VZCZCXYZ0006
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1071/01 3291558
ZNR UUUUU ZZH  ZDK (CCY ADXE0963E TOQ6414 532A)
R 251558Z NOV 09
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 7705

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001071 
 
C O R R E C T E D  C O P Y (CH WORD IN SUB,GRAMMAR IN PARA 1,3,5) 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC KUNR PREL UNGA
SUBJECT: UNGA/C-5: REGULAR BUDGET/PKO SCALES:  E.U. 
CONTINUES TO TARGET THE BRIC, G-77 ATTACKS THE CEILING, 
U.S. PROPOSES TO ELIMINATE CATEGORY C 
 
REF: UNUN 917 
 
¶1. (U) SUMMARY:  The Fifth Committee held informal meetings 
on November 20th on the Scales of Assessment for the Regular 
Budget and for Peace Keeping Operations. In the Regular - 
Budget scales debate, the G-77 proposed increasing the cap on 
assessments from 22 percent to 25 percent, while the European 
Union's Low Per Capita Income (LPICA) proposal would increase 
the assessments for those countries with more than one 
percent of global GNI (namely the BRIC - Brazil, Russia, 
India, and China), and distribute the resulting savings among 
the developed countries with LPCIA (the majority of G-77 
states).  The G-77 referred to the LPCIA as a soft-target, 
referring at one point to the E.U. proposal to redistribute 
savings as bribery. They asserted that the "principal 
distortion" of the 22 percent ceiling is the real matter to 
be addressed. The G77 gave a stern caution to those 
delegations that were lobbying G-77 members' efforts in New 
York and in capitals. On the peace-keeping scales, the U.S. 
proposed to eliminate Category C on the grounds that it 
had no sound methodological basis and had outlived its 
purpose. The G-77 did not directly answer questions from the 
U.S. seeking a definition of what defines a "developing" 
country. END SUMMARY. 
 
REGULAR BUDGET SCALES OF ASSESSMENT 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U) G-77 ACCUSES DELEGATIONS OF IMPERIALISM AND BRIBERY: 
Singapore, speaking on behalf of the G-77 and China, warned 
delegations against their efforts to lobby G-77 members 
towards changing regular budget scales assessment levels.  It 
expressed a "firm word of caution" against any bi-lateral 
efforts in New York and capitals, calling such actions 
attempts to "divide and conquer" and part of the "400 year 
history of imperialism." Singapore also accused members - 
without noting specific countries - of trying to bribe 
nations, and insisted that all negotiations on scales must 
take place in the 5th committee.  Sweden, speaking on behalf 
of the E.U., rejected the G-77 criticism, and noted that they 
intend to keep the scales issue on the agenda and would 
continue pursuing the matter as part of its relationship with 
interlocutors. 
 
¶3. (U) G-77  - NO STATUS QUO? NO PROBLEM: RAISE THE CEILING 
TO 25 PERCENT: Singapore introduced the G-77 proposal, which 
most notably calls for raising the ceiling from 22 percent to 
25 percent.  In defending its proposal, Singapore reminded 
delegates that "we were ready a month" ago to sign an 
agreement on the basis of the status quo.  Singapore, in 
pressing for the increase in the ceiling asserted that the 
original 22 percent cap was brokered on the understanding 
that the "largest contributor" would maintain its UN 
payments, and it has failed to do so. It noted that the 
"methodology has worked well for the last nine years, except 
for the issue of the ceiling, because the largest contributor 
will not pay its arrears." 
 
¶4. (U) E.U. DEFENDS PROPOSAL TO INCREASE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE 
BRIC AND PROVIDE REDUCTIONS FOR THE MAJORITY OF DEVELOPING 
AND DEVELOPED COUNTRIES:  The E.U. introduced its LPCIA 
proposal, which calls for an income adjustment of 80 percent 
for countries with Gross National Income (GNI) share less 
than one percent of Global GNI, 60 percent for countries with 
GNI share more than one percent of global GNI and 85 percent 
for least developed countries.  The proposal requires the 
BRIC to make contributions more in-line with their capacity 
to pay, while more than half of the acquired savings will be 
used to reduce the assessments of most developing countries 
and the rest easing the burden on developed nations.  Russia 
(which according to the E.U.'s calculations would see a 4.6 
percent increase in its payment), asked how the E.U. had 
chosen the one percent of global GNI as a threshold and 
questioned "why not 1.5  percent, or two percent?"  Singapore 
called the one percent threshold "arbitrary" and said that 
the LPCIA had become a "soft target" since the ceiling can 
not be touched.  The E.U. noted that it thinks developing 
countries with sizeable economies have a greater capacity to 
pay, but Russia insisted that references to the size of an 
economy must be based on clear methodology.  Singapore 
requested that the Secretariat produce their own calculations 
on the E.U. model and Singapore requested that it calculate 
the E.U.'s plan including the G-77's 25 percent ceiling 
proposal. Sweden made it clear that any plan incorporating a 
ceiling increase can no longer be considered an E.U. plan. 
 
¶5. (U) OTHER PROPOSALS:  The cornerstone of the Mexican plan 
is the establishment of a neutral zone of +/- 10 percent 
around the LPCIA threshold in which countries neither get 
discounts nor pay premiums.  Mexico's plan argues in favor of 
keeping the 22 percent cap. The CANZ proposal is similar to 
that of the E.U., using 1 percent of GNI as a threshold for 
 
 
reduction levels. Tajikistan's proposal urges greater use of 
multi-year payment plans, and requests a limit to how much 
countries just coming out of a multi-year payment plan can be 
assessed. The Russian + CIS proposal centers on the greater 
application of price-adjusted, rather than market, exchange 
rates and requests the Committee on Contributions to stop 
considering purchasing price parity (PPP) in its 
deliberations. 
 
SCALES OF ASSESSMENT: PEACEKEEPING 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (U) U.S. PUSHES TO DROP CATEGORY C: Initially, Cuba echoed 
the earlier comments of Singapore, cautioning delegations 
against pressuring G-77 interlocutors on either of the scales 
debates (See para. 2) and laid out its proposal, which 
maintains and expands Category C (allowing a 7.5  percent 
discount in assessments for "developing countries" that would 
otherwise be placed in Category B based on calculations). 
The U.S. presented its proposal, which includes an option to 
"remove Level C and to re-letter subsequent levels" as well 
as a status-quo option to "maintain the structure of levels 
set out in resolution 55/235 of 30 January 2001."  The U.S. 
contended that Category C was intended to fill a limited 
purpose for a brief period of time and that it has now 
outlived its utility. Cuba claimed that the U.S. proposal to 
eliminate Category C is an attack on those countries in the 
category. 
 
¶7. (U) U.S. - CUBA SPAR ON "DEVELOPING COUNTRY" DEFINITION: 
The proposal presented by the G-77 decides that "Level C 
shall be open for any Member State that is a developing 
country and which becomes eligible for movement to Level B 
from a lower level." The U.S. delegate questioned the 
definition of a developing country, noting that not all 
countries that might move through the lower categories would 
typically fit the understanding of a "developing" nation. 
Cuba did not  define "developing", but instead insisted that 
the matter was addressed fully when the scales were last 
negotiated in 2000.  Cuba claimed that Category C was created 
specifically to help distinguish what is and what is not a 
developing country.  Cuba attempted to move away from the 
definition issue by questioning the principled position taken 
by the U.S., expressing that he was "struck" that "for some 
things political agreements work and for others they don't." 
RICE