G-7 PLUS EU MEETING ON THE UN BUDGET SCALES OF

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000746 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/03/2019 TAGS: PREL AMGT AORC UN SUBJECT: G-7 PLUS EU MEETING ON THE UN BUDGET SCALES OF ASSESSMENT REF: A. USUN 518 ¶B. USUN 562 ¶C. USUN 655 ¶D. USUN 663 Classified By: Bruce C. Rashkow, Counselor, UN Management and Reform, for Reasons 1.4.(b),and (d) ¶1. ON 30 July 2009, the UK mission hosted a meeting of the G-7 working group ON the scales of assessment, which consists of the Fifth Committee delegates of the G-7 and, for the first time, Sweden, the incumbent EU president. Attendees included Chris Plunkett for Canada, Gregory Cazalet for France, Ralf Hoerschenmeyer and Joerg Stosberg for Germany, Stefania Rosini for Italy, Masatoshi Sugiura for Japan, James Roscoe and Daragh Russell for the UK, Bruce Rashkow and Eugene Chen for the U.S., and Maria Hakansson for Sweden. This was the fifth in a series of G-7 working group consultations to FOLLOW up ON an initiative launched ON the margins of the Geneva Group meeting in April to forge a common position ON the scales of assessment (reftels). Inclusion of Sweden into G-7 Deliberations -------------- ¶2. During previous meetings of the G-7 ON the scales of assessment, EU members indicated that they could not commit to any single approach without a common EU position. At the insistence of the EU participants, an invitation was extended to Sweden, which took up the rotating EU Presidency in July. The Swedish participant made it clear that Sweden is not participating in the working group as the representative of the EU as such, but rather as an observer in order to facilitate the exchange of views. She further indicated that, in the past few weeks, Sweden chaired internal EU consultations ON the scales of assessment during which the EU agreed, in principle, with the G-7 position that changing the low per capita income adjustment (LPCIA) step of the scale calculation was the preferred means of revising the methodology of the scales of assessment. Framing the Unified Approach -------------- ¶3. Rashkow welcomed Sweden into the G-7 working group meetings and pointed out that, with every expansion of the group, it was necessary to take into consideration the individual policies and priorities of all participants in order to frame the common approach. He pointed out that the U.S. has a clear redline in the form of the 22-percent ceiling ON the regular budget and encouraged other countries to make their own redlines clear. In response, the Swedes indicated that the EU countries are prepared to respect the ceiling as long as the U.S. is prepared to put its support behind whatever proposal the EU ultimately agrees upon. ¶4. Plunkett, of Canada, recognized the divergent interests within the G-7 and EU regarding the scales of assessment and raised the fundamental question of whether the "unified Western front" approach that was used so successfully during the peacekeeping (PKO) budget negotiations in June was effective only for the PKO budget, or if it was more broadly applicable. One of the UK participants noted that, without the unified approach, the individual developed countries would be badly disadvantaged during the negotiations. Plunkett agreed that a unified approach ON both the budget and the scales of assessment would send a strong signal to the G-77 group of developing countries during the negotiations. Rashkow urged caution, pointing out that the G-77 had viewed the "unified Western front" approach with alarm during the PKO negotiations and that a unified front ON as significant an issue as scales could backfire and cause the G-77 to be even more intransigent during the negotiation process. ¶5. All participants agreed that success in the negotiations depended ON being able to divide or, more plausibly, move the G-77 in the direction of the West. Rashkow pointed out that solidarity was the raison d'etre of the G-77 and, given past G-77 statements regarding the scales of assessment, it would not be easy to split the G-77 ON this issue. He added that the G-77 was dealing with a leadership vacuum and that emerging leaders, such as Bruno Brant of Brazil and Loy Hui-chien of Singapore, had yet to fully earn the trust of the larger G-77 and that there was a risk that they would be very conservative in their positions. Rosini, of Italy, generally agreed that these factors made it unlikely that the G-77 would budge during the formal and informal deliberations. However, she noted that every member of the G-77, particularly those countries with larger economies, had priorities that could be at odds with the common G-77 position and that these countries might be persuaded through bilateral negotiations to argue within the G-77 for a more moderate G-77 approach. Looking Ahead -------------- ¶6. Participants discussed the possibility of a Director-level meeting ON the margins of the Geneva Group meeting to take place ON 29 September, along the lines of the meeting at last April's session of the Group. There was general agreement that such a meeting might be helpful to obtain higher-level involvement and finalize the common approach before the START of negotiations in October. In that context, there was a proposal for one more G-7 working group meeting in early September in order to lay the groundwork for a Director-level scales discussion ON the margins of the Geneva Group meeting. Although there was discussion of inviting Mexico and the Republic of Korea to the early September meeting, Rashkow expressed concern about reaching out beyond Sweden until agreement among the current participants ON the details of the common approach were more clearly worked out at the political level. RICE