Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08BRUSSELS1682
2008-10-31 11:11:00
CONFIDENTIAL
USEU Brussels
Cable title:
BURMA: EU ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON BURMA'S GLOBAL FUND
how-toVZCZCXRO0043 OO RUEHAG RUEHROV DE RUEHBS #1682 3051111 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 311111Z OCT 08 ZDK FM USEU BRUSSELS TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE INFO RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RUEHGO/AMEMBASSY RANGOON PRIORITY RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK PRIORITY RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L BRUSSELS 001682
SIPDIS
STATE FOR S/OGAC, EAP/MLS FOR EMERY, F, NSC FOR PHU
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/23/2018
TAGS: EAID KHIV PREL PHUM SOCI ETRD BM EUN
SUBJECT: BURMA: EU ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON BURMA'S GLOBAL FUND
APPLICATION
REF: A. A) STATE 115494
B. B) BRUSSELS 1650
C. C)10/23/08 BOWLES/EMERY EMAIL
D. D) STATE 105179
Classified By: EU POLMINCOUNS CHRIS DAVIS FOR REASONS 1.4 B & G
C O N F I D E N T I A L BRUSSELS 001682
SIPDIS
STATE FOR S/OGAC, EAP/MLS FOR EMERY, F, NSC FOR PHU
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/23/2018
TAGS: EAID KHIV PREL PHUM SOCI ETRD BM EUN
SUBJECT: BURMA: EU ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON BURMA'S GLOBAL FUND
APPLICATION
REF: A. A) STATE 115494
B. B) BRUSSELS 1650
C. C)10/23/08 BOWLES/EMERY EMAIL
D. D) STATE 105179
Classified By: EU POLMINCOUNS CHRIS DAVIS FOR REASONS 1.4 B & G
1. (C) Per REF A instructions, Poloff reviewed
U.S. position on the Global Fund in Burma with Andreas
List, Burma Desk Officer at DG External Relations. Drawing
upon REFTEL points, Poloff stressed the importance of
obtaining a commitment from the Burmee Government up front
in the Global Fund applcation process on key
implementation issues, rather than attempt to defer the
matter until te commencement of grant negotiations.
2. (C List reiterated the view (REF B) that laying out
specific conditions at this early stage in the process
would send a "hostile political signal" to the civilian
authorities in Rangoon. List believed that in post-cyclone
Burma, the
civilian administration was trying to differentiate itself
from the military junta in terms of its ability to secure
assistance for the Burmese people. Consequently, the
international donor community should encourage this split by
giving
civilian administrators more room for maneuver with a view.
With respect to the Global Fund specifically, List insisted
that this would mean deferring discussion of requirements
until spring 2009, after a Country Coordinating Mechanism
is decided, and during the more serious negotiations.
He also reiterated an interest in exploring the use of
Special Safeguards authorized in the Global Fund's rules for
this purpose.
3. (C) Poloff responded the USG could not support such
tactics,
noting that the Global Fund had a responsibility to the host
government and international donors to be clear up front
about the
requirements of the application process. Ignoring application
requirements would be a breach of responsibility and an
invitation to Burmese accusations later in the process that
we "moved the goalposts." Furthermore, if all stakeholders
were seriously interested in writing a new chapter in
Burma's relationship with the Global Fund, it would be
critical to address real implementation issues in an open
and practical-minded spirit. List agreed to compare notes
after the October 31 Country Coordinating Mechanism meeting
in Rangoon.
SILVERBERG
.
SIPDIS
STATE FOR S/OGAC, EAP/MLS FOR EMERY, F, NSC FOR PHU
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/23/2018
TAGS: EAID KHIV PREL PHUM SOCI ETRD BM EUN
SUBJECT: BURMA: EU ADDITIONAL VIEWS ON BURMA'S GLOBAL FUND
APPLICATION
REF: A. A) STATE 115494
B. B) BRUSSELS 1650
C. C)10/23/08 BOWLES/EMERY EMAIL
D. D) STATE 105179
Classified By: EU POLMINCOUNS CHRIS DAVIS FOR REASONS 1.4 B & G
1. (C) Per REF A instructions, Poloff reviewed
U.S. position on the Global Fund in Burma with Andreas
List, Burma Desk Officer at DG External Relations. Drawing
upon REFTEL points, Poloff stressed the importance of
obtaining a commitment from the Burmee Government up front
in the Global Fund applcation process on key
implementation issues, rather than attempt to defer the
matter until te commencement of grant negotiations.
2. (C List reiterated the view (REF B) that laying out
specific conditions at this early stage in the process
would send a "hostile political signal" to the civilian
authorities in Rangoon. List believed that in post-cyclone
Burma, the
civilian administration was trying to differentiate itself
from the military junta in terms of its ability to secure
assistance for the Burmese people. Consequently, the
international donor community should encourage this split by
giving
civilian administrators more room for maneuver with a view.
With respect to the Global Fund specifically, List insisted
that this would mean deferring discussion of requirements
until spring 2009, after a Country Coordinating Mechanism
is decided, and during the more serious negotiations.
He also reiterated an interest in exploring the use of
Special Safeguards authorized in the Global Fund's rules for
this purpose.
3. (C) Poloff responded the USG could not support such
tactics,
noting that the Global Fund had a responsibility to the host
government and international donors to be clear up front
about the
requirements of the application process. Ignoring application
requirements would be a breach of responsibility and an
invitation to Burmese accusations later in the process that
we "moved the goalposts." Furthermore, if all stakeholders
were seriously interested in writing a new chapter in
Burma's relationship with the Global Fund, it would be
critical to address real implementation issues in an open
and practical-minded spirit. List agreed to compare notes
after the October 31 Country Coordinating Mechanism meeting
in Rangoon.
SILVERBERG
.