IN THE ABSENCE OF US ATTENDANCE, COLOMBO PLAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001173

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS, IO, IO/T, INL/C/CJ

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/14/2014
TAGS: SNAR AORC PREL CE
SUBJECT: IN THE ABSENCE OF US ATTENDANCE, COLOMBO PLAN
MEMBERS APPROVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN TEHRAN

REF: A. COLOMBO-SA/INS 07-14-04 FAX

B. COLOMBO 940 AND PREVIOUS

Classified By: Ambassador Jeffrey J. Lunstead. Reasons 1.5(b,d)


1. (U) This is an Action Request -- Please see Para 7.


2. (SBU) COLOMBO PLAN ADOPTS AMENDMENT: Mission received
the minutes (Ref A) from the Colombo Plan's 39th Consultative
Committee Meeting (CCM) which was held June 15-16, 2004 in
Tehran (the U.S. did not attend because of the venue),in
which the organization notes that the proposed amendment,
discussed at the November 18, 2003 Special Session in
Colombo, was approved. The single sentence says, "The
Consultative Committee adopted the proposed amendment to the
Constitution of the Colombo Plan." While there is no further
description of the amendment, the sentence refers to the
proposal to restrict training opportunities to member states
more than four years in arrears, until a partial payment of
back dues is made. The Colombo Plan Secretary-General
Kittipan Kanjanapipatkul confirmed to the Ambassador on July
13 that this much-discussed, U.S.-opposed amendment had been
adopted during the CCM in Tehran.


3. (C) During their July 13 conversation, the Ambassador
expressed to the Secretary-General his surprise and
disappointment that the amendment had been approved. The
Ambassador specifically recalled to Kanjanapipatkul their
June 8 discussion (Ref B),in which he clearly stated that
the USG did not support the amendment and it would be against
U.S. wishes for the CCM to approve the amendment and only
note United States opposition. "Where is the consensus (the
hallmark of Colombo Plan decisions) in that?" the Ambassador
asked. The Secretary-General responded that the Colombo Plan
Secretariat had only an advisory capacity and that the member

SIPDIS
states made decisions. As hosts, the Iranians chaired the
meeting, Kanjanapipatkul said.


4. (C) Further, the Secretary-General renewed his comment
that the member states had in fact already approved the
amendment during the 38th CCM in July 2001 in Colombo, which
included USG participation. As requested by the 38th CCM,
the member states now were only deciding how to lessen the
severity of the penalty. (The proposed amendment was then
changed from complete payment of arrears to partial payment.)
The Ambassador replied that this was not a convincing
argument for the reasoning behind the 39th CCM's adoption of
the amendment in Tehran. The Secretary-General added that
the situation regarding non-payment of dues was becoming
critical. Bangladesh had just notified the Plan that it
would no longer pay its dues -- but it still expected to be
able to participate in Plan programs!


5. (C) In a July 14 call to poloff, the Secretary-General's
Executive Assistant Yasmin Raheem provided additional
background on the June 15-16 CCM. Raheem said that the
Secretariat had provided detailed information to the CCM

SIPDIS
regarding the history of the proposed amendment. In
addition, the Colombo Plan President had noted to the CCM
participants that one of the member countries opposed the
proposed amendment. Separately, Raheem added that the
Secretary-General was considering convening a working group

SIPDIS
within the Council to further discuss the amendment, but
intended to evaluate such a possibility with the President
first.


6. (C) USG OPTIONS: We see three possible options to take
in response to the amendment adoption in Tehran. One option
is to push the Secretary-General to convene a working group
and reopen discussions on the amendment. Another option
would be for the United States to consider withdrawing from
the Colombo Plan and/or cease funding the organization's
activities, such as those related to the organization's Drug
Awareness Program (DAP). A third option would be for the USG
to make a statement at the July 21 Council meeting to be held
in Colombo that the CCM's actions are a violation of
precedent, did not occur in the spirit of "reaching agreement
by consensus" (according to its constitution) and set no
precedent for the United States in the multi-lateral context.


7. (C) ACTION REQUEST: Before the July 21 Council meeting,
Mission requests Department guidance on any course of action
to take in the Council regarding the adoption of the
amendment. Mission suggests that a statement before the
Council, as alluded to in the third option above, would be
the best approach. While a working group on the subject
might seem most favorable, none of the other 25 member states
have wavered from their support for the amendment.
Therefore, it is unlikely that further discussion on the
amendment will elicit support for alternative proposals to
enforce payment of annual dues. The least desirable option
would be to withdraw from the organization or reduce USG
funding of DAP activities, given the strong track record of
success in this area. END ACTION REQUEST.


8. (U) Minimize considered.
LUNSTEAD