WOLFF-OZAWA DISCUSS WEOG ROTATIONS, UN SCALE OF

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000548

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR IO/EDA AND PRM/PRP

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/16/2016
TAGS: KUNR UNGA UNCHR AORC UNDP UNICEF PREF
SUBJECT: WOLFF-OZAWA DISCUSS WEOG ROTATIONS, UN SCALE OF
ASSESSMENT AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL.

REF: USUN 400

Classified By: Ambassador Wolff for reasons 1.5 (B) (D)

1.(U) This is an action request - see paragraph 5.


2. (U) Summary: Ambassador Toshiro Ozawa of the Japanese
Mission to the United Nations called on Ambassador Wolff on
March 7 to discuss the current proposal for a WEOG rotation
plan for election to the Executive Boards of UNICEF and
UNDP/UNFPA and to present a Japanese proposal for changes in
the UN Scale of Assessment. During the discussion,
Ambassador Wolff requested Japan's opinion on the issue of
Purchasing Power Parity. The status of the Human Rights
Council was also discussed. End Summary.

3 (SBU) Ambassador Ozawa initially raised the pending issue
of a new WEOG rotation plan for representation on the
Executive Boards of UNICEF and UNDP/UNFPA. The current plan
had been in place since 1995, allowing WEOG to present clean
slates every year for elections. Under this plan, the United
States has always been represented on both Executive Boards.
However, as the final year of the current plan was 2006 and
the ECOSOC Plenary had scheduled elections for the 2007
Boards in May of this year, the WEOG Bureau Chiefs for UNICEF
(the Netherlands) and UNDP/UNFPA (Japan) appointed
Switzerland as a facilitator to create a new rotation plan
for the next fifteen years. The U.S. position is that due to
the extent of our development aid world-wide (nearly 27
billion dollars in 2004),the United States must be
represented on both Boards for the full length of any plan.
The facilitator's current proposal would limit us to 12 years
out of 15 on each Executive Board.

4.(SBU) Ambassador Ozawa offered a new proposal, which would
give the United States a seat on the Executive Board of
UNICEF for 14 years out of the 15-year plan. In addition,
Japan proposed what they called a "floating seat" for the
"large donor" group, which would be given to the donor with
the greatest increase in contributions to UNICEF, thus giving
the U.S. a potential for all 15 years. On UNDP, Japan
offered no change from the current facilitator's limit of 12
years.

5 (SBU) Ambassador Ozawa urged the U.S. to accept this
proposal. Ambassador Wolff replied that the proposal would
be sent back to Washington for guidance. Action Request:
USUN requests Department guidance on proposed WEOG rotation
plan.


6. (C) The subject then turned to the UN Scale of Assessment
and Ambassador Ozawa presented Ambassaddor Wolff with the
Japanese proposal (Note: USUN was informed that the
Department was also demarched at the same time by the
Japanese and has received a copy of the proposal.)
Ambassador Ozawa emphasized the main point of their proposal
which is the introduction of a minimum assessment rate (or
floor)of 3 or 5 percent for the permanent members of the
Security Council. After a brief discussion of what the EU
might offer,
Ambassador Wolff asked Ambassador Ozawa what he thought of
the U.S. proposal of Purchasing Power Parity (which would
shift some of financial burden away from the large donor
countries such as the United States and toward some of the
large developing economies such as China and India).
Ambassador Ozawa welcomed the introduction of the idea, but
had serious doubts about whether it would "carry the day."


7. (C) Ambassador Ozawa then brought up the Human Rights
Council and suggested that a "cooling off period" should be
shorter than the several months that Ambassador Bolton
proposed. Ambassador Wolff recounted, as has previously been
reported reftel, that there was no appetite in any quarter
for reopening the text to amendments at this time, so the
United States was not pushing this approach. There was a
brief discussion of "off-text" proposals, such as a statement
by the Community of Democracies. However, Ambassador Wolff
noted that this would not solve the substantive problem.


BOLTON