IAEA BUDGET: FRAGILE CONSENSUS BUILDING AROUND

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000362 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR D(S),P, T, IO, ISN DOE FOR NA-20, NA-21, NA-24, NA-25 NSC FOR SCHEINMAN, CONNERY, HOLGATE NRC FOR DOANE, SCHWARTZMAN E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AORC PREL KNNP IAEA UN SUBJECT: IAEA BUDGET: FRAGILE CONSENSUS BUILDING AROUND MODEST INCREASE REF: A. UNVIE 339 ¶B. UNVIE 328 ¶C. UNVIE 321 ¶1. (U) This is an action request for IO; please see para 7. ¶2. (SBU) Summary: After five months of budget negotiations, IAEA Member States appear to be moving toward a consensus to increase the IAEA's Regular Budget by 5.4 percent from 2009 to 2010, a level that satisfies minimal U.S. objectives. Bucking isolated protests from Germany (the lead budget hawk) and Pakistan (a champion of technical cooperation),negotiations leader Romania described this latest proposal as "minimally satisfying to all" and announced his intention to hold a special meeting of the Board of Governors August 3 to approve the proposal. While an uneasy air of resistance remains among Member States, it is unlikely any one Member will stand in the way of the gathering consensus; Germany and France may however reinforce one another in holding out. Mission requests Washington begin drafting a statement for presentation at the Special Board for the contingency of success, and welcomes further engagement with Berlin and Paris to ensure that success. End Summary. ¶3. (SBU) Romanian Ambassador and Board of Governors Vice Chair Cornel Feruta convened just over two dozen G-77 and OECD Member States July 29 to release yet another iteration of the IAEA 2010-2011 budget proposal, known as the "Vice Chair's Proposal - Version Three." The V3 is characterized by an overall increase of 5.4 percent (2.7 real growth plus 2.7 price adjustment). Satisfying minimal U.S. objectives, the proposal allocates 3.1 million Euros to "regularize" Nuclear Security. It relies on savings and U.S. and Japanese extra-budgetary funding to whittle down the Regular Budget line item for the Major Capital Investment Fund to only 0.1 million. In a nod to the G-77, the Technical Cooperation Fund (TCF) would be subject to a USD-Euros 50-50 split assessment starting in 2011, and increases to the 2012 TCF levels would be "considered." Incorporating language provided by the U.S., the Board would convene a working group "to consider priorities and resource requirements related to the 2011 budget level and the 2012-2013 biennium"; Charge had proposed, in a meeting July 28 with major contributor states only, the convening of a systematic assessment of Agency needs as a step toward preparing numbers for 2011, the second year of the biennium. This aspect of Feruta's draft budget resolution for Board adoption (accompanying the V3 numbers) won strong endorsement from budget hawks France, Switzerland, and Canada, and drew no criticism. The G-77 may still seek to include explicit reference to discussing TC funding in the mandate of the strategic needs assessment. ¶4. (SBU) Confronted with Feruta's proposal to meet again July 30, France, Switzerland and Argentina begged for more time to share the proposal with capitals, France pointing out that there were complex decisions to be made between ministries (Foreign Affairs and Finance). The Swiss Ambassador in particular emphasized that departing from "zero real growth" would not be without precedential impact and was therefore a major step requiring time to digest. Ambassador Feruta deftly rejected calls for much more time as equivalent to failure, relented on convening again until July 31, but went ahead with his stated intent to hold a Special Board on Monday, August 3. France and Germany both stated that 5.4 was too high, but French Ambassador Mangin used more conciliatory language that referred to "flexibility" while Germany opined that even a 2.7 percent price adjustment was "generous." French Ambassador and German Charge each undertook, nevertheless, to advocate to capital to join consensus. The UK, another budget hawk, was the most conciliatory about respecting the fact that "some Member States" had come down very far in their aspirations (a reference to the U.S.) and that London must approach these final negotiations with some give-and-take. ¶5. (SBU) Among the G-77, only Pakistan spoke on substance, while fellow heavyweights Egypt (ambassador was present), Brazil, India, South Africa and China remained silent throughout. Pakistan complained that the budget proposal did not contain a linkage or method of automaticity to increase the TCF along the same lines as the Regular Budget. The complaint was quickly rebutted by a number of OECD representatives, while other G-77 heavy hitters remained mum. That Brazil, Egypt and South Africa (all active participants in budget parrying thus far) refrained from contributing to the discussion in any way suggests the G-77 may go along with the "V3" proposal as it stands, (and a side conversation between Romanian Ambassador Feruta, the Pakistani representative, and A/DCM after the meeting added to our sense that the Group will join consensus). In the large group meeting, Charge reiterated the U.S. desire for sufficient financing for the IAEA and offered to support the modest increase in V3 "reluctantly and with a sense of disappointment." Comment and Next Steps -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The tone of today's group meeting was palpably unenthusiastic, but Board Vice Chair Feruta made important progress toward bringing the budget negotiations to a close. Many of those present welcomed Feruta's insistence that Member States move to close the deal now rather than let it drag on and disrupt September proceedings (most notably, the annual General Conference and appointment of the new IAEA Director General). Given the financial crisis and hard-line position of the European budget hawks, the ability to secure even a modest real increase is a significant U.S. achievement. As Ambassador Feruta described it, the V3 is not perfect, but is at least "minimally satisfying" to most Member States. For the United States this budget is minimally sufficient to meet our objectives. With its adoption we would: - establish that the IAEA's mission is sufficiently important that the Agency cannot be bound by zero real growth policies we apply at other International Organizations; - build a regular budget foundation under the Nuclear Security program and establish the principle that nuclear security is a core function of the IAEA; and, - thanks largely to American and Japanese funding, set a course to deal with the IAEA's overhang of capital expenses while ensuring the continued readiness of the Safeguards Analytical Laboratory, even though out-year funding remains to be identified. ¶7. (SBU) Timeline and Action Request: Feruta has convened a broader budget meeting open to all Member States on Friday, July 31, and will follow with a Special Board Meeting to approve the budget on Monday, August 3. Mission encourages Washington preparation of a brief statement for the Special Board that highlights: U.S. political commitment to the IAEA, willingness to support this commitment with financial resources (i.e., through extra budgetary and regular budgetary support),and our expectations for the strategic review. UNVIE POC Usha Pitts (pittsue@state.gov) conveyed the full V3 budget proposal via email to Washington inter-agency colleagues. PYATT