VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1113 3311440
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 261440Z NOV 08
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5432
INFO RUEHXX/GENEVA IO MISSIONS COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001113 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ABUD AFIN AORC KUNR UNGA
SUBJECT: MEMBER STATES CONTINUE CRITICISM OF THE 
TWO-PERCENT SAVINGS EXERCISE 
 
REF: 1028 
 
¶1. SUMMARY.  A second discussion on the two-percent savings 
exercise took place in the Fifth Committee on Nov. 17 under 
the agenda item "accountability" during informal 
consultations.  The Controller, Jun Yamazaki, was present to 
answer questions posed to him regarding the exercise.  Mr. 
Yamazaki began with a prepared statement, which was later 
requested in writing by Member States.  Mr. Yamazaki also 
provided the memo (faxed to Dept: IO/MPR) requested by Member 
States at the last meeting.  The Controller explained that 
this will be a two step process, which will begin with the 
presentation of the budget outline to Member States, followed 
by the submission of the budget.  He emphasized that Member 
States will have the final say and the savings proposal is an 
exercise that is within the authority of the 
Secretary-General to conduct.  Again, concerns were raised 
over the way in which Member States were informed about the 
exercise and about how it will affect mandates and the 
development account.  The meeting was expected to last one 
and a half hours, but extended beyond two hours, with at 
least half an hour conducted without sound.  The Controller 
tried to answer the questions presented to him, but Member 
States' concerns were not quashed.  The irritation and 
mistrust roused by the way the proposal was communicated has 
not dissipated.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. The G-77 and China again expressed concern that this 
process should have been consultative and cooperative and 
they should not have had to "force" the Secretary-General's 
hand by insisting on more details of his proposal.  Many 
questions were raised about the extent of the exercise. 
Singapore (G77 and China) asked about whether the 
Secretary-General was proposing to realign or shift resources 
between program sections or within sections.  The Singaporean 
delegate noted that the Secretary-General does not have the 
authority to move resources between sections.  Singapore also 
asked about what type of resources would be affected, 
referring particularly to post or non-post resources. 
 
¶3. Iran questioned the basis of the two-percent figure, 
claiming that it seemed like an arbitrary figure. The Russian 
Federation, in addition to other delegations, expressed 
confusion over whether the exercise would result in savings 
or a cut.  Antigua and Barbuda (G77 and China) expressed 
concern about where the savings will be applied.  The 
Brazilian delegate questioned how the exercise aligns with 
the strengthening proposals put forth by the 
Secretary-General.  Nicaragua and others noted concern that 
the words "mandate review" were mentioned in the 
Secretary-General's memo when that is clearly a Member State 
exercise.  Cote D'Ivoire raised concern that this seemed like 
a unilateral decision with little regard for the 
intergovernmental process.  The delegate from Guatemala noted 
that proposals from program managers were due to the 
Secretariat by Oct. 10 and questioned why Member States had 
not yet received more specific informationQ Cuba asked how 
the exercise would be applied to revised estimates.  Iran 
claimed that if the Secretary-General is now able to 
accomplish the mandates for the 2010-2011 budget with 
two-percent less of the resources than available in 
2008-2009, then his previous budget proposals were 
questionable. 
 
¶4. Canada (CANZ), France (EU), Japan, and the US spoke 
positively about the Secretary-General's authority to conduct 
such an exercise as well as expressed recognition that this 
was a responsible way to conduct business and prepare a 
budget within an organization.  Mexico agreed that if 
mandates were not compromised, such an exercise would be 
appropriate. 
 
¶5. The Controller agreed with Member States that they should 
have been notified in a better manner.  He also clarified 
that the proposal would affect only the 2010-2011 budget and 
that reprioritization would be decided by Member States.  Mr. 
Yamazaki stated that the intention of the exercise was to be 
broad, and thus, managers would be responsible for deciding 
whether the exercise will affect post or non-post resources, 
or both.  He acknowledged that it was possible that Special 
Political Missions or the Development Account could be 
affected by the exercise.  However, Mr. Yamazaki clearly 
stated that this was not designed to be an "across the board" 
two-percent cut, but would be based on the proposals provided 
by program managers. 
Wolff