US embassy cable - 04BRUSSELS3983

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRUSSELS 003983 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/ERA, NEA/I, S/P FOR DIRECTOR REISS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/17/2009 
TAGS: PREL, EAID, MOPS, IZ, EUN, USEU BRUSSELS 
SUBJECT: EU MEMBER STATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR UNPROFOR IRAQ: 
10 MILLION EUROS SO FAR 
 
REF: A. PM/GRESS-USEU/LITZENBERGER EMAIL 09/15/2004 
 
     B. EUR/SAARNIO-USEU/LITZENBERGER EMAIL 09/16/2004 
 
Classified By: USEU POLOFF Lee Litzenberger; reasons 1.4 (b,d) 
 
1.  (C)  According to a Council Secretariat official 
(protect) working on Iraq issues, EU member states have 
offered to date a total of 10 million euros ($12 million) to 
fund the UN Protection Force in Iraq.  In addition, the UK 
has pledged to provide an unspecified monthly sum of money to 
ensure that the UNPROFOR will be funded.  However, the EU is 
still not clear on what the funding requirement for UNPROFOR 
will be; apparently member states are hearing that while the 
total required is $26 million, the UN in fact only has a 
shortfall of $10 million (USEU passed the non-paper provided 
by PM ref A) 
 
2.  (C)  The current country-by-country breakout, according 
to our contact, follows below.  Our source cautioned, 
however, that many pledges are oral and some are 
controversial within member state governments, and some 
countries have yet to respond, so the numbers are likely to 
change. 
 
Czech Republic (oral pledge)   500,000 euros 
Portugal (oral pledge)         500,000 euros 
Finland (written pledge)     1,000,000 euros 
Denmark (oral pledge)          500,000 euros 
Germany (oral pledge)        5,000,000 euros 
Sweden (written pledge)      1,500,000 euros 
Netherlands* (written pledge)1,000,000 euros 
------------------- 
Total                       10,000,000 euros 
 
*Netherlands has also pledged to provide an additional 
500,000 euros to UNSECOOR, which our contact understood was 
separate from the UNPROFOR mission. 
 
We Note that the information provided to USEU above tracks 
generally with that provided to EUR/ERA (ref B) with the 
following differences: 
 
-- Portugal is 500,000 euros vice 50,000; Denmark is 500,000 
vice 2.0 million (apparently there's a dustup between MFA and 
MOD over who pays, and whether ODA can be spent for an 
UNPROFOR mission); 
-- Germany stated all 5 million of its electoral assistance 
funds could be allocated to UNPROFOR. 
 
3.  (C)  Our contact confirmed that the Commission is, in 
fact, still looking at whether it can fund UNPROFOR.  The 
Rome Treaty clearly prohibits funding military operations, 
but there is a way around this.  Were Member States to 
authorize the Commission to provide "core funding" 
(non-earmarked funds) to the UN (or other international 
institutions, the UN would then be free to use those funds in 
any manner it wished.  At present, member states have 
explicitly refrained from giving the Commission the 
flexibility to provide core funding to international 
institutions, and insists on earmarking all EC funds to such 
organizations.  EC Relex Commissioner Chris Patten is 
reportedly sympathetic to using Commission funds to support 
UNPROFOR, but is upset with member states refusal to allow 
him the flexibility (through core funding) to do so.  On the 
one hand, Patten wants to support the UN in Iraq; on the 
other hand, he's inclined to say "it's not legal" out of 
frustration with the member states.  Bottom line, according 
to our source:  Don't hold our breath for Commission funding, 
but keep up the pressure on member states to contribute to 
UNPROFOR. 
 
Comment 
------- 
4. (C) Our impression here is that member states with troops 
in Iraq are not 
prepared to make significant contributions to UNPROFOR, but 
the other EU 
member states have not yet registered the urgency of 
providing the necessary 
funding to allow UNPROFOR to move forward.  Department may 
wish to consider 
using the upcoming ministerial meeting with the EU in New 
York to stress the 
urgency of resolving these funding issues. 
 
McKinley