VZCZCXYZ0015
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1351 1932044
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 122044Z JUL 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 9583

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001351 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC KUNR UNGA
SUBJECT: UN CAPITAL MASTER PLAN: GENERAL ASSEMBLY APPROVES 
STRATEGY IV 
 
REF: A. 2006 USUN 911 
 
     ¶B. 2006 USUN 1191 
     ¶C. 2005 USUN 1492 
     ¶D. 2005 USUN 1617 
     ¶E. 2005 USUN 1938 
 
¶1. SUMMARY: After several months of discussion, the General 
Assembly approved Strategy IV (phased approach) for the 
Capital Master Plan, and also converted into an appropriation 
the existing commitment authority of $77 million.  The 
resolution (currently found in A/C.5/60/L.66) provides the 
CMP office with the necessary authority, funding and 
direction to complete design and pre-construction work, 
including locating office swing space and designing and 
building a temporary conference building on the North Lawn. 
A decision on financing for the construction phase is still 
needed and is expected during the main part of the 
sixty-first session.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  At the outset of discussions, delegations were generally 
agreed on Strategy IV, although the Group of 77 and China 
expressed its continuing interest in the possibility of 
constructing a new permanent building on the North Lawn, an 
idea related to Strategy III.  Although the G77 agreed that 
the building could not be constructed in time to be used as 
swing space for the CMP, and would therefore only serve as a 
consolidation building, the Group insisted that this 
resolution should authorize and fund a $5 million feasibility 
assessment so that Member States would have the information 
available for the future.  The U.S., EU, Australia and Canada 
all argued that a new building on the North Lawn was not 
related to the CMP and therefore a feasibility study should 
not be included in a CMP resolution.  In addition, the G77 
and Russia also advocated a decision on financing, through 
direct assessments, during this session.  USDel, working with 
the EU, Canada and Australia, was successful in pushing off 
both issues until the future. 
 
¶3.  USDel also successfully negotiated the inclusion of 
language to promote transparency with regard to procurement 
processes related to the CMP and to ensure that an 
appropriate construction audit is conducted.  In addition, 
the resolution includes other U.S.-initiated language 
regarding financial disclosure statements and welcoming the 
establishment of the CMP website.  This language reflects the 
GA's position that the CMP should be carried out in a 
transparent and accountable manner and in compliance with 
other relevant GA resolutions (such as future resolutions on 
procurement reform and strengthened oversight). 
 
¶4.  The final resolution includes the following key elements: 
 
-- Approves Strategy IV effective July 1, 2006; 
-- Converts the existing commitment authority of $77 million 
into an appropriation; 
-- Decides to review updated project costs at the main part 
of the sixty-first session; 
-- Requests the Secretary-General to include information 
regarding a feasibility study in his proposed program budget 
for the biennium 2008-2009; 
-- Notes that the CMP office will provide resources to OIOS 
to ensure an appropriate construction audit and requests the 
Secretary-General to report on the findings to the GA; 
 
SIPDIS 
-- Requests the SYG to ensure that procurement processes are 
conducted in a transparent manner and in accordance with 
relevant GA resolutions; 
-- Requests the SYG to ensure financial disclosure statements 
are filed by CMP staff; 
-- Language on general Host Country responsibilities, as well 
as the special role of the Host Country with regard to UNHQ 
in New York; 
-- Reverts to the issue of the funding plan at the main part 
of the 61st session. 
 
¶5. COMMENT: The resolution includes three paragraphs on Host 
Country responsibilities that were originally part of a 
"package" of five paragraphs (reftels C-E).  Cuba submitted 
the these three paragraphs (the first one of which was then 
amended by USDel), which were not problematic, and has 
indicated to USDel that the other two paragraphs will be 
submitted this fall during discussions on financing for the 
construction phase.  The two remaining paragraphs are related 
to the lack of an interest free loan from the Host Country 
and will lead to a difficult discussion in the fall.  Other 
issues to be covered during the financing discussion include 
the scale of assessment to be used for assessments for the 
CMP and the impact on Member States if some Member States pay 
their full amount up front (rather than over a number of 
years).  The question of how Member States would be held 
responsible for interest charges in a situation where the UN 
needs to utilize a letter of credit or other credit 
facilities will also need to be addressed.  END COMMENT. 
BOLTON