Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09STATE54049
2009-05-27 14:42:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Secretary of State
Cable title:
OSCE PERMANENT COUNCIL: RESPONSE TO THE
how-toVZCZCXRO3954 PP RUEHAST RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSR DE RUEHC #4049 1471454 ZNR UUUUU ZZH P R 271442Z MAY 09 FM SECSTATE WASHDC TO RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 0865 INFO ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS STATE 054049
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL OSCE GG PGOV
SUBJECT: OSCE PERMANENT COUNCIL: RESPONSE TO THE
SECRETARY GENERAL,S 2010 PROGRAM OUTLINE PRESENTATION
(U) Post is authorized to present the following statement at
the Permanent Council in Vienna on May 28.
Begin text:
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The United States warmly welcomes the release of the 2010
Program Outline, and wishes to thank all of the Fund Managers
and their staffs for the hard work invested in this important
document. The Program Outline exercise is important, as it
provides the fund managers with a roadmap of where we, the
participating States, want this organization to go, and how
we believe it should get there. As the Secretary General has
correctly pointed out, the participating States need to
provide the guidance to the organization. We need to know
ourselves what we want, or we cannot hope to achieve it.
Madam Chairwoman: Last year, the United States questioned
the advisability of removing from the Program Outline all
financial information except indicative overall totals per
fund. We are, therefore, disappointed to find that this
year, even the indicative totals are gone. The Program
Outline is not a budget document, but it has clear budgetary
implications. The removal of all budgetary information from
this document makes it difficult to determine what programs
are -- or are not -- worth pursuing, as we do not know
anything about the cost implications of those programs.
Participating States need to know the cost implications of
programs to help guide this important decision making
process.
This year, even more so than last year, we must identify the
priorities of this organization, and focus our energies and
resources on those activities. The trick, of course, is
reaching consensus on what the highest priority activities
are. In previous years, the review of the Program Outline
has failed to achieve this goal. We must adopt a reasonable
practice that will help us all better identify our highest
priority programs. We expect Fund Managers to undertake a
similar exercise before presenting their budgets to
participating States; we should do no less as an organization.
A month ago, the United States called on each participating
State to examine the Program Outline and identify the thirty
substantive programs that it considers to be top priorities
for the organization. We repeat that call now. Only by
identifying specifically what our top priorities are can we
determine which activities are not considered top priorities
by any of us. That would then lead us to the crucial
question: if a program is not a top priority for any of us,
why is our organization pursuing it?
We look forward to the coming debate.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
CLINTON
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL OSCE GG PGOV
SUBJECT: OSCE PERMANENT COUNCIL: RESPONSE TO THE
SECRETARY GENERAL,S 2010 PROGRAM OUTLINE PRESENTATION
(U) Post is authorized to present the following statement at
the Permanent Council in Vienna on May 28.
Begin text:
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
The United States warmly welcomes the release of the 2010
Program Outline, and wishes to thank all of the Fund Managers
and their staffs for the hard work invested in this important
document. The Program Outline exercise is important, as it
provides the fund managers with a roadmap of where we, the
participating States, want this organization to go, and how
we believe it should get there. As the Secretary General has
correctly pointed out, the participating States need to
provide the guidance to the organization. We need to know
ourselves what we want, or we cannot hope to achieve it.
Madam Chairwoman: Last year, the United States questioned
the advisability of removing from the Program Outline all
financial information except indicative overall totals per
fund. We are, therefore, disappointed to find that this
year, even the indicative totals are gone. The Program
Outline is not a budget document, but it has clear budgetary
implications. The removal of all budgetary information from
this document makes it difficult to determine what programs
are -- or are not -- worth pursuing, as we do not know
anything about the cost implications of those programs.
Participating States need to know the cost implications of
programs to help guide this important decision making
process.
This year, even more so than last year, we must identify the
priorities of this organization, and focus our energies and
resources on those activities. The trick, of course, is
reaching consensus on what the highest priority activities
are. In previous years, the review of the Program Outline
has failed to achieve this goal. We must adopt a reasonable
practice that will help us all better identify our highest
priority programs. We expect Fund Managers to undertake a
similar exercise before presenting their budgets to
participating States; we should do no less as an organization.
A month ago, the United States called on each participating
State to examine the Program Outline and identify the thirty
substantive programs that it considers to be top priorities
for the organization. We repeat that call now. Only by
identifying specifically what our top priorities are can we
determine which activities are not considered top priorities
by any of us. That would then lead us to the crucial
question: if a program is not a top priority for any of us,
why is our organization pursuing it?
We look forward to the coming debate.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
CLINTON