VZCZCXYZ0019
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0490/01 1552047
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 032047Z JUN 08
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4373
INFO RUEHXX/GENEVA IO MISSIONS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000490 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC UUNR UNGA
SUBJECT: REASSESSING U.S. POSTURE AND TACTICS TOWARD THE CPC 
 
 
¶1.  SUMMARY: With the start of the 48th session of the 
Committee for Programme and Coordination (CPC) scheduled for 
June 9, USUN believes the time is appropriate to reassess our 
current posture toward CPC with a view to determining what 
steps, if any, we can take to make CPC a more effective 
entity within the Organization.  The current strategic 
framework approach under which the CPC makes recommendations 
concerning the programmatic priorities of the Organization 
close to a year and a half before the General Assembly 
considers the next biennium budget has resulted in budget 
proposals that are piecemeal in nature, with significant 
"add-on" costs beyond the programs reviewed and approved by 
CPC.  Linking the timing of CPC,s determination of program 
priorities more closely to the Secretariat,s actual 
presentation of the budget to the GA might offer one possible 
improvement.  More broadly, we need to consider whether our 
current approach to CPC should be maintained or modified, 
including the possible involvement of CPC in the mandate 
review process, in order to achieve outcomes that advance 
U.S. interests.  END SUMMARY. 
 
CPC 48th SESSION 
---------------- 
 
¶2.  The Committee on Programme and Coordination (CPC) will 
hold its 48th session at UN headquarters from June 9 to July 
3, 2008.  As was the case during CPC,s 47th Session (June 
11-July 5, 2007), USUN/MR will represent the U.S. as an 
observer, allowed to present views on issues raised but not 
participate in decisions taken by Committee members, 
including recommendations for inclusion in the CPC final 
report to be submitted to ECOSOC and the GA during the Fall 
2008 Main Session of the 63rd UNGA.  China has been selected 
to chair this year,s session, with Bulgaria, South Africa 
and Venezuela serving as vice-chairs, and Italy as rapporteur. 
 
¶3.  At the Committee,s upcoming 48th session, CPC members 
are scheduled to review the performance and evaluation 
reports of the Organization for the 2006-2007 biennium; 
assess and offer recommendations on the proposed strategic 
framework for 2010-2011, including the plan outline 
(reflecting the longer-term objectives of the UN); consider a 
report prepared by OIOS evaluating Special Political Missions 
that are led by DPKO but managed by DPA; review the annual 
report of the UN System Chief Executives Board (CEB) for 
2007-2008 and the SYG,s report on systems support for the 
New Partnership for Africa,s Development(NEPAD); and discuss 
possible additional ways the Committee might improve its 
working methods and procedures within the framework of its 
mandate.  For the first time, the Committee also has 
scheduled a senior-level meeting of members, recommended at 
ambassadorial level, to consider ways CPC can enhance its 
dialogue on coordination issues with the Joint Inspection 
Unit and CEB Secretariat. 
 
FLAWS IN THE STRATEGIC 
FRAMEWORK APPROACH AND 
CPC,S ROLE IN THAT PROCESS 
-------------------------- 
 
¶4.  During this year,s CPC session, Committee members will 
review and comment on the programmatic aspects of the 27 
different fascicles on which the 2010-2011 budget will be 
based.  This approach, originally called for by Member States 
in Resolution 58/269 and reaffirmed in Resolution 62/224, 
relies on the strategic framework as the principal policy 
directive of the United Nations.  However, a fundamental 
weakness in this approach has been that the programmatic 
priorities decided by CPC members will not be acted upon by 
the General Assembly until some 18 months after the CPC 
session.  The CPC will not, therefore, consider in the 
context of its strategic framework review at the upcoming 
session new developments that may necessitate between now and 
the Fall of 2009 the creation of additional programs or the 
modification of existing activities.  Instead, these new 
expenses will appear as "add-ons" to the next budget, as 
happened with the biennium budget introduced by the 
Secretariat for 2008-2009.  We strongly objected during the 
Fall 2007 UNGA session to this "piecemeal" approach to the 
budget, which effectively masked the true size of the 
biennium budget presented to the GA. 
 
MORE CLOSELY LINKING CPC,S 
ROLE AND GA ACTION ON THE 
BUDGET 
-------------------------- 
 
¶5.  One possible solution to this problem might be for CPC to 
postpone its final recommendations on the programmatic 
priorities of the Organization until the Spring of 2009, 
thereby more realistically taking into account developments 
between now and then that may involve additional expenditures 
in order to meet the needs of the Organization.  In this 
 
manner, there is a greater opportunity for incorporating 
items which otherwise would appear as "add-ons" to the budget 
in the Secretariat,s original core budget proposal for the 
upcoming biennium.  Member States thus would receive a more 
accurate and comprehensive figure that better reflected 
anticipated costs without the need for subsequent "add-ons." 
CPC would be better placed at its 49th session in 2009 to 
assess the full range of the Organization,s budgetary needs 
only 4-6 months prior to GA consideration of the next 
biennium budget. 
 
CPC: VALUE ADDED OR 
IRRELEVANT BODY? 
-------------------- 
 
¶6.  Apart from the flaws inherent in CPC,s determination of 
programmatic priorities some 18 months prior to GA review and 
action on the next biennium budget, there is the larger 
question of whether the Committee for Programme and 
Coordination still performs a relevant or useful function, 
and what, if any, relationship the U.S. should maintain with 
the CPC. USUN fully supported and encouraged the 
Department,s decision in the Fall of 2006 not to seek U.S. 
re-election to the CPC when our term expired in late December 
of that year.  Our decision to withdraw from CPC was 
particularly appropriate given CPC,s ongoing failure to 
fulfill its mandated responsibilities and the persistent 
resistance of other members to reform the Committee,s 
inefficient working methods, reforms we strongly and 
repeatedly recommended. 
 
¶7.  The UK,s decision, in late 2005, to withdraw from the 
Committee, and Japan,s unwillingness in November 2007 to run 
for another term, has left the Committee without three of the 
top contributors to the UN budget (accounting for 45 per cent 
of the total budget).  The CPC, therefore, will now be 
deciding the program priorities of the Organization with 
input from only one (France) of the UN,s top five 
contributors.  Two of the seven seats allotted to the Western 
European and Others Group (WEOG) - the seats the U.S. and UK 
previously vacated - have not been filled.  Among the 
remaining WEOG members on the Committee (France, Italy, 
Portugal, Switzerland, Israel), at least one - Portugal - has 
privately indicated to USUN that it will not seek re-election 
for another term when its current membership expires in late 
December. 
 
STRONG SUPPORT FOR 
CPC FROM G-77 
------------------ 
 
¶8.  Despite the criticism of the CPC by the U.S. and other 
like-minded Western states, members of the Group of 77 and 
China (G-77) consider CPC,s role in defining the priorities 
of the Organization and in shaping the biennium budget to 
remain essential.  When Price-Waterhouse-Coopers questioned 
CPC,s contribution to the legislative process in its August 
2006 external experts, comprehensive report on UN governance 
and oversight, a report requested by world leaders at the 
September 2005 Summit, G-77 members spoke out quickly and 
passionately in defense of CPC,s continued importance as the 
one intergovernmental body responsible for overseeing and 
coordinating implementation of the mandates authorized by 
ECOSOC and the GA.  Suggestions at that time that CPC,s role 
be modified or curtailed were met with staunch G-77 
opposition. 
 
¶9.  We therefore are left with a body that has failed to 
fulfill its originally mandated tasks, including: "to 
examine, in light of the budgetary implications, the totality 
of the Secretary-General,s work programme" (ECOSOC 
Resolution 2008/LX - May 1976) and "to determine which 
programmes, subprogrammes or programme elements are obsolete, 
of marginal usefulness or ineffective and to recommend, as 
appropriate, their curtailment or termination" (GA Resolution 
31/93).  As the Department is well aware, USUN,s efforts in 
the past several years, in coordination with the UK, Japan 
and others, to try to reform and revitalize the CPC to 
perform its originally intended functions have produced few 
improvements, given the G-77,s reluctance to change a body 
and a process that they believe gives them control over the 
legislative and budgetary agenda of the Organization. 
 
SEEKING DEPARTMENT 
VIEWS ON NEXT STEPS 
------------------- 
 
¶10.  Whether or not the U.S. supports CPC,s current role and 
value to the Organization, CPC members will nonetheless be 
taking key decisions in the coming weeks that will serve to 
shape the direction and size of the next biennium budget.  In 
this regard, USUN, with Department concurrence, recommends 
that we seek to encourage the CPC to postpone final decisions 
 
on programmatic priorities for the Organization until the 
Spring of 2009 rather than now, closer to the time when the 
GA will act on the next proposed biennium budget.  CPC 
members could review and modify, if necessary, any initial 
recommendations they may make at the upcoming 48th session so 
that the Secretariat can finalize a more accurate, 
comprehensive biennium budget proposal for 2010-2011 for 
presentation to the GA in September 2009. 
 
¶11.  More broadly, we should decide whether our current 
posture toward CPC is producing decisions and outcomes that 
further U.S. interests.  USUN notes that the coordination 
function originally envisioned for CPC, including the 
elimination of overlapping, duplicative and no longer 
relevant mandates, would be helpful to our larger efforts to 
achieve greater efficiencies in UN operations.  Whether we 
continue to press CPC to fulfill these functions, or consider 
the possible establishment of a new body to achieve these 
objectives, remains a subject that merits further joint 
consideration and discussion. 
 
¶12.  USUN proposes that in our role as observer at the 
upcoming CPC session, we underscore CPC,s original emphasis 
on coordination goals.  This would include making or 
supporting a proposal to incorporate the work now underway on 
mandate review, however limited, into the work of the CPC. 
Khalilzad