This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

181349Z Apr 05

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 PARIS 002623 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR EB, EUR/ERA, AND EUR/WE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON FR OECD
SUBJECT: OECD REFORM: A/S WAYNE MEETS WITH FRENCH OFFICIALS 
 
REF:  A) State 64265 
 
¶1.  (SBU) A/S Wayne briefed GOF officials on USG ideas for 
OECD reform.  The GOF agrees with USG ideas about the OECD's 
mandate, but our contacts cited questions about the role of 
"Full Observers" and how the members of other groups, like 
the Bureau of the Council would be chosen.  Nevertheless, 
they agreed completely on the need for reform and the need 
to ensure engagement from member state capital officials. 
End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) On 12 April, EB A/S Tony Wayne called on French 
MFA Director for Economic Affairs (U/S-equivalent) Alain 
Leroy, his deputy Christophe Chouvet, and OECD Desk Officer 
Thierry Mathou to discuss U.S. proposals for OECD reform. 
A/S Wayne was accompanied by EUR/ERA's Greg Garramone and 
Embassy Paris Econ Chief.  Per reftel request, Econ Chief 
had passed A/S Wayne's letter and non-paper on OECD reform 
to Leroy on 8 April and Leroy and his colleagues had already 
reviewed the documents. 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  A/S Wayne noted that he had asked for a bilateral 
meeting with Leroy specifically to discuss in detail the 
thinking behind the proposals in the USG non-paper.  He said 
he hoped the USG and France could work together to ensure 
that the OECD could effectively and efficiently function as 
membership increased over time to as many as forty to sixty 
members.  A/S Wayne added that he knew that all members 
would not be happy with all the ideas, but that it was 
important to circulate a document which could be the basis 
for discussion and which addressed some of the key 
challenges.  A/S Wayne also emphasized that he hoped to 
spark discussion among officials well beyond those at the 
OECD in Paris; a "mixed committee" of Paris/OECD-based 
officials and officials in member state capitals would be 
key to any reform agenda forward.  He added that OECD 
governance was an area that needed particular attention. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Leroy welcomed A/S Wayne's initiative to meet 
bilaterally to discuss the OECD and agreed that a discussion 
involving more officials than just the Paris-based OECD 
staff was crucial to moving the issue forward.  Leroy also 
noted that it was good to have a paper that put "everything 
on the table."  He said that France was "entirely in 
agreement" with the U.S. paper's views on the OECD's 
mandate, and in general agreement with the U.S. paper's 
views on governance.  In this area, however, Leroy read from 
the U.S. text: "The role of the European Union would need to 
be explored."  That, he joked, is "a little grenade" but 
very cleverly placed and indeed an issue that will have to 
be addressed.  He said that he was certain that several EU 
countries would not agree with having only the seven largest 
budget contributors participate in the Bureau of the 
Council, as proposed in the U.S. paper.  Sweden and Spain in 
particular would oppose that idea Leroy warned. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Leroy said he wanted to discuss the membership 
proposals too.  He said that France agrees that today the 
OECD Council is overburdened.  In today's structure, he 
observed, the Executive Committee effectively functions as 
the Bureau of the Council would under the U.S. proposal.  He 
suggested that one could compare the functions on the 
Council and the Bureau of the Council to the EU's COREPER I 
and COREPER II, in which one forum takes care of the 
technical and legalistic decisions, and in effect prepars 
for the other body to consider more political and "big- 
picture" decisions.  Leroy also suggested that the Bureau of 
the Council was effectively the same thing as an Office of 
the Secretary General should indeed be established to look 
after administrative issues. 
¶6.  (SBU) A/S Wayne noted that with a larger membership, a 
reasonably sized group would have to meet to discuss the 
"issues of the day" and make recommendations to the Council. 
A large Council comprised of forty or more members would be 
simply unmanageable, particularly if the issues brought to 
it for decision were numerous. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Leroy again said that he agreed in principle and 
that once per month meetings or something similar might be 
the optimum frequency.  He said that perhaps one could 
consider the G-7 as members on the Bureau, but again noted 
that he was unsure of how that would sit with several other 
members.  Leroy suggested that members should also examine 
the role of the Executive Committee.  He opined that members 
should be careful not to give too much autonomy to the 
Executive Committee.  He also opined that there "really is 
not much in this [the U.S. proposal] for" Full Observers. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) A/S Wayne added that he wondered whether 
assembling a group of "wise men" that understood the OECD 
but were no longer a part of the organization would be a 
good way to get other ideas into the reform process.  He 
again emphasized that he thought it was imperative that 
officials from member state capitals be involved in the 
reform discussions.  Leroy heartily agreed on the role for 
capital-based officials and said assembling a group of "wise 
men" was also an excellent idea. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) A/S Wayne also briefed Leroy on USG views on 
coordinating the G-8 Broader Middle East and North Africa 
(BMENA) initiative with the activities of the OECD's Middle 
East and North Africa (MENA) Investment Program.  Leroy 
understood and noted that France supported the idea. 
Continuing on G-8 issues, A/S Wayne also noted that the USG 
would be circulating a progress report on Transparency and 
Corruption covering Nicaragua, Zambia and Indonesia among 
others.  Leroy suggested that the G-8 should also reflect on 
what can be done to promote evolving improved practices in 
Nigeria. 
¶10.  (SBU) A/S Wayne also briefed Leroy on U.S. work in 
following up on the 2004 U.S.-EU Summit.  The USG, he 
explained, was assembling a list of attainable goals drawn 
from the stakeholder meetings undertaken over the past year. 
This list would include possible attainable goals that the 
U.S. and the EU could work toward over the next five to ten 
years.  A priority for the USG list will be practicality and 
attainability, he explained.  The four fields of possible 
cooperation will be 1) Regulatory Cooperation; 2) 
Innovation, R&D and Competitiveness; 3) Financial Services; 
and 4) Moving People and Goods Securely.  Leroy noted he was 
impressed with the U.S. diligence in following up in these 
areas but made no further comment. 
 
WOLFF