VZCZCXYZ0005
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0404/01 2390630
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 270630Z AUG 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9979
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1749

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000404 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV UN AU KCRM KCOR
 
SUBJECT: SEEKING CREATIVE FUNDING FOR THE TOP U.S. INTERNATIONAL 
ANTICORRUPTION PRIORITY 
 
REF: UNVIE 386 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) Mission advises flexibility and creativity in current 
negotiations to create a new mechanism for reviewing implementation 
of the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), particularly 
relating to the issue of how the new mechanism will be funded.  As 
negotiations reach the final stages, we are finding ourselves 
increasingly isolated in our position that the mechanism can only be 
funded by voluntary contributions (even from budget hawk Japan). 
Promoting implementation of UNCAC is the top priority for U.S. 
international anticorruption efforts, and, thus, it makes sense to 
entertain creativity in ensuring an effective and stable mechanism, 
including the ability to consider funding options that include a mix 
of UN Regular Budget funding and voluntary contributions or a 
binding scale of assessments.  This request is consistent with 
UNVIE's vision in reftel to ensure the U.S. in Vienna adequately 
supports the professional work of UNODC, an organization which 
significantly furthers U.S. anti-drug and anti-crime priorities. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
--------------------------- 
NEGOTIAIONS IN FINAL STAGES 
--------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Over 130 States Parties to UNCAC, including the U.S., are 
poised to adopt terms of reference for a new UNCAC review mechanism 
during the 3rd Conference of the States Parties in Doha on November 
9-13.  Negotiations are in the final stages.  The U.S., led by INL 
with input and support from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, 
USAID and the Departments of Justice, Commerce and Treasury, is 
attempting to design an effective review process that will help 
identify weaknesses and best practices in UNCAC implementation and 
establish effective targets for technical assistance. 
 
-------------------- 
INCREASING ISOLATION 
ON FUNDING ISSUE 
-------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) As the characteristics of the review process slowly take 
shape, the U.S. has found itself increasingly isolated on the issue 
of how reviews should be funded.  We have followed the traditional 
U.S. guidance of opposing the use of UN Regular Budget funding or 
any mandatory assessments, and, as such, are advocating only the use 
of voluntary contributions to fund the mechanism.  This position has 
met with serious opposition from many G-77 and non-G-77 countries, 
which believe voluntary contributions are not a stable or consistent 
source of funding and might lead to an inherent bias favoring donor 
states in the operation of the mechanism.  The EU and other 
like-minded countries which support us on many substantive issues 
relating to the mechanism have expressed their desire to see the 
review process funded entirely through the UN Regular Budget.  Even 
Japan, usually our strongest ally on UN funding issues, has recently 
expressed an openness to support a mix of UN Regular Budget funding 
and voluntary contributions. 
 
--------------------- 
FLEXIBILITY FOR A TOP 
ANTI-CRIME PRIORITY 
--------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) There are strong arguments to consider more flexibility in 
the U.S. position on funding methods.  UNCAC is the most 
comprehensive set of international commitments relating to the fight 
against corruption, and has become the cornerstone for U.S. 
government international anticorruption efforts.  It is also the 
most globally applicable anticorruption treaty, with 136 States 
Parties to date, including the U.S.  The U.S. played a major role 
during the negotiations for UNCAC, and has been a subsequent leader 
in promoting its implementation.  U.S. NGO's and various private 
sector coalitions supported U.S. ratification of UNCAC in 2004, 
underscoring their  desire to see an international review mechanism 
created to ensure that other countries would meet their commitments 
under UNCAC, thereby leveling the playing field for U.S. business 
and promoting integrity worldwide.  At the July G-8 Summit in 
L'Aquilla, President Obama and other G-8 leaders called for "the 
development of an effective, transparent and inclusive review 
mechanism" for UNCAC. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Mission believes considering a mix of UN Regular Budget 
funding and voluntary contributions for the UNCAC review mechanism 
would not undermine the general principle that the operations of 
treaty bodies should not be funded from the UN Regular Budget.  This 
would not be the first time such an exception has been made.  As an 
example, UN treaty work related to the elimination of discrimination 
against women and other core human rights treaties has been funded, 
 
at least in part, via the UN Regular Budget.  In the end, the 
principle of restricting the use of UN Regular Budget funding for 
the work of treaty bodies remains in place. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Furthermore, the current U.S. position is inconsistent with 
the existing arrangement for funding activities of the UNCAC 
Conference of the States Parties (COSP).  The current operations of 
the UNCAC Conference of the States Parties, created pursuant to 
Article 63 of UNCAC and which would be the governing authority for 
any new review mechanism, already is funded by a mix of UN Regular 
Budget and voluntary contributions.  The UNODC Secretariat, via UN 
Regular Budget resources, provides administrative support for 
regularly scheduled sessions of the COSP and its working groups, 
while Member States provide voluntary contributions to support 
expert group meetings, model legislation, technical assistance and 
other efforts that promote substantive implementation.  Given that 
the creation of a new mechanism might lead to the dismantling of one 
or more of its working groups, we may be able to devise a funding 
mix for the new mechanism that minimizes any need to increase what 
is already sought for COSP operations in UNODC's biennium budget. 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) Reftel outlined the Mission's vision for transforming the 
U.S. role in Vienna, particularly in the context of a new financial 
and governance (FINGOV) process, to ensure that we adequately 
support UNODC's work which significantly furthers U.S. anti-drug and 
anti-crime priorities.  The creation and operation of an effective 
UNCAC review mechanism is a prime example of such work.  UNCAC 
implementation is a top anti-crime priority for the U.S.  UNODC's 
role in developing UNCAC and promoting its implementation has been 
innovative, professional and responsive to U.S. concerns and needs. 
Mission requests that Washington consider supporting negotiating 
flexibility to allow for alternative funding schemes, including a 
mix of UN Regular Budget and voluntary contributions, or, in the 
alternative, a binding scale of assessments.  Funding via voluntary 
contributions would remain the U.S. position and objective, and 
negotiators would consider alternatives only in the case that 
agreement on voluntary contributions cannot be secured.  Negotiating 
flexibility would ensure that we avoid a situation during the COSP 
where the U.S. delegation must stand alone and deny financing for a 
mechanism that the U.S. government, U.S. NGO's and the U.S. private 
sector actively support.  END COMMENT. 
 
 
PYATT