VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0429/01 2591517
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 161517Z SEP 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0057
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1764
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 0934
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO 0253
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 0292
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 1010

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000429 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV UN AU KCRM KCOR
SUBJECT: STATES PARTIES FACE OBSTACLES IN EFFORTS TO CREATE A NEW 
INTERNATIONAL ANTICORRUPTION REVIEW MECHANISM 
 
-------- 
SUMMARY 
-------- 
 
¶1. The UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) hosted two 
intergovernmental expert working group meetings during the period 
August 25 to September 4 to help promote implementation of the UN 
Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC). 
 
¶2. During the Review of Implementation Working Group on August 25 to 
September 2, experts from 82 countries made a final formal attempt 
prior to a November deadline to finalize draft terms of reference 
for a new mechanism to review implementation of UNCAC.  As in 
previous working group meetings, several countries (Egypt, China, 
Russia, Pakistan, and Iran) blocked consensus on adopting mechanism 
characteristics that are supported by a large portion of the States 
Parties.  These characteristics include allowing the participation 
of civil society in the review process, public access to individual 
country review reports, the use of all sources of information during 
the course of country reviews, and site visits to the country under 
review.  The U.S. remains isolated in its calls for restricting 
funding of the mechanism to voluntary contributions.  A group of 
like-minded countries, (including the U.S., several EU countries, 
Mexico, Argentina, Nigeria, among others) have begun meeting to 
strategize and also contemplate next steps if we cannot meet the 
November deadline for establishing the review mechanism. 
 
¶3. During the Technical Assistance Working Group (TA WG) on 
September 3-4, experts from 74 countries discussed ways to promote 
technical assistance for the implementation of the Convention. The 
session featured panel presentations by a mix of developing and 
donor countries, as well as UN agencies and civil society.  This 
format afforded participants the opportunity to engage in a frank 
exchange of experiences with: (1) gap analyses to determine 
compliance with the UNCAC and associated technical assistance 
requirements, and (2) the provision and coordination of 
UNCAC-related technical assistance.  The UNODC also provided an 
overview of its efforts to facilitate technical assistance, 
including the development of a matrix of needs and a database of 
anti-corruption experts.  The next meeting of the TA WG will occur 
during the 3rd Conference of the States Parties (November 9-11) in 
Doha, Qatar.  END SUMMARY. 
 
------------------------------ 
CREATING A NEW REVIEW PROCESS 
------------------------------ 
 
¶4. Experts from 82 Member States met on August 25 to September 2 to 
continue their efforts to develop terms of reference for a new 
mechanism to review implementation of UNCAC (Ref A). The goal of 
this Review of Implementation Working Group is to finalize terms of 
reference that can be adopted by the 3rd Conference of the States 
Parties (COSP) scheduled for November 9-13 in Doha.  The U.S. was 
represented by John Brandolino, INL Senior Advisor to UNVIE, and 
Jane Ley, Deputy Director for the U.S. Office of Government Ethics. 
Participants reviewed draft terms of reference for the mechanism 
that covered issues such as the purposes of the review process, how 
the review process will be conducted and funded, and what body or 
bodies will oversee the review process. 
 
---------------------- 
SIGNIFICANT ROADBLOCKS 
---------------------- 
 
¶5. A small group of countries (China, Russia, Egypt, Iran and 
Pakistan) blocked consensus on several key terms of reference. 
These countries believe that the primary goal of the review process 
will be to help States Parties to implement their obligations 
pursuant to the Convention.  Thus, they are demanding that the State 
Party under review should have total control over all information 
used or produced during individual country reviews.  Under their 
vision, individual country reports would not be made accessible to 
the public or other States Parties, and civil society would have no 
role or input into the mechanism.  They would also prohibit site 
visits to States Parties under review.  EU, U.S. and most other G-77 
countries disagree with this vision, and have advocated for a more 
thorough and transparent process, including public access to 
reports, formal input from civil society into individual reviews, 
and site visits. 
 
¶6. Given the differences, little progress was made on the 36 (of 47 
total) paragraphs of the terms of reference covered during the 
seven-day session.  Many paragraphs remain open or bracketed.  To 
complicate matters, the Secretariat produced, at the request of 
Egypt, two relatively lengthy documents containing draft 
supplementary guidelines for the review process and a blueprint for 
individual country review reports.  Egypt, China and Russia insisted 
that these supplementary documents, in addition to the terms of 
 
reference, be approved by the COSP in November, thus adding 
significantly to the already pressing workload of negotiators. 
 
¶7. A group of like-minded countries (including the U.S., several EU 
countries, Nigeria, Singapore, Mexico, Peru, Argentina, Japan, and 
Canada) met several times on the margins to determine how to work 
together as a bloc to move reluctant countries to adopt our vision 
of a review mechanism.  At the suggestion of several countries, the 
U.S. produced a potential "compromise package" that was discussed 
during the week, but ultimately shelved until further informal 
consultations were finalized in late September.  Sweden and 
Argentina, who play a key role in Vienna, felt it was too early to 
discuss compromise.  However, many other attending delegations 
expressed privately their view that a compromise package was clearly 
necessary given the complexities of the terms of reference and the 
little time between now and the November COSP. 
 
¶8. Several key countries fear that the issue of how the mechanism 
will be financed has the potential to drive a wedge between 
like-minded countries and the U.S.  At this moment, the U.S. is the 
only vocal State Party advocating the use of only voluntary 
contributions to fund the activities of the mechanism.  All other 
countries, including EU countries and G-77 (Comment: this is the 
only common position of the G-77 on the mechanism. End Comment), 
have expressed support for UN Regular Budget funding.  Even Japan, a 
usual ally on financing issues at the UN, intervened to state its 
openness to a mix of UN Regular Budget funding and voluntary 
contributions.  During the session, the Secretariat produced cost 
estimates for the first year of operation for the mechanism.  While 
these numbers will obviously change depending upon the final 
agreed-upon form of the mechanism, the estimated total for 
translations, meetings, personnel, communications, equipment, and 20 
site visits was USD$2,786,000. 
 
-------------------- 
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 
-------------------- 
 
¶9. Experts from 74 Member States met again on September 3-4 for the 
Working Group on Technical Assistance (TA WG) to discuss ways to 
promote technical assistance for the implementation of the 
Convention.  The U.S. was represented by Christine Cline, INL, and 
John Brandolino, INL Senior Advisor to UNVIE. 
 
¶10. For the first time, the TA WG featured panel presentations by a 
mix of developing and donor countries, as well as UN agencies and 
civil society.  The panel presenters focused on: (1) experience with 
internal gap analyses to determine compliance with the UNCAC and 
associated technical assistance requirements and (2) experience with 
the provision and coordination of UNCAC-related technical 
assistance.  This format afforded attendees the opportunity to 
engage in a frank exchange of experiences and produced an extensive 
dialogue amongst experts. 
 
¶11. Notably, the presentations provided by representatives from 
Peru, Indonesia and Kenya highlighted the role that civil society 
played when each country respectively undertook an internal gap 
analysis of compliance with UNCAC.  Showcasing the value-added of 
civil society remained in stark contrast to the positions of some 
countries like China, Egypt and Pakistan which sought to prevent any 
civil society input into the UNCAC review mechanism.  On the margins 
of the TA WG, Peru indicated that its emphasis on civil society was 
deliberate in order to make an effort to assuage such concerns. 
 
¶12.  The UNODC also provided an overview of the activities it has 
undertaken as a catalyst for the provision of technical assistance. 
Among them, UNODC undertook an analysis of the responses it received 
via the UNCAC self-assessment checklist and the technical assistance 
needs contained therein. It further distributed a matrix of these 
technical assistance needs organized on a country-by-country basis. 
(Comment: USDEL will circulate the matrix of needs indentified to 
USAID and within the State Department. End Comment) UNODC has also 
developed a database of anti-corruption experts, which will be used 
to match requests for UNCAC assistance with those experts who may be 
well positioned to provide advice.  USDEL endorsed the database and 
confirmed its willingness to nominate experts for inclusion in it. 
USDEL, along with other donor countries, also emphasized the 
importance of in-country coordination and dialogue between technical 
assistance providers and recipients, rather than a centrally-managed 
and UNODC-driven process. 
 
¶13.  The next meeting of the UNCAC TA WG will occur during the 3rd 
COSP.  Due to the success of the panel presentations, the TA WG 
recommended that this format be replicated at the next session. At 
this time, attendees will also need to consider whether the mandate 
for the TA WG should be extended. 
 
--------- 
COMMENTS 
--------- 
 
¶14. A defining moment during the Review of Implementation Working 
Group occurred on the penultimate day, when Egypt called for 
reopening an already hard-fought and closed paragraph to add a 
requirement that all dialogue during country reviews be conducted 
via formal diplomatic channels.  Such a requirement would basically 
render all reviews unworkable. Given the breadth of the issues and 
details that need to be clarified over the next two months, 
negotiations would be difficult enough assuming that everyone 
desired adoption of a UNCAC review mechanism.  However, it is 
becoming evident that some countries, particularly China and 
possibly Egypt, are content with seeing adoption postponed until the 
4th COSP in 2011, thus making the task even more challenging. 
 
¶15. Argentina plans to continue informal negotiations in Vienna in 
late September.  While we will participate wholeheartedly, we are 
not optimistic that informal negotiating sessions in Vienna, which 
have been tried in the past, will bridge the existing gaps.  We 
agree with several like-minded countries that, in addition to 
defining a common vision for moving forward, we need to discuss 
potential next steps if we cannot agree to a review process during 
the 3rd COSP in November. In the meantime, INL intends to reach out 
to relevant capitals and make a final push to bring reluctant 
countries into the fold. 
 
¶16. In contrast, the TA WG was devoid of the political overtones 
that dominated the discussions of the review mechanism.  The 
attendance of technical assistance experts, the format of the TA WG, 
and the absence of Egypt and Pakistan proved to be the main factors 
in avoiding an ideological discussion.  INL will continue to reach 
out informally with other donors in advance of the 3rd COSP in order 
to refine themes and practical commitments for inclusion in any 
decision on technical assistance to be adopted by the COSP.  END 
COMMENT 
 
DAVIES