 
members but its use postponed until a future review. 
(Comment: The G4 has not offered details on how a veto 
postponement mechanism would be drafted in a UN Charter 
amendment.  USUN views such an arrangement as technically 
non-feasible.  End Comment.)  The Brazilian delegate, the 
Vice Minister of External Relations for Political Affairs, 
said that Brazil had served nine times as an elected member 
and understood the limitations of non-permanent membership 
and the only way to effect the desired shift in the balance 
of power within the Council was to add permanent members. 
 
African Group still behind 
Ezulwini Consensus 
-------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (SBU) The African Group echoed, in its nine statements, 
the Ezulwini Consensus and called for two permanent seats for 
Africa and five total elected seats (including their current 
seats).  They also rejected the intermediate proposal as not 
properly righting the historical injustice of Africa's 
non-representation in the permanent member category. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) The Ghanaian delegate recalled that Afghanistan 
had chaired the 1963 General Assembly conference to expand 
the Security Council.  He suggested the formation of a 
mechanism, as in 1963, for a smaller but representative group 
of member states to engage with the P-5 in order to move the 
process forward and draft language which would meet with the 
widest possible agreement.  (Comment: No other delegations 
reacted to this proposal during the session.  End comment.) 
RICE