Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 09USUNNEWYORK832, UNGA: GEORGIAN IDP RESOLUTION PASSES AFTER RUSSIAN

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #09USUNNEWYORK832.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
09USUNNEWYORK832 2009-09-11 15:20 2011-08-24 01:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY USUN New York
VZCZCXRO3685
OO RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSL RUEHSR RUEHTRO
RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUCNDT #0832 2541520
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 111520Z SEP 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7173
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000832 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM KPRM UNGA RS GG
SUBJECT: UNGA: GEORGIAN IDP RESOLUTION PASSES AFTER RUSSIAN 
'NO ACTION' EFFORT FAILS 
 
REF: A. SECSTATE 93378 
     B. USUN 675 
 
1. (SBU) SUMMARY.  After rejecting a Russian Federation 
"no-action" motion by a vote of 29 in favor, 64 opposed, and 
50 abstentions, the UN General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a 
Georgia-sponsored resolution calling for the return of 
internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Georgia by a vote of 
47 in favor, 19 opposed, and 80 abstentions.  After losing 
the no-action vote, Russia withdrew 18 amendments it had 
submitted prior to the session.  The draft resolution was 
adopted with no changes to the text submitted by Georgia (Ref 
A).  Solid European support was the key to Georgia's victory. 
 END SUMMARY. 
 
2. (U) During GA discussion of a draft resolution submitted 
by Georgia, entitled, "Status of internally displaced persons 
and refugees from Abkhazia, Georgia and the Tskhinvali 
region/South Ossetia, Georgia", the Russian Federation tried 
to prevent a vote by introducing a "no-action" motion (i.e., 
a motion to adjourn the discussion under Rule 74 of the GA 
Rules of Procedure).  In proposing "no-action", Russian 
Permrep Vitaly Churkin called the Georgian resolution 
politically motivated.  He accused "certain countries" of 
being behind the "odious and heinous text," which would not 
help to build confidence between the parties.  Churkin also 
said that in case the "no-action" motion were to fail, he 
would seek a vote on 18 separate amendments that the Russian 
Federation had submitted to the Secretariat the previous day. 
 (At the beginning of the debate, the acting President of the 
General Assembly had announced that the discussion of the 
item would be carried out in English, since the Secretariat 
had not been given sufficient time to translate the 18 
amendments into the six working languages.) 
 
3. (U) Under Rule 74, two members can speak in favor and two 
members can speak in opposition to a "no-action" motion. 
France and the United Kingdom spoke against the motion, both 
emphasizing that they opposed no-action motions on principle, 
because such motions impinged on the freedom of member states 
to propose debate on issues of importance.  Nicaragua and 
Belarus spoke for the motion, both emphasizing that since the 
text had not achieved a consensus in the GA, it should be 
withdrawn until a wider consensus could be reached.   The 
"no-action" motion failed by a vote of 29 in favor, 64 
opposed and 50 abstentions. 
 
4. (U) After the "no-action" motion was defeated, the Russian 
Permrep launched into a diatribe against what he 
characterized as the "same countries that were responsible 
for the closure of UNOMIG" (i.e., U.S. and European Security 
Council members).  He said these countries had politicized a 
humanitarian issue, had called into question the Geneva 
process, and had prevented Abkhaz and South Ossetian 
representatives from traveling to New York to present their 
views.  At the same time, Churkin withdrew all 18 amendments, 
and the resolution was adopted after a vote of 47 in favor, 
19 opposed and 80 abstentions. 
 
5. (SBU) COMMENT. The key to Georgia's victory was solid 
European support, which Russia was unable to overcome.  All 
26 EU members except Cyprus voted in favor of the resolution 
and against the "no-action" motion.  The overwhelming EU 
support brought with it most non-EU Europeans.  (Note: 
Armenia and Belarus voted against the resolution. Serbia and 
Turkey abstained on the resolution, but Turkey voted against 
"no-action, while Serbia voted for "no-action".)  Countries 
like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Japan, all of whom 
had abstained when a similar resolution was adopted during 
the previous GA, told us the EU "consensus" had been a factor 
in their decision to vote for the resolution this year. 
Opposition to the resolution came from countries such as 
Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, DPRK, Iran, Burma, 
Nicaragua, Venezuela, Syria, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, among 
others, suggesting that their votes were based more on an 
anti-U.S. stance, rather than any disagreement with the 
principles of the return of Georgia's IDPs. India also voted 
against the resolution, as it had done the previous year. 
END COMMENT. 
RICE