WikiLeaks: NZ response on UN reform

This is one of the diplomatic cables about New Zealand held by Wikileaks.

27 June, 2005 SUBJECT: NEW ZEALAND RESPONSE ON UN REFORM

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

Classified By: ACTING DCM KATHERINE HADDA, FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D)

1. (SBU) On June 21, Charge delivered ref A, B and C demarche points to Wen Chin Powles and Valerie Meyer, both Deputy Directors at the United Nations, Human Rights and Commonwealth Division (UNHC) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). Powles and Meyer said that the GoNZ's positions on reform of the UN and the Commission on Human Rights are largely synchronized with the U.S. positions though the U.S. is further along in fleshing out its positions. MFAT also subsequently sent a copy of its recent statement to the June 21 Informal Meeting in advance of the General Assembly September High-level plenary. The text of the statement is attached at para 8.

New Zealand aims generally support U.S. interests --------------------------------------------- ---- 2. (SBU) According to Powles and Meyer, the GoNZ generally supports our UN reform interests including those of the Peacebuilding Commission, the responsibility to protect (where New Zealand will push for the strongest possible language including the override of sovereignty in cases of genocide, ethnic cleansing and similar), counterterrorism, developmental reform, and secretariat reform. New Zealand seeks strengthening of disarmament and nonproliferation provisions.

3. (C) On Security Council reform, New Zealand will oppose any expansion of the veto power, in keeping with New Zealand's consistant stance against UNSC vetoes since the UN was founded. And while supportive of a Japanese role on the Security Council, New Zealand is "not certain about a permanent seat for Japan," said Powles. Viewing that Security Council reform is overwhelming the U.N., Powles commented that New Zealand "doesn't want (reform) to be polarizing and dominating." New Zealand has been asked about its position on Security Council reform by the governments of Brazil, China, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico and South Korea, she added.

But there are some areas of difference -------------------------------------- 4. (C) Regarding the proposed Human Rights Council, the GoNZ shares the USG view that a smaller body is needed for greater effectiveness, and in fact sees a still smaller membership than the 20 members we proposed, Meyer said. She acknowledged, however, that few countries share this desire for a still smaller membership. GoNZ shares our concerns that a peer review process might bog the Council down to the detriment of its primary mission. However, Myer implied that the GoNZ is open to the notion of peer review, even as it would need to see more discussion on the idea. The GoNZ seeks more equal status of the Council vis-a-vis the Security Council and ECOSOC, and sees the Council as a "principal organ of the United Nations" consistent with the "Three Pillar" arrangement promoted by the Secretary General. However, while indicating that the Council should have the authority to investigate, censure and make recommendations, Meyer said that sanctions and other enforcement mechanisms should come from UNSC. Meyer further said that the GoNZ is "supportive of keeping the good things of the HRC, including the role of NGOs." Finally, Meyer indicated New Zealand's supports a regular source of budget funding as opposed to a system dependent on voluntary contributions.

5. (SBU) On the Peace Building Commission (PBC), Powles reported general consensus; however she noted possible differences on how the PBC would fit into the UN framework and it membership characteristics. She did acknowledge that these differences might result more from a lack of detail on the PBC rather than on our diverging views. New Zealand favors early establishment of a Peace Building Commission, with Powles suggesting that NZ has a more ambitious timeline than the U.S.

6. (SBU) Climate change will continue to be a focus area for New Zealand during the UN reform initiative. As indicated by Powles, the GoNZ used a June 21st statement to an informal meeting plenary to promote a strong position on climate change, one which supports the UN Secretary's General position. However, as she had indicated, their statement (para 8) did not provide much detail.

7. (SBU) After the recent failure of the May Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference to reach consensus, New Zealand is looking to see disarmament and non-proliferation language strengthened, Powles said. However, similar to climate change, their statement (para 8) did not provide much detail.

Text of New Zealand's Statement ------------------------------- 8. (U) Begin Text: Mr President The High Level Event in September will be a unique opportunity to reinvigorate the United Nations. Member States have a wide range of national, regional and international interests. But we believe that we all share a fundamental interest in ensuring that the United Nations is able effectively to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century.

When our Leaders gather here in less than three months time they will want to take decisions that will substantially strengthen the UN. The draft contains many sound recommendations and we thank you for your careful work in drawing it together. We see it as a solid platform and we welcome the positive momentum it is generating. There are, however, several areas of priority importance to New Zealand where we would like to suggest bolder language, more definition of concepts and clearer signposts to follow up action.

Mr President

We agree that development is a central goal in itself - as well as vital for achieving collective security. We are pleased to see that the draft is imbued with the "Spirit of Monterrey", underlining the need to mobilise all resources for development including aid, trade and domestic resources. New Zealand supports the positive references to the need to progress the Doha Development Round.

Along with increasing volumes of aid, it is important to ensure that aid delivery is effective from developing countries' points of view: New Zealand strongly supports the emphasis on aid effectiveness present in the document.

The draft outcome document rightly emphasises the importance of dealing with climate change. A constructive international dialogue is urgently needed on how to take meaningful action on climate change, and at the same time provide for future economic growth and development aspirations. As the Secretary-General has said, we must develop a more inclusive

SIPDIS international framework beyond 2012. Anything less than broad and balanced participation and action, in particular by all of the world's major emitters, including both developed and developing countries, will be inadequate to deal with a challenge of this magnitude.

We are particularly pleased to see that the draft outcome document recognises the plight of countries in special situations, particularly small island developing states. We hope that the Summit will add impetus for the implementation of the Mauritius Strategy for SIDS.

We can support many of the elements of the draft outcome document on disarmament and non-proliferation but would like to see a number of them strengthened to better address the security challenges in today's world. Our strong wish is for our leaders to agree on concrete steps towards elimination of weapons of mass destruction, as well as measures to prevent their proliferation. The 2000 NPT outcome identified steps that should be taken towards achieving nuclear disarmament. Against that background we cannot support the implication that progress on nuclear disarmament might be held hostage to "general and complete disarmament", as suggested by the current draft text.

New Zealand welcomes the proposals to strengthen the United Nations' human rights machinery, but in our view they do not go far enough to establish the protection and promotion of human rights. It remains our view that the proposed Human Rights Council should be a principal organ of the UN. This would reflect the primacy of human rights in the Charter and give the new body maximum authority in responding to emerging or critical human rights situations. The Council should be a smaller body than the current Commission on Human Rights in order to expedite decision-making and facilitate consensus on action. We are concerned by the omission from the current draft of the Secretary-General's stricture that those elected to the Council should undertake to abide by the highest human rights standards.

We would also want the outcome document to provide more clarity on the functions, mandate and powers of the Council, and its functional relationship with other organs of the UN system. The Council should be able to investigate, censure and make recommendations on further action to the Security Council and the proposed Peacebuilding Commission. The Council's relationship with the General Assembly's Third Committee needs to be clarified in order to avoid overlapping functions and mandates. We are interested in the proposed peer review mechanism but would like to see further developed how it would work in practice.

Strengthening the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and providing it with the requisite funds from the regular budget of the UN must be a priority. We would also like to see a more explicit reaffirmation in the outcome document of the policy of mainstreaming human rights throughout the UN system and an enhanced role for the High Commissioner in relation to the Security Council and the proposed Peacebuilding Commission.

Mr President

We are pleased that the proposal for the Peacebuilding Commission has broad and increasing support. New Zealand fully supports the role and mandate of the PBC as broadly described in the current draft. It reflects well what is required to fill the institutional gap. However, we believe the draft can and should go further. It is within our reach to agree on the structure of the PBC so that Leaders can formally establish it in September.

On details, we would make three points. First, on size, we believe the optimal number for core membership would be no more than 20, with balanced participation from both the Security Council and ECOSOC (say, five from each) plus representation by key donors, Troop Contributing Countries, regional partners and International Financial Institutions on the basis proposed in the Secretary-General's explanatory note. We also support the Secretary-General's recommendation that national authorities and relevant regional actors should be involved in the Peacebuilding Commission's country-specific sub-groups and would like to see this reflected in the outcome document.

Second, on mandate, we fully support the proposal that Member States should be able to apply to the PBC and the Standing Fund for assistance in reducing the risk of either new or recurring conflict.

Thirdly, given the advisory nature of the PBC, we query the need for sequential reporting. In our view, the strength of the PBC should be its ability to coordinate and provide transition. To do this, it should have the flexibility to report to either the Security Council or ECOSOC, and to the GA and the HR Council according to need.

We support the establishment of a Standing Fund allowing UN agencies to fill the funding gap immediately after conflict ends and before bilateral assistance arrives. We also fully support the Secretary-General's proposal to establish a small Peacebuilding Support Office.

As the Secretary-General says, terrorism is a threat to all that the United Nations stands for. We support his proposal to implement a UN counter-terrorism strategy. This strategy must be comprehensive, taking into account the underlying factors which fuel and generate support for terrorism. We support the call to conclude a comprehensive convention on terrorism during the 60th session of the GA.

Mr President

We welcome the draft language on responsibility to protect. We agree that the primary responsibility to protect civilians lies with individual Member States. However, where States are unable or unwilling to protect their population from genocide, large scale violations of international humanitarian law or ethnic cleansing, we believe strongly that the international community has the responsibility to take collective action. We would emphasise that this responsibility is about protecting civilians within the parameters of international law, and specifically within the provisions of the UN Charter.

We look forward to Leaders in September fully embracing the responsibility to protect and would support language in the Leaders' declaration making clear the elements comprising the responsibility to protect.

Mr President

For a fully effective Secretariat we must urgently strengthen the Secretary-General's ability to manage resources flexibly, and ensure that the Organisation can attract the highest calibre of staff. We are pleased to see the management reform measures that are being put in place. Leaders should agree to provide the Secretary-General with the necessary flexibility and authority to carry out his responsibilities, whilst requiring a full system of accountability, integrity and transparency.

We fully endorse the urgent need to review mandates that are older than five years and identify resources for shifting to other priorities. We should not shy away from the possibility that some activities have outlived their usefulness, or could be delivered in a different way.

There is scope for this part of the draft to map out a clearer agenda for ongoing updating of mandates, and of management practices, and to better distinguish between action that is already under way and what now needs to happen. Without repeating them, I would nevertheless like to associate New Zealand with the points on management reform made by Australia, Canada, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. I also echo the point just made by Norway on the need for progress on gender balance in the UN system.

Mr President

We strongly support the draft language on concluding negotiations on a protocol expanding legal protection for UN and associated personnel during UNGA60. Attacks against personnel continue and New Zealand looks forward to early agreement on this issue. Discussions on the scope of the Protocol have brought us to a point where conclusion of a new legal instrument, which materially broadens the Protocol, is within reach.

Finally Mr President

New Zealand has been a loyal advocate and supporter of the United Nations since 1945. We sincerely want to see the organisation emerge in better shape from the current initiative. We are ready and willing to play our part in the work that still lies ahead. End Text

Swindells

ENDS

© Scoop Media