REASSESSING U.S. POSTURE AND TACTICS TOWARD THE CPC

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000490

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC UUNR UNGA
SUBJECT: REASSESSING U.S. POSTURE AND TACTICS TOWARD THE CPC



1. SUMMARY: With the start of the 48th session of the
Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC) scheduled for
June 9, USUN believes the time is appropriate to reassess our
current posture toward CPC with a view to determining what
steps, if any, we can take to make CPC a more effective
entity within the Organization. The current strategic
framework approach under which the CPC makes recommendations
concerning the programmatic priorities of the Organization
close to a year and a half before the General Assembly
considers the next biennium budget has resulted in budget
proposals that are piecemeal in nature, with significant
"add-on" costs beyond the programs reviewed and approved by
CPC. Linking the timing of CPC,s determination of program
priorities more closely to the Secretariat,s actual
presentation of the budget to the GA might offer one possible
improvement. More broadly, we need to consider whether our
current approach to CPC should be maintained or modified,
including the possible involvement of CPC in the mandate
review process, in order to achieve outcomes that advance
U.S. interests. END SUMMARY.

CPC 48th SESSION
--------------


2. The Committee on Programme and Coordination (CPC) will
hold its 48th session at UN headquarters from June 9 to July
3, 2008. As was the case during CPC,s 47th Session (June
11-July 5, 2007),USUN/MR will represent the U.S. as an
observer, allowed to present views on issues raised but not
participate in decisions taken by Committee members,
including recommendations for inclusion in the CPC final
report to be submitted to ECOSOC and the GA during the Fall
2008 Main Session of the 63rd UNGA. China has been selected
to chair this year,s session, with Bulgaria, South Africa
and Venezuela serving as vice-chairs, and Italy as rapporteur.


3. At the Committee,s upcoming 48th session, CPC members
are scheduled to review the performance and evaluation
reports of the Organization for the 2006-2007 biennium;
assess and offer recommendations on the proposed strategic
framework for 2010-2011, including the plan outline
(reflecting the longer-term objectives of the UN); consider a
report prepared by OIOS evaluating Special Political Missions
that are led by DPKO but managed by DPA; review the annual
report of the UN System Chief Executives Board (CEB) for
2007-2008 and the SYG,s report on systems support for the
New Partnership for Africa,s Development(NEPAD); and discuss
possible additional ways the Committee might improve its
working methods and procedures within the framework of its
mandate. For the first time, the Committee also has
scheduled a senior-level meeting of members, recommended at
ambassadorial level, to consider ways CPC can enhance its
dialogue on coordination issues with the Joint Inspection
Unit and CEB Secretariat.

FLAWS IN THE STRATEGIC
FRAMEWORK APPROACH AND
CPC,S ROLE IN THAT PROCESS
--------------


4. During this year,s CPC session, Committee members will
review and comment on the programmatic aspects of the 27
different fascicles on which the 2010-2011 budget will be
based. This approach, originally called for by Member States
in Resolution 58/269 and reaffirmed in Resolution 62/224,
relies on the strategic framework as the principal policy
directive of the United Nations. However, a fundamental
weakness in this approach has been that the programmatic
priorities decided by CPC members will not be acted upon by
the General Assembly until some 18 months after the CPC
session. The CPC will not, therefore, consider in the
context of its strategic framework review at the upcoming
session new developments that may necessitate between now and
the Fall of 2009 the creation of additional programs or the
modification of existing activities. Instead, these new
expenses will appear as "add-ons" to the next budget, as
happened with the biennium budget introduced by the
Secretariat for 2008-2009. We strongly objected during the
Fall 2007 UNGA session to this "piecemeal" approach to the
budget, which effectively masked the true size of the
biennium budget presented to the GA.

MORE CLOSELY LINKING CPC,S
ROLE AND GA ACTION ON THE
BUDGET
--------------


5. One possible solution to this problem might be for CPC to
postpone its final recommendations on the programmatic
priorities of the Organization until the Spring of 2009,
thereby more realistically taking into account developments
between now and then that may involve additional expenditures
in order to meet the needs of the Organization. In this

manner, there is a greater opportunity for incorporating
items which otherwise would appear as "add-ons" to the budget
in the Secretariat,s original core budget proposal for the
upcoming biennium. Member States thus would receive a more
accurate and comprehensive figure that better reflected
anticipated costs without the need for subsequent "add-ons."
CPC would be better placed at its 49th session in 2009 to
assess the full range of the Organization,s budgetary needs
only 4-6 months prior to GA consideration of the next
biennium budget.

CPC: VALUE ADDED OR
IRRELEVANT BODY?
--------------


6. Apart from the flaws inherent in CPC,s determination of
programmatic priorities some 18 months prior to GA review and
action on the next biennium budget, there is the larger
question of whether the Committee for Programme and
Coordination still performs a relevant or useful function,
and what, if any, relationship the U.S. should maintain with
the CPC. USUN fully supported and encouraged the
Department,s decision in the Fall of 2006 not to seek U.S.
re-election to the CPC when our term expired in late December
of that year. Our decision to withdraw from CPC was
particularly appropriate given CPC,s ongoing failure to
fulfill its mandated responsibilities and the persistent
resistance of other members to reform the Committee,s
inefficient working methods, reforms we strongly and
repeatedly recommended.


7. The UK,s decision, in late 2005, to withdraw from the
Committee, and Japan,s unwillingness in November 2007 to run
for another term, has left the Committee without three of the
top contributors to the UN budget (accounting for 45 per cent
of the total budget). The CPC, therefore, will now be
deciding the program priorities of the Organization with
input from only one (France) of the UN,s top five
contributors. Two of the seven seats allotted to the Western
European and Others Group (WEOG) - the seats the U.S. and UK
previously vacated - have not been filled. Among the
remaining WEOG members on the Committee (France, Italy,
Portugal, Switzerland, Israel),at least one - Portugal - has
privately indicated to USUN that it will not seek re-election
for another term when its current membership expires in late
December.

STRONG SUPPORT FOR
CPC FROM G-77
--------------


8. Despite the criticism of the CPC by the U.S. and other
like-minded Western states, members of the Group of 77 and
China (G-77) consider CPC,s role in defining the priorities
of the Organization and in shaping the biennium budget to
remain essential. When Price-Waterhouse-Coopers questioned
CPC,s contribution to the legislative process in its August
2006 external experts, comprehensive report on UN governance
and oversight, a report requested by world leaders at the
September 2005 Summit, G-77 members spoke out quickly and
passionately in defense of CPC,s continued importance as the
one intergovernmental body responsible for overseeing and
coordinating implementation of the mandates authorized by
ECOSOC and the GA. Suggestions at that time that CPC,s role
be modified or curtailed were met with staunch G-77
opposition.


9. We therefore are left with a body that has failed to
fulfill its originally mandated tasks, including: "to
examine, in light of the budgetary implications, the totality
of the Secretary-General,s work programme" (ECOSOC
Resolution 2008/LX - May 1976) and "to determine which
programmes, subprogrammes or programme elements are obsolete,
of marginal usefulness or ineffective and to recommend, as
appropriate, their curtailment or termination" (GA Resolution
31/93). As the Department is well aware, USUN,s efforts in
the past several years, in coordination with the UK, Japan
and others, to try to reform and revitalize the CPC to
perform its originally intended functions have produced few
improvements, given the G-77,s reluctance to change a body
and a process that they believe gives them control over the
legislative and budgetary agenda of the Organization.

SEEKING DEPARTMENT
VIEWS ON NEXT STEPS
--------------


10. Whether or not the U.S. supports CPC,s current role and
value to the Organization, CPC members will nonetheless be
taking key decisions in the coming weeks that will serve to
shape the direction and size of the next biennium budget. In
this regard, USUN, with Department concurrence, recommends
that we seek to encourage the CPC to postpone final decisions

on programmatic priorities for the Organization until the
Spring of 2009 rather than now, closer to the time when the
GA will act on the next proposed biennium budget. CPC
members could review and modify, if necessary, any initial
recommendations they may make at the upcoming 48th session so
that the Secretariat can finalize a more accurate,
comprehensive biennium budget proposal for 2010-2011 for
presentation to the GA in September 2009.


11. More broadly, we should decide whether our current
posture toward CPC is producing decisions and outcomes that
further U.S. interests. USUN notes that the coordination
function originally envisioned for CPC, including the
elimination of overlapping, duplicative and no longer
relevant mandates, would be helpful to our larger efforts to
achieve greater efficiencies in UN operations. Whether we
continue to press CPC to fulfill these functions, or consider
the possible establishment of a new body to achieve these
objectives, remains a subject that merits further joint
consideration and discussion.


12. USUN proposes that in our role as observer at the
upcoming CPC session, we underscore CPC,s original emphasis
on coordination goals. This would include making or
supporting a proposal to incorporate the work now underway on
mandate review, however limited, into the work of the CPC.
Khalilzad