ITALY: "CAPACITY TO PAY" KEY SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L ROME 002663 SIPDIS SIPDIS FOR IO/S E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/20/2016 TAGS: KUNR AORC UNGA IT SUBJECT: ITALY: "CAPACITY TO PAY" KEY SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS PRINCIPLE REF: STATE 153946 Classified By: Political Minister Counselor David D. Pearce for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary. Poloff met with Leonardo Bencini, Acting MFA UN Office Director, and Gabriella Biondi, UN office, September 19 to discuss the upcoming UN Scale of Assessments negotiations, as per reftel. Poloff stressed that the United States would not agree to a scale that eliminated or increased the current 22 percent assessment ceiling. Bencini and Biondi noted the EU was overpaying UN dues and was considering various ways to decrease the EU's assessment/GNI gap for 2007-2009. For Italy, according to Bencini, the capacity to pay would be a guiding principle: Italy would not accept scale of assessment changes based on the concept of responsibility to pay. End Summary. ¶2. (C) Poloff expressed U.S. concerns regarding the possibility that the EU was considering an assessment methodology that would raise the current assessment ceiling. Biondi noted that this was not part of the current EU proposed strategy and provided Poloff with a September 14 draft of the strategy. Bencini said the ceiling was an open issue, as was the idea of using purchasing power parity, and the EU was considering all possibilities. He stressed that Italy wanted to avoid a political debate, preferring to keep assessment discussions technical. ¶3. (C) For Italy, the principle of capacity to pay would need to be preserved in any agreement, according to Bencini. He noted that Japan's proposal of a three to five percent floor for UNSC permanent members would introduce a responsibility to pay and that Italy opposed this. The EU would have a solidly common position on the scale of assessments issue, Bencini said, with its main objective to prevent an increase in the assessment/GNI gap for Europe. Bencini noted that the current ceiling level exacerbated the EU gap. Poloff reiterated that, while the United States looked forward to working constructively with the EU on a mutually acceptable approach, increasing or eliminating the ceiling would make consensus impossible. Bencini noted there were several possible approaches to adjusting the scale of assessments. SPOGLI