VZCZCXYZ0002
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0828/01 2522228
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 092228Z SEP 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7165
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN IMMEDIATE 1111
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA IMMEDIATE 1162
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD IMMEDIATE 2472
RUEHMD/AMEMBASSY MADRID IMMEDIATE 6429
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI IMMEDIATE 2781
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME IMMEDIATE 1137
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL IMMEDIATE 1184
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 8777

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000828 
 
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 - INTERMEDIATE MODEL 
 
REF: A. USUN NEW YORK 827 
     ¶B. USUN NEW YORK 634 
     ¶C. USUN NE YORK 609 
     ¶D. USUN NEW YORK 553 
     ¶E. USUN NEW YORK 432 
     ¶F. USUN NEW YORK 388 
     ¶G. USUN NEW YORK 345 
     ¶H. USUN NEW YORK 289 
     ¶I. USUN NEW YORK 230 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: The informal plenary of the General 
Assembly met on September 3 for the third meeting of the 
third round of intergovernmental negotiations (IGN) on 
Security Council reform.  43 delegations, including all of 
the P-5, spoke on the intermediate model.  The UK and France 
did not offer many details but did emphasize their version of 
the model as a stepping stone to permanent seats after a 
review.  Other delegations offered variations on the 
intermediate model - from two-year seats with the possibility 
of re-election to three to 15-year seats with or without the 
possibility of re-election.  Some suggested that longer-term 
seats could be assigned to regional groups and rotated 
amongst regional members.  Germany was the only Group of Four 
(G4) member to speak in favor of the intermediate model, 
albeit a variation which would lead to permanent seats after 
a review.  Other G4 and African Group members remained 
unwilling to give up on the expansion in both categories 
model, arguing that it enjoyed broader support, was more 
responsive to the membership's core demands for reform, and 
vigorous negotiations have not yet started so there is no 
need yet for a compromise model (like the intermediate 
model).  G4 members called on the Chair to provide a 
workplan/roadmap for negotiations during the next session, 
including a clear timetable.  The Chair announced that the 
President of the General Assembly (PGA) will hold a meeting 
of the Open-ended Working Group (OEWG) on September 9 to 
present his report on the subject during the 63rd session and 
that the Chair would also circulate another letter on the IGN 
to the membership before the end of the 63rd session.  End 
summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) During the third scheduled meeting of the third 
round of IGN on September 3, 43 delegations, including all of 
the P-5, spoke on the second of two potential reform models 
-- the intermediate option.  The French Perm Rep said that 
while the UK and France had proposed the intermediate model, 
France preferred a permanent solution in the end.  However, 
if a permanent solution is not possible, he argued that the 
intermediate model should be the focus of the membership's 
work during the 64th session.  Neither he nor the UK Deputy 
Perm Rep offered any specifics on their version of the 
intermediate option.  The Russian Perm Rep said that the 
intermediate model could be a platform upon which the 
membership succeeds in reaching agreement.  He called for a 
maximum five-year term which would allow larger and more 
influential states to participate more actively in the 
Council.  If there is to be a review mechanism, he called for 
the removal from its agenda of the question of the veto and 
Security Council working methods since, he said, both should 
be handled only by the Council itself.  He said that no one 
should bank on rapid progress, and a final formula on 
expansion should not lead to a split of the membership but 
should meet with the approval of significantly more than 
two-thirds of the membership. 
 
U.S. remarks 
------------ 
 
¶3.  (SBU) In the U.S. statement, Ambassador Wolff called on 
those states which have been the greatest proponents for the 
intermediate option to offer more details, including how, by 
whom, and on what basis intermediate members would be chosen, 
for how long would they serve, and whether they would be 
eligible for re-election.  He also questioned how the 
intermediate model differed in practice from an expansion of 
non-permanent members.  He reminded the membership that the 
U.S. has voiced support to date only for a limited expansion 
of both permanent and non-permanent members with any 
expansion of permanent members being country-specific in 
nature and new non-permanent members being subject to 
 
 
 
election by a two-thirds majority of the entire membership as 
stipulated in the UN Charter.  He underscored that whatever 
formula that emerges for an expansion must factor in Charter 
requirements for ratification.  As Charter amendments are not 
easily achieved, he said that the U.S. believes 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, therefore, the strong preference of 
the United States is to focus on a set of reforms that do not 
depend on recourse to a future review.  He stressed that 
depending on a future review could raise unrealistic 
expectations which could prove highly divisive if those 
expectations were not met. 
 
Proponents offer details 
on intermediate option 
------------------------ 
 
¶4.  (SBU) The Netherlands Perm Rep sought to elaborate on the 
intermediate option.  He defined an expanded Council as in 
the low 20s with additional elected seats and longer-term 
seats of 3-15 years with a review after approximately two 
terms of the longer-term seats.  He said the central 
questions for the review would be: (1) whether to continue on 
with the longer-term seats or revert back to the original 
arrangement and start the reform process anew; (2) whether to 
extend the veto; and (3) should any of the Council seats 
become regional seats.  (Comment: USUN judges it difficult to 
foresee a review process that reverts back to a previous 
state.  The reform that will precipitate the review will 
involve a Charter amendment.  A second Charter amendment will 
be required to institute the results of the review. 
Achieving two Charter amendments, fully ratified, in the 
space of a 15-30 years is likely overly ambitious, given the 
length of the reform debate to date.  End comment.) 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The Swiss delegate suggested that the length of the 
longer-term seats should be negotiated and there should be 
objective criteria for longer-term candidates based on size 
and contributions.  The Pakistan Perm Rep suggested two-year 
seats with the possibility of re-election or three to 
five-year terms without the possibility of re-election.  The 
Indonesian Perm Rep said any future review should focus on 
how the system is operating, not on a particular member 
state's performance as a longer-term member.  The Canadian 
Perm Rep said that any addition of longer-term seats should 
be great enough to allow for increased representation but not 
too large as to jeopardize efficiency.  The Turkish Perm Rep 
suggested that longer-term seats be assigned to specific 
regional groups so that the seats can be rotated amongst the 
members of the group.  The Liechtenstein delegate said 
Liechtenstein envisages the creation of six new long-term 
renewable seats with a strong review clause after the 
expiration of two terms.  He underlined that the intermediate 
model offers the possibility of states serving as de facto 
permanent members if (1) they so choose and (2) they are 
elected for consecutive terms, which provides for an element 
of accountability lacking in the expansion in both categories 
model, or the possibility of regional rotation, if a region 
so agrees. 
 
Germany supports intermediate model 
as bridge to new permanent seats 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The German Deputy Perm Rep voiced support for the 
day's discussion which he hoped would "concretize" the 
intermediate model.  (Note: Germany is the only Group of Four 
(G4) member that has voiced interest in discussing the 
intermediate model.  End note.)  He said the while the 
intermediate model will not make all delegations happy, it 
would reform the Security Council until a future review when 
it could be judged whether to make the intermediate model a 
permanent solution.  He argued against the re-election of 
longer-term members, saying it would cause them to start 
campaigning for re-election on day one of the term, instead 
of focusing on the actual difficult challenges.  He said that 
longer-term members should serve continuously and only be 
removed by a vote of the same magnitude that elected that to 
the Council (i.e., two-thirds of the membership).  The Costa 
 
 
Rican delegate argued against an "interim solution" that is 
just a postponement of the permanent seat expansion (the 
UK/France/Germany proposal) but voiced support for 
longer-terms seats with a single re-election and then a 
mandatory sitting-out period of twice the length of time 
served on the Council. 
 
Other G4 members advocate 
against intermediate model 
-------------------------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The Brazilian Vice Minister of External Relations 
for Political Affairs underscored that the intermediate model 
is not Brazil's preferred option and questioned how true 
reform would come about if the core membership (P-5) remains 
the same.  The Indian Special Secretary for International 
Organizations and Political Issues in the Ministry of 
External Affairs questioned what the intermediate option was 
"intermediate to" and said that the intermediate model does 
not address the core demands of member states because it 
limits expansion to the non-permanent category.  He argued 
for the membership to focus on an expansion in both 
categories since India views that proposal as enjoying 
broader support. 
 
African states say it is premature to 
negotiate intermediate model; call for 
negotiations on expansion in both categories 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) The South African Legal Advisor said that the 
intermediate model does not address Africa's 
non-representation in the permanent member category.  The 
Kenyan delegate said that the intermediate model presumes 
there are areas on which the membership cannot reach an 
agreement regarding permanent seats.  African delegations 
argued that comprehensive reform should still be the 
objective and since vigorous negotiations have not yet begun, 
they stressed the need to first focus on expansion in both 
categories and then see if there is deadlock.  The delegate 
from Swaziland noted that if African states accept the 
intermediate option then they will be adding 50 more years to 
Africa's wait for a permanent seat.  The Zambian delegate 
said that there would be no guarantee that the inadequacies 
of the intermediate option would be rectified at a review 
conference.  The Egyptian Perm Rep called the intermediate 
model an attempt to avoid a decision on a veto for Africa. 
 
Next steps 
---------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Germany and India called on the Chair (the Afghan 
Perm Rep) to draft a workplan/roadmap for negotiations during 
the next session, including a clear timetable.  South Africa 
called on the Chair to draft a comprehensive document 
containing the proposals before the membership and the levels 
of support expressed for each of them.  The Czech Republic 
called for the Chair to prepare a document reflecting on the 
negotiations and the way forward in the 64th session.  Malta 
called for a smooth transition to the 64th session with all 
of the options on the table, including all of the five key 
issues.  The San Marino Perm Rep also called for a smooth 
transition to the 64th session and said he hoped the 
PGA-elect would ask the Chair to continue as Chair during the 
next session. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) At the end of the meeting, the Chair briefly 
summarized the three rounds of intergovernmental negotiations 
held during the 63rd session (reftels), commenting that the 
procedural hurdles were avoided on day one.  He noted the 
surge of interest from the membership on the subject with 
two-thirds of the membership actively engaged in the IGN.  He 
said that the ground work has been set for "real give and 
take" in the 64th session.  He announced that he would brief 
the President of the General Assembly (PGA) on the results of 
the IGN.  Then, after Labor Day, the Chair said the PGA would 
circulate his report to the Open-ended Working Group, per 
decision 62/557, and there will be a final meeting in the 
63rd session of the OEWG on September 9.  The Chair said he 
would also send out another letter to the membership, as 
 
 
outlined in his July 16 letter: "After these three exchanges, 
Member states can expect to receive another letter from the 
Chair outlining the Membership-driven remainder of the third 
round, during which our lodestar 62/557 will continue to 
shine brightly." 
RICE