Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07PARIS1116
2007-03-22 13:31:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Paris
Cable title:  

OECD: MARCH 20 COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF ENLARGEMENT AND

Tags:  ECON EFIN ETRD OECD 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHFR #1116/01 0811331
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 221331Z MAR 07
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5839
INFO RUEHSS/OECD POSTS COLLECTIVE
RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK 0337
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO 0962
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 1451
RUEHBR/AMEMBASSY BRASILIA 1824
RUEHJA/AMEMBASSY JAKARTA 0624
RUEHKL/AMEMBASSY KUALA LUMPUR 0260
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 5784
RUEHSA/AMEMBASSY PRETORIA 1278
RUEHSG/AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO 0458
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 0619
UNCLAS PARIS 001116 

SIPDIS

FROM USOECD PARIS

SENSITIVE - NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION
SIPDIS

STATE FOR E, EB, EUR/ERA AND IO/S, NSC FOR MCCORMICK

E.O. 12958:N/A
TAGS: ECON EFIN ETRD OECD
SUBJECT: OECD: MARCH 20 COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF ENLARGEMENT AND
ENHANCED ENGAGEMENT

REF: PARIS 956 (NOTAL)

UNCLAS PARIS 001116

SIPDIS

FROM USOECD PARIS

SENSITIVE - NOT FOR INTERNET DISTRIBUTION
SIPDIS

STATE FOR E, EB, EUR/ERA AND IO/S, NSC FOR MCCORMICK

E.O. 12958:N/A
TAGS: ECON EFIN ETRD OECD
SUBJECT: OECD: MARCH 20 COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF ENLARGEMENT AND
ENHANCED ENGAGEMENT

REF: PARIS 956 (NOTAL)


1. (SBU) Summary: The March 20 Council discussion of enlargement
and enhanced engagement broke no new ground, with OECD Members
holding to longstanding positions. Secretary General (SG) Gurria
focused on the latest version of his informal paper, which continues
to advocate opening discussions with five countries (Chile, Estonia,
Israel, Russia and Slovenia) with a view to membership, undertaking
priority consultations with Brazil, China, India and South Africa on
furthering their relationships with the OECD and determining whether
to move toward enhanced engagment or possible membership,
undertaking consultations with Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia,
Malaysia, Morocco, Singapore and Thailand to determine the scope and
modalities of a future relationship, and giving a nod to all
non-OECD EU member states who are in principle ready for membership
given their accession process to the EU. Views differed on the
status of Russia, the eligibility of all EU members, and the naming
of countries in a Ministerial decision document. PermReps also
reviewed accession procedures, including whether or not to front
load conditions for membership and the respective roles of the
Secretary General and the Council. On financing, divisions remain

SIPDIS
between those states that advocate each Member covering its
recurring costs of membership and those who favor capacity to pay in
determining level of contributions. The Chair of the Special Group
on Financing tabled a proposal that tries to balance these two
positions and could become the basis for compromise. More work is
required, however, and while there is a consensus that some form of
base fee should be imposed, the amount of that base fee as well as
the timing of its implementation still need to be agreed. End
Summary.

EU Wants to Lock in EU-8
--------------


2. (SBU) German Ambassador Hoffman (also speaking as EU President)
was the first to react to the latest draft paper by the SG. He said
that the EU and the Commission were prepared to accept a staged
accession (based on sequencing) for the EU-8 candidates, each of

which desired a signal that their membership aspirations would be
met at some point. Hoffman also argued (implying, though not naming
Cyprus) that all EU-8 countries should be allowed to join OECD
committees as observers in order to demonstrate their interest.
Elaborating on a point made recently by the Latvian FM with respect
to Russia (Reftel),Hoffman suggested that the OECD needed to ensure
that new Members could not blackball other candidates. He concluded
that he was not as concerned about the philosphical basis of
enlargement, but rather the operative elements needed to move the
process forward; "it is time for political compromise."


3. (SBU) Representatives from the EC and other EU states followed
with interventions designed to reinforce the points made by the
German Ambassador. The key themes were: all of the EU-8 candidates
were eligible for membership, it was not acceptable to name only two
(Estonia and Slovenia); other candidates should not be "blackballed"
by new members; and a strong signal should be given that the door to
the OECD should not be closed to anyone. The SG responded that he
had recently been in Brussels where he had had a long conversation
with EC President Barroso. The SG said he had disabused Barroso of
the idea of automaticity of joining the OECD for EU members; there
were other (Noboru) criteria beyond like-mindedness. He thought
President Barroso had responded pragmatically, and as a result of
this conversation there seemed to be a better understanding in
Brussels of the enlargement process in Paris.


4. (SBU) Discussion on the EU-8 continued with EU members arguing
for keeping paragraph 9 as part of the SG's paper. (Current text
for para 9: The accession process to the European Union implies
that Non-OECD Member States of the EU would in principle be eligible
to join the Organization, but would be considered individually based
on their merits and the interest of the Organization. Given their
track-record of long-standing successful economic and structural
reforms, as well as their active involvment in OECD work, accession
discussions could start with Estonia and Slovenia. End text.)
Turkey and Canada said that they could not/not support para 9 as
written, with Australia, New Zealand, Korea and Japan expressing
concerns about the "eligibility" language and the lack of mention of

the Noboru criteria. The SG commented that the language in para 9
would need to be worked. Ambassador Morella suggested deleting all
names and empowering the SG to meet with EC and EU officials to work
out the relationship between the OECD, the EU and candidate
countries.

Front Loading of Conditions for Accession
--------------


5. (SBU) EU member state reps also took up para 15 (text: "New
Members would be expected to support the present enlargement agenda
as part of their undertakings upon accession"). Suggestions that
commitments on the part of a new member not to block the accession
of a future candidate led Australian Ambassador Ingram to point out
that international law does not permit binding sovereign nations
from taking future decisions. This in turn resulted in a long
discussion on "front loading" conditions for membership, including
for example the need to join the WTO or resign from the G-77
(requirements stressed by Switzerland),and the respective roles of
the Secretary General and the Council during the negotiating
process. Danish Ambassador Smidt asked whether conditions should be
set prior to or after beginning discussions with candidate
countries. He offered that the Council needed to discuss conditions
earlier than later and suggested an informal meeting to review the
roles of the SG and the Council. The SG responded that in all
instances, the Council/Council was supreme. Legal Department
Director Bonucci noted that proposed procedures for accession
(Document C(2007)31) call for an initial discussion between the SG
and candidates regarding their interest in joining the OECD,
drafting a road map that would be approved by Council, and then
presentation of the road map to the candidates. Bonucci advised
that it would be better to present front loaded conditions in a
document separate from the roadmap. Agreeing that the Council
should have a greater role in the negotiating process, Italian
Ambassador Cabras argued that the SG should be given an initial
mandate, with a second set of instructions resulting from
discussions with Council following preliminary consultations with
the candidates.

Russia
--------------


6. (SBU) The discussion of front loading conditions was occasioned
by concerns about Russia's future membership, including the
possibility it would blocking future candidates (such at the Baltic
states). The French, supported by most others, continued to press
hard for including Russia in the first tranche of accession
candidates. The Finnish Ambassador argued that an enlargement
without Russia would be a very thin package. The SG responded that
Russia has a special place based on its long-standing relationship
with the OECD, and for that reason, he said, he continued to include
Russia in the paragraph on membership. The SG noted that Russian
reformers were telling him that membership would permit them to push
continued reform, and again argued that this might be the last
chance to bring Russia on board. SG Gurria said that he would
produce another draft that he hoped would meet Russia's
expectations.


7. (SBU) The SG asked Ambassador Morella pointedly whether the U.S.
continued to back enhanced engagement as the/the operative word with
respect to Russia. Ambassador Morella replied that affirmatively:
we should not at this time separate Russia from the other BRICS,
with whom the OECD should be prepared to offer strong programs of
enhanced engagement. That said, we could give a separate nod to
Russia's unique relationship.

The other BRICS
--------------


8. (SBU) Of the EU countries who spoke, it was of note that only
France (which argued that the future of the OECD depended on
enlargement with key countries such as Russia and Brazil) and the
Netherlands (instructions were to move closer to the BRICS and other
important, even if smaller, global economies) went beyond arguing
for EU-8 membership. Australia, Canada, Japan, Korea, Mexico and
New Zealand joined Ambassador Morella in calling for a focus on the

critical goal of engaging the BRICS to keep the OECD relevant. SG
Gurria supported this point, noting that the BRICS are "big and
important" and their economies are growing at a fast rate. When
some questioned Brazil's interest in joining the OECD, for example,
the SG reported on recent conversations with Brazilian authorities,
including Ministers and the Brazilian Ambassador to France. He said
that Brazil did not want to be seen as demandeur - left standing
outside for a long period of time. What was needed was a signal
from the OECD that "we want you." With this he thought Brazil would
be prepared to request membership. (COMMENT: The OECD members
remain divided between most of the Europeans who are pushing
membership for the EU-8 and Russia and the non-Europeans who take
the view that the future of the OECD rests outside of Europe. The
EU appears set to take a decision in May that will lock in eventual
membership for the EU-8 and possibly Russia, offer enhanced
engagement to other BRICS and a few North African, Asian and Latin
American countries, and keep costs of enlargement and enhanced
engagement to a minimum. END COMMENT.)

Financing Issues


9. (SBU) Danish Ambassador Smidt, Chair of the Special Group on
Financing, provided a report on the work of the Group to Council.
Smidt introduced a Chair's proposal, which he stressed was his and
did not command consensus of the Group. He made several key points
about his proposal (copies e-mailed to EUR/ERA and EEB):

(a) proposed a base fee of 2.4 million Euros (too high for some too
low for others) based on the facts that the Task Force report on
financing enlargement estimated 2.4 ME as the minimum cost of
membership (with an average cost of 3.5 ME) and that the minimum
share adjustment in the current scale of assessments is 2.4 ME;
(b) chose fifteen (15) incremental steps in which Members not
currently covering recurring costs would reach the base fee,
important for balance and getting political agreement from
capitals;
(c) tied the 15 steps to enlargement (a step for each new member)
which again would help capitals justify what, in many cases, would
be substantial increases in contributions;
(d) proposed that mitigation measures for the smallest countries be
determined prior to agreeing on a financing package - the Chair will
submit these proposed measures to the Special Group at its next
meeting; and
(e) floated the idea of abrogating the per capita abatement (PCA)
for large, new members, although abrogation could hit hard several
current members (i.e., Mexico and Turkey); the Chair said he would
come forward with a proposal to meet some of the concerns that will
be raised with abrogation.


10. (SBU) As the first to comment, the Greek Ambassador said that
he was uncomfortable with linking everything to enlargement. There
were two parts of the financing story. First, the OECD needs to
deal with current budget restraints as evinced in the last several
budget negotiations -- the Organization needed to take advantage of
this opportunity to address its financial sustainability. Second,
enlargement is really an additional issue in the entire budget
complex. Picking up on Ambassador Courakis's points, Ambassador
Morella offered that the proposal was "too low and too slow." With
the cost of individual membership at more than 2.4 ME, who would pay
the difference? On the 15 steps, Ambassador Morella suggested a
time-limited process for reaching the base fee, with 10 steps (five
biennial budget cycles). Tying increases to each new member's
accession would be "lumpy" and unpredictable in terms of budget
planning. The UK Deputy, Richard Moon, agreed with Ambassador
Morella that we "have to mind the gap" and questioned the 15 step
process. He was joined by the German and Korean Ambassadors in
pushing for more ambitious and realistic targets. Of the other G-7
and larger contributors, only the French Deputy said that France
could support the Chair's proposal. The Japanese Ambassador would
have preferred a higher base and called for fewer steps. Spain
joined in supporting a time bound process of covering costs, not
tied to enlargement, and while preferring 3.5 ME could accept the
2.4 ME base fee.


11. (SBU) Not surprisingly, most of the small- and mid-size
contributors argued that 2.4 ME was too high, not based on capacity

to pay, and was neither fair nor equitable. Finland's Ambassador,
an exception, said that Helsinki would have preferred a smaller base
fee but could accept 2.4 ME as a compromise, and agreed that 15
steps was too many. Norway and Switzerland joined Finland in
questioning the 15-step approach, with the Swiss calling for a
higher base fee. Even the Ambassador of New Zealand, one of the
smaller contributors, said that 2.4 ME could be a basis for
negotiations. She questioned, however, why the G-7 countries should
not increase their contributions. Ireland continued to push its
proposal of much smaller increases tied to enlargement, arguing that
the mandate was to finance enlargement, not to redo the scale of
contributions. Portugal, Luxembourg, Austria, Hungary, Slovakia,
Poland and the Czech Republic joined in supporting the Irish,
arguing that the Chair's proposal was unfair and not politically
acceptable.


12. (SBU) Regarding the Chair's proposal to abrogate the per capita
abatement (designed to assist large, lesser developed countries),
both Mexico and Turkey argued that level of development should not
be forgotten. In the case of Mexico, which is already covering its
recurring costs, a lesser developed country would in essence be
subsidizing richer, fully developed Members such as Belgium and
Luxembourg.


13. (SBU) In response to comments, Ambassador Smidt reiterated that
he felt 15 steps were needed to convince capitals - large increases
in contributions would need political justification. He admitted
that further work on the proposal was required, especially with
respect to mitigation, where he planned to offer some suggestions.
Nonetheless, he hoped that the proposal that he had put on the table
could be the basis for further discussion, both in the Special Group
and in the Council.

Enhanced Engagement
--------------


14. (SBU) Dutch Ambassador Boer, Chair of the External Relations
Committee (ERC),gave an abbreviated report (due to the late hour)
on the ERC's work on enhanced engagement. He said that outstanding
issues include the definition/ wording of "enhanced engagement;" to
whom should enhanced engagement be directed and how would costs be
funded (the two issues are dependent to an extent on one another);
and the role for regional programs. The Chair plans to bring these
issues, to be further examined by the ERC, to Council at its next
meeting on April 11. There were no comments by Ambassadors
regarding enhanced engagement.

Accession Procedure and OECD Acquis
--------------


15. (SBU) Legal Advisor Bonucci provided each delegation with a
four-volume set of documents which lay out the OECD's acquis.
Bonucci said these were self-explanatory and then turned to the
recently drafted paper C(2007)31, "A Proposed Procedure for Future
Accessions." This document, explained Bonucci, provides a common
framework for developing specific "roadmaps" for each candidate. He
stressed that this was a practical, not a political procedure.
Danish Ambassador Smidt commented that past accessions had neglected
one important process - multilateral review. While candidates
negotiated with the Secretariat, there was no provision for Council
discussion with representatives of the candidate states. Smidt
suggested that some form of multilateral review be included in the
accession procedure and was supported by Greek Ambassador Courakis.
Bonucci assured the Council that the Secretariat had clear
negotiating mandates that would protect the members states and their
political prerogatives. Dutch Ambassador Boer proposed that an
informal session of Heads of Delegation be scheduled to address
questions of procedure (this session is now scheduled for April 5).

MORELLA