EU INITIATIVE TO ENLIST US SUPPORT REGARDING

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000518 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/18/2025 TAGS: PREL AMGT AORC UN SUBJECT: EU INITIATIVE TO ENLIST US SUPPORT REGARDING CHANGES TO REGULAR AND PEACEKEEPING SCALES OF ASSESSMENT Classified By: Ambassador Alejandro D.Wolff For Reasons 1.4 b ¶1. (U) As a follow up to the scale of assessment discussion that occurred in Geneva in April 2009 among the Directors of the International Organization Bureaus from the capitals of the G7 Members (US, Japan, UK, France, Germany, Italy and Canada),the Japanese Mission hosted a meeting on May 14, 2009 of Fifth Committee delegates of the five principal contributors to the UN, the B-5 (US, Japan, UK, France and Germany). The following participated in the that meeting: Wasim Mir and Rebecca Page for the UK, Gregory Cazelet for France, Ken Mukai and Masatoshi Sugiura for Japan, Joerg Stosberg for Germany, and Bruce Rashkow and Eileen Merritt for the US Mission. ¶2. (U) At this meeting, there was an initial focus on those aspects of the Canadian report on the Geneva meeting reflecting agreement on three important principles: 1) change in the scale methodology to produce a fairer scale, 2) the need for unity amongst the group to achieve shared objectives; and 3) focus should be on LPCIA. In this respect, Rashkow stressed that while the Canadian report identified three important principles, the USG understood that another aspect of these discussions regarding the need to respect each others redlines was either included in the principle addressing unity or should itself be a fourth principle. ¶3. (U) Rashkow, however, also drew the attention of the participants to those aspects of the Canadian report that reflected either divergence of opinion or the need for further consultations. In this respect, Rashkow stated that the report noted: 1) that there was not yet agreement on how we should approach the peacekeeping scale nor on its relation to the regular scale; 2) the report suggested that the G7 should work towards developing a common position in regard to redlines; and 3) the report referred to an agreement to conduct outreach, but noted that there was some divergence as to how and when this outreach should be conducted. The report suggested that the group mandate its experts to further discuss the issue of outreach and develop a coordinated plan for outreach. Indeed, the report recognized that it would be necessary for the Group's experts more generally to develop a common strategy to share analysis and information. ¶4. (U) In regard to developing a common position on redlines Rashkow referred to the indication from the EU participants in the G7 Geneva discussion that EU concurrence was necessary to the initiative, and the possibility that the EU might not agree to the redlines discussed, particularly the USG's redline on the ceiling. In response, Mir responded "part of allaying the U.S. concern about the EU position on the ceiling depends on the U.S. actively engaging with the EU to change the scale". In this respect, Mir requested clarification or confirmation from the US that it would join the common initiative focusing on LPCIA and, presumably, whatever might be agreed on the peacekeeping scale, in conjunction with seeking EU assurances on the USG redline regarding the ceiling. ¶5. (U) In response to the concern expressed by Rashkow that during the March resumed session the EU had requested information and analysis on 10 scales models, including one that would lift the ceiling, Mir indicated that the EU recently sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on Contributions that takes a different approach. By that letter, the EU requested that the Committee on Contributions consider and provide its analysis on four different elements of the methodology of the scales of assessments: 1) debt-burden adjustment based solely on external public debt; 2) low per capita income adjustment with a threshold per capita income limit with stepped gradient; 3)low per capita income adjustment of 80 per cent; 4)low per capita income adjustment of 80 per cent, fixing the threshold per capita income limit in real terms, with a reference level set as the average per capita gross national income. This letter was provided separately to IO/MPR. Mir suggested that the letter, by not mentioning the other 7 models for which the EU requested information and analysis at the March session in effect withdrew those other models, although the letter doesn't mention the other models. He stated the EU will make a presentation on the models at the upcoming June 2009 meeting of the COC. ¶6. (U) The UK and French participants expressed concern about the possibility that changes in the regular budget scale will significantly impact the P5's obligations in regard to the peacekeeping scale and asserted that both scales might need to be considered a part of a package. The German and Japanese participants were unclear about the linkage or how to address the linkage. The German participant indicated he had not given thought to the peacekeeping scale as their personal obligation tended to remain the same, and that he would need to consult with his capital about linking the two scales in a fixed package. The French participant indicated a different methodology for the peacekeeping scale is needed because there are so many anomalies. He also indicated some components of the peacekeeping scale are temporary and were to expire after nine years. He mentioned one proposal could be to remove category C from the peacekeeping scale as there is little or no justification for some of the member states in that category, e.g. Qatar, in receiving the discount given their gross national income. ¶7. (U) At the conclusion of the meeting, there was agreement among the participants to meet again after consulting with their principals regarding: 1) what the target would be in changing LPCIA; 2) what the group wanted to achieve on the peacekeeping scale; 3) how the West might motivate the G77 to change their position on scale and move in the direction of the G7 approach; and 4)how to work with the COC to lay a groundwork for achieving shared objective at the Fall session. It was also agreed to expand the meeting at the Expert level to include Canada and Italy reflecting the initial meeting in Geneva. ¶8. (U) All present agreed that serious consideration had to be given to the timeframe in which a strategy will be devised because the Fifth Committee would be heavily involved in peacekeeping negotiations through the end of May and early June. It was noted that most member state participants are on holiday the month of August. The participants recognized the desirability of reaching agreement on both objectives and strategy by a June or July. In the interim, there was preliminary agreement to a follow up meeting for May 22, ¶2009. Wolff