Terrorism Finance: Amid Indo-Pakistani

C O N F I D E N T I A L COLOMBO 001545 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS, S/CT, EB/ESC/TFS, IO/PHO; NSC FOR E. MILLARD E.O. 12958: DECL: 09-05-13 TAGS: PTER PREL CE XD EFIN PGOV UN SUBJECT: Terrorism Finance: Amid Indo-Pakistani tensions, SAARC meets in Colombo to draft protocol Refs: (A) FBIS Reston Va DTG 010252Z Sep 03 - (B) Kathmandu 1318 - (C) Colombo 1116 (U) Classified by James F. Entwistle, Deputy Chief of Mission. Reasons 1.5 (b,d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) legal experts met August 27-29 in Colombo to discuss regional implementation of UN provisions related to terrorism financing. Rohan Perera, the Sri Lankan MFA's chief legal adviser, told us that progress was made on a draft protocol, but that there had been Indo-Pakistani disagreement on key points. Perera said the uncompleted draft would next be submitted to ministers for discussion. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) SAARC MEETING: Senior legal officials of SAARC countries met August 27-29 in Colombo to discuss regional implementation of UNSCR 1373 (2001) and other UN provisions related to terrorism financing. Rohan Perera, the chief legal adviser of the Sri Lankan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told polchief on September 3 that the meeting had made some progress toward drafting an additional protocol to the SAARC Regional Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism of 1987 that would implement the UN provisions. The draft, based on a loose Sri Lankan suggested text, was about "90 percent" finished, according to Perera, with many core provisions agreed to. Perera said the Bangladeshi and Nepali delegations had been particularly helpful in helping draft various aspects of the protocol. ¶3. (C) INDO-PAKISTANI TENSIONS: Perera made clear that there had been serious differences between the Indian and Pakistani delegations regarding several aspects of the draft. The key disagreement was over how to refer to terrorism in the preamble, with the GoP delegation pressing for some sort of recognition of the legitimacy of "national liberation struggles," which the Indian side could not agree to. There were also disagreements between the two sides over the exact scope of a draft list of terrorism offenses. Those elements of the draft that were not agreed to, including in the preamble, were left blank. ¶4. (C) Perera said there clearly had been significant tension between the two delegations. Such bilateral tensions involving India and Pakistan were common in SAARC fora, he noted, but the bomb blasts in Mumbai on August 25 had seemed to provide an extra "unwelcome" aspect to the August meeting. While the atmosphere was not the most conducive to completing the task at hand, Perera stressed that the meeting had not been rancorous or polemical. ¶5. (C) NEXT STEPS: In light of the Indo-Pakistani divisions, Perera said there was no way that the working level could make more progress on the draft. Thus, he considered the working committee's mandate finished until another one was established. He noted that this meant that ministers would have to review the draft protocol issue next. He thought this might be "unfortunate" inasmuch as political considerations could continue to block further progress on the draft protocol. At this point, Perera said he was not sure that the draft would be completed for signature by principals at the planned Islamabad SAARC Summit in January 2004 as originally envisaged. Bangladesh, he said, had made some noises about a ministerial-level meeting to discuss terrorism-related issues that would perhaps take place before Islamabad. This might be an opportunity to discuss the draft protocol further. ¶6. (U) Minimize considered. LUNSTEAD