G77 OPPOSES CHANGES TO THE REGULAR BUDGET SCALES

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000917 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/15/2019 TAGS: PREL AMGT AORC UN UNGA UNGA SUBJECT: G77 OPPOSES CHANGES TO THE REGULAR BUDGET SCALES OF ASSESSMENT, BUT CALLS FOR CHANGE TO PEACEKEEPING SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS Classified By: Ambassador Alejandro D. Wolff, for reasons 1.4 (b) and ( d) ¶1. This is an action request. See para 16. ¶2. (U) SUMMARY. Beginning with the last meeting of the G7 plus EU Group (G7 Group) on scales at the margins of the Fall meeting of the Geneva Group CLM (GG),the subject of scales has begun in earnest in the 64th General Assembly (GA). At the GG meeting it was agreed to proceed cautiously at the beginning of the Fifth Committee so as not to provoke a hostile response from the G77. See (para 3 below). Formal statements on the subject of scales began in the GA on October 5 (regular) and 6 (peacekeeping). On regular budget scale, the G77 called for immediate adoption of the existing methodology, while the EU, U.S., Japan and CANZ generally spoke in favor of making the scale fairer (see paras 6 and 7). On the peacekeeping scale, the G77 called for action to ensure that every developing country be given some discount, while the West generally called for assessments based on objective criteria (see paras 11, 12, and 13). Informal meetings to discuss the scales have begun and the primary focus of the discussion has been the various elements of the methodology. Both the G77 and the EU are urging the U.S. privately to support their respective positions. END SUMMARY. -------------- -------------- HEATED DEBATE IN G-7 OVER TACTICS FOR OPENING STATEMENTS IN GA ON SCALES -------------- -------------- ¶3. (C) Director-level representatives from the G7 and Sweden met on the margins of the Geneva Group CLM (see septel) on 29 September 2009 to coordinate the message to be conveyed through the opening statements for the regular and PKO scales of assessment agenda items, scheduled for 5 and 6 October, respectively. There were different views expressed on the approach to be taken on the regular budget scale, with the UK arguing for a clear and direct opening statement advocating immediate change to the methodology especially in regard to the situation with BRIC while the U.S. and others advocated a more cautious approach. On the PKO scale, the United Kingdom stood firmly in favor of having Level C countries (namely Brunei, Kuwait, Qatar, Singapore, and the United Arab Emirates) increase their PKO contribution, eliminating or reducing the "unfair" discounts they now receive. Germany, Italy, and the U.S. led the opposition to this approach on the grounds of minimal cost-savings, protracted debate, and the likelihood of raising the ire of the G77. A similar debate arose on the issue of having BRIC countries increase contributions voluntarily. The Canadians were able to broker an uneasy consensus by which G7 members would suggest in their opening statements the need for a fairer scale of assessments and would outline the principles to be considered in achieving that end. -------------- - SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE UN REGULAR BUDGET -------------- - ¶4. (U) G77 AND CHINA, OTHERS: "APPROVE THE STATUS QUO NOW". Sudan, speaking on behalf of the G77 and China, came out strongly in favor of immediately adopting the existing methodology for the regular budget scale of assessments. Many individual G77 delegations affirmed their alignment with this position. According to Sudan, the rationale for approving status quo now was to prevent "unproductive and lengthy discussions that will not have any meaningful outcomes." The G77 Statement included the comment that the 22-percent ceiling is contrary to the principle of "capacity to pay" and imposes an unfair burden on the rest of the membership, but approving status quo now indicated a willingness to maintain the ceiling as long as the other elements of the methodology remained intact. ¶5. (U) Individual G77 countries pointed out that the assessment rates for most developing countries would increase under the status quo but added that the G77 was prepared to accept this increase because of the current methodology reflects the principle of "capacity to pay". India and China made clear that they would not support any proposal that would further increase assessment rates for developing countries. ¶6. (U) EUROPEAN UNION ATTACKS THE SCALES TAKING AIM AT THE BRIC WALL. Sweden, speaking on behalf of the European Union (EU),urged countries to reevaluate the scales of assessment without mentioning Brazil, Russia, India and China (BRIC) by name. The EU statement noted that "major emerging economics have seen substantial growth figures this decade and should take a larger share in the expenses of the Organization. Finally the EU statements expressly underlined that for the EU, "status quo is no longer a solution." ¶7. (U) CANZ, ICELAND AND MEXICO FOLLOW EU. Canada, speaking on behalf of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (CANZ),and Iceland took a similar position as the EU, stating that the current methodology no longer reflected the fundamental "capacity to pay", that large emerging economies should shoulder a larger burden of the UN budget, and that the Low Per Capita Income Adjustment (LPCIA) from which they benefit should be re-examined to ensure a fair allocation of discounts. Mexico stated that "the current methodology is technically questionable, politically unacceptable and financially unviable and added that they will not quickly agree to the status quo." Mexico, however, unlike the CANZ indicated a willingness to challenge the cap. ¶8. (U) OTHER ISSUES. Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine all suggested that price-adjusted exchange rates be used for the eleven countries -- most of whom are CIS members. They argued that the application of market exchange rates would cause "undue distortions" when converting national currencies into USD. ¶9. (U) CONSENSUS ON ARTICLE 19 EXEMPTIONS. All Member States supported providing exemptions for the six countries currently subject to Article 19 restrictions on voting in the GA because of regular budget arrears -- the Central African Republic, Comoros, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Sao Tome and Principe, and Somalia. The GA passed a resolution to that affect in plenary on 8 October. ¶10. (U) QUESTION AND ANSWER SESSIONS BEGIN. Informal meetings of the Committee to review each element of the scale methodology (i.e. for the regular budget - income measure, conversion rate, base period, debt-burden adjustment, low per capita income, floor and ceiling) began on 6 October focusing on questions to the Secretariat, relating to those elements. Throughout these sessions, the G77 stated that they are prepared to adopt the current methodology, while the EU and Mexico have countered that all agenda items before the Committee must be given ample consideration. When the issue of "distortion" was raised by New Zealand, the G77 responded that the 22 percent ceiling imposes a burden on all member states and is the largest distortion of the methodology. The U.S. responded by referring to the impact of the low per capita income element, the historical precedent for the ceiling, and the principle that the organization should not rely financially on one member state. Consistent with the commitments made in the context of the G7 plus EU, the EU remained silent on the ceiling. -------------- SCALE OF ASSESSMENTS FOR UN PEACEKEEPING -------------- ¶11. (U) EU CALLS FOR FAIRNESS. Sweden, on behalf of the EU, requested that the scales for "peacekeeping operations reflect a fair and balanced distribution of the financial responsibilities among Member States." The EU, indicating that it is currently contributing at a rate far in excess of its share of world wealth, added that "the scale should be based on objective and comparable criteria." ¶12. (U) Sudan speaking on behalf of the G77 and China, remarked that the automatic application of the current system of discounts has resulted in an unacceptable situation whereby developing countries can be "artificially classified" in what they describe as the "developed world category", Level B. Individual G77 members argued that a clear distinction should be maintained between developed and developing countries and spoke against the automatic movement of developing states to Level B. They maintained that Level C should be the highest category into which developing countries are automatically categorized. They specifically argued that the Bahamas and Bahrain -- which have been tentatively placed into Level B based on updated economic data -- should therefore be re-categorized into Level C. ¶13. (U) P5 MUST CONTINUE TO PAY. Sudan noted that the G77 continues to support the permanent five members of the Security Council (P5) special role in funding above their assessed level due to their special and significant role in directing peacekeeping operations (PKOs). Sweden reiterated this point of view on behalf of the EU. Singapore argued that the P5 has "influence far beyond the rest of the UN members" and other delegations joined the chorus, mentioning the special circumstances of the P5 and supporting that their scales remain higher than the rest. ¶14. (C) COMMENT. The surprising initiative of the G77 to move for immediate approval of the status quo at the outset of the discussion in the Fifth Committee raises the issue of how we proceed in the G7 initiative and in the Committee. While the UK and France continue to press for change in the status quo at this session, other members of the G7, such as Germany and Italy, have recently reflected a more pragmatic approach, and Canada has acknowledged the need for maintaining the status quo as a fall-back position. The G77 has begun to raise the issue of the ceiling during informal consultations during the largely completed question and answer stage of informals. However, once the current initial round of discussions concludes at the beginning of next week, the subject of scales is not scheduled to be taken up again until November 20, 2009. END COMMENT ¶15. (C) Unless otherwise instructed, Mission will continue to work with other Members of the G7 on a unified approach but stress that the G77 proposal has introduced a new factor that must be carefully considered as we go forward. ¶16. (C) ACTION REQUEST: Mission requests Department views on G77 proposal for PKO scale of assessments. RICE