UNGA/C-5: REGULAR BUDGET/PKO SCALES: E.U.

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001071 C O R R E C T E D C O P Y (CH WORD IN SUB,GRAMMAR IN PARA 1,3,5) SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: AORC KUNR PREL UNGA SUBJECT: UNGA/C-5: REGULAR BUDGET/PKO SCALES: E.U. CONTINUES TO TARGET THE BRIC, G-77 ATTACKS THE CEILING, U.S. PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE CATEGORY C REF: UNUN 917 ¶1. (U) SUMMARY: The Fifth Committee held informal meetings on November 20th on the Scales of Assessment for the Regular Budget and for Peace Keeping Operations. In the Regular - Budget scales debate, the G-77 proposed increasing the cap on assessments from 22 percent to 25 percent, while the European Union's Low Per Capita Income (LPICA) proposal would increase the assessments for those countries with more than one percent of global GNI (namely the BRIC - Brazil, Russia, India, and China),and distribute the resulting savings among the developed countries with LPCIA (the majority of G-77 states). The G-77 referred to the LPCIA as a soft-target, referring at one point to the E.U. proposal to redistribute savings as bribery. They asserted that the "principal distortion" of the 22 percent ceiling is the real matter to be addressed. The G77 gave a stern caution to those delegations that were lobbying G-77 members' efforts in New York and in capitals. On the peace-keeping scales, the U.S. proposed to eliminate Category C on the grounds that it had no sound methodological basis and had outlived its purpose. The G-77 did not directly answer questions from the U.S. seeking a definition of what defines a "developing" country. END SUMMARY. REGULAR BUDGET SCALES OF ASSESSMENT -------------- ¶2. (U) G-77 ACCUSES DELEGATIONS OF IMPERIALISM AND BRIBERY: Singapore, speaking on behalf of the G-77 and China, warned delegations against their efforts to lobby G-77 members towards changing regular budget scales assessment levels. It expressed a "firm word of caution" against any bi-lateral efforts in New York and capitals, calling such actions attempts to "divide and conquer" and part of the "400 year history of imperialism." Singapore also accused members - without noting specific countries - of trying to bribe nations, and insisted that all negotiations on scales must take place in the 5th committee. Sweden, speaking on behalf of the E.U., rejected the G-77 criticism, and noted that they intend to keep the scales issue on the agenda and would continue pursuing the matter as part of its relationship with interlocutors. ¶3. (U) G-77 - NO STATUS QUO? NO PROBLEM: RAISE THE CEILING TO 25 PERCENT: Singapore introduced the G-77 proposal, which most notably calls for raising the ceiling from 22 percent to 25 percent. In defending its proposal, Singapore reminded delegates that "we were ready a month" ago to sign an agreement on the basis of the status quo. Singapore, in pressing for the increase in the ceiling asserted that the original 22 percent cap was brokered on the understanding that the "largest contributor" would maintain its UN payments, and it has failed to do so. It noted that the "methodology has worked well for the last nine years, except for the issue of the ceiling, because the largest contributor will not pay its arrears." ¶4. (U) E.U. DEFENDS PROPOSAL TO INCREASE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BRIC AND PROVIDE REDUCTIONS FOR THE MAJORITY OF DEVELOPING AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES: The E.U. introduced its LPCIA proposal, which calls for an income adjustment of 80 percent for countries with Gross National Income (GNI) share less than one percent of Global GNI, 60 percent for countries with GNI share more than one percent of global GNI and 85 percent for least developed countries. The proposal requires the BRIC to make contributions more in-line with their capacity to pay, while more than half of the acquired savings will be used to reduce the assessments of most developing countries and the rest easing the burden on developed nations. Russia (which according to the E.U.'s calculations would see a 4.6 percent increase in its payment),asked how the E.U. had chosen the one percent of global GNI as a threshold and questioned "why not 1.5 percent, or two percent?" Singapore called the one percent threshold "arbitrary" and said that the LPCIA had become a "soft target" since the ceiling can not be touched. The E.U. noted that it thinks developing countries with sizeable economies have a greater capacity to pay, but Russia insisted that references to the size of an economy must be based on clear methodology. Singapore requested that the Secretariat produce their own calculations on the E.U. model and Singapore requested that it calculate the E.U.'s plan including the G-77's 25 percent ceiling proposal. Sweden made it clear that any plan incorporating a ceiling increase can no longer be considered an E.U. plan. ¶5. (U) OTHER PROPOSALS: The cornerstone of the Mexican plan is the establishment of a neutral zone of +/- 10 percent around the LPCIA threshold in which countries neither get discounts nor pay premiums. Mexico's plan argues in favor of keeping the 22 percent cap. The CANZ proposal is similar to that of the E.U., using 1 percent of GNI as a threshold for reduction levels. Tajikistan's proposal urges greater use of multi-year payment plans, and requests a limit to how much countries just coming out of a multi-year payment plan can be assessed. The Russian + CIS proposal centers on the greater application of price-adjusted, rather than market, exchange rates and requests the Committee on Contributions to stop considering purchasing price parity (PPP) in its deliberations. SCALES OF ASSESSMENT: PEACEKEEPING -------------- ¶6. (U) U.S. PUSHES TO DROP CATEGORY C: Initially, Cuba echoed the earlier comments of Singapore, cautioning delegations against pressuring G-77 interlocutors on either of the scales debates (See para. 2) and laid out its proposal, which maintains and expands Category C (allowing a 7.5 percent discount in assessments for "developing countries" that would otherwise be placed in Category B based on calculations). The U.S. presented its proposal, which includes an option to "remove Level C and to re-letter subsequent levels" as well as a status-quo option to "maintain the structure of levels set out in resolution 55/235 of 30 January 2001." The U.S. contended that Category C was intended to fill a limited purpose for a brief period of time and that it has now outlived its utility. Cuba claimed that the U.S. proposal to eliminate Category C is an attack on those countries in the category. ¶7. (U) U.S. - CUBA SPAR ON "DEVELOPING COUNTRY" DEFINITION: The proposal presented by the G-77 decides that "Level C shall be open for any Member State that is a developing country and which becomes eligible for movement to Level B from a lower level." The U.S. delegate questioned the definition of a developing country, noting that not all countries that might move through the lower categories would typically fit the understanding of a "developing" nation. Cuba did not define "developing", but instead insisted that the matter was addressed fully when the scales were last negotiated in 2000. Cuba claimed that Category C was created specifically to help distinguish what is and what is not a developing country. Cuba attempted to move away from the definition issue by questioning the principled position taken by the U.S., expressing that he was "struck" that "for some things political agreements work and for others they don't." RICE