CICIACS SETBACK IN CONGRESS

UNCLAS E F T O SECTION 01 OF 02 GUATEMALA 001117

SIPDIS

NOFORN
SENSITIVE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/05/2014
TAGS: PHUM PGOV GT
SUBJECT: CICIACS SETBACK IN CONGRESS



1. (U) This is an action request. See para 10.


2. (SBU) Summary: On May 4, the Congressional Human Rights
and Government Commissions issued a joint recommendation to
the plenary of Congress against CICIACS, on constitutional
grounds. On May 5, President Berger and Vice President Stein
both publicly and unequivocally expressed disappointment in
the Commissions' votes and determination to push CICIACS
forward. Faced with this setback, the Executive will attempt
to avoid a vote by the plenary on CICIACS, which would
certainly be unfavorable. To proceed, the Executive must now
renegotiate the agreement with the United Nations. UN Senior
Political Affairs Officer Martha Doggett told the Ambassador
on May 5 that the UN is willing to discuss changes to CICIACS
provided they preserve its potential to investigate
clandestine groups. This is a serious setback, but we should
not yet conclude CICIACS is dead and so ask that funding be
held in reserve. End Summary.

Congressional History
--------------


3. (SBU) On April 14, the two Commissions reviewing CICIACS
were divided on their decisions. While the Interior
Commission advised against the proposal, the Human Rights
Commission President, Nineth Montenegro (ANN),facing strong
opposition and constitutional questions from Commission
members, requested an opinion directly from the
Constitutional Court. Unfortunately, this proved to be a
tactical error (which Montenegro asserts to HROff was
orchestrated by the FRG, whose members suggested the
consultation within the Commission, then swiftly denounced it
from the bench the next day). Montenegro immediately faced
accusations from the FRG bench of violating Congressional
procedures. President of Congress Morales successfully
petitioned the Court not/not to review the proposal and
instructed the Commissions to make a joint decision within 30
days.


4. (SBU) The opposition to CICIACS was organized by former
Ambassador to the U.S. (and current FRG deputy) Antonio
Arenales Forno, and Roxanna Baldetti, President of Government
Commission (of the Patriot Party, a member of the ruling GANA
coalition). Both argued forcefully for rejection of the
proposal without requesting a constitutional review by the
Court. In meetings with PolOffs, both Congressional deputies
claimed the proposal was unconstitutional and would weaken
rather than strengthen Guatemalan institutions by
substituting for them.


5. (SBU) While a Court review could have resolved
constitutionality issues, the Congressional committees chose
to make that judgment for themselves. After a two-hour
meeting between the Government and Human Rights Commissions
on May 4, the members voted overwhelmingly to issue a
negative recommendation on CICIACS to the floor of Congress.
In the Government Commission, 19 voted against proposal and
two in favor (ANN and UNE) and in the Human Rights
Commission, seven voted against, two in favor (ANN and URNG),
and three were absent. The Commissions plan to officially
present this decision to the plenary on May 6. The strongly
negative opinion of the two commissions virtually assured
rejection of CICIACS by the plenary, should it choose to vote
on the resolution.

Executive Stunned, Regrouping
--------------


6. (SBU) On May 5, President Berger called the Congressional
action "absurd" and said he "deeply regretted that the
initiative was stopped. We will revise the technical-legal
questions and continue...so that CICIACS will come to this
country." Vice President Stein commented that "if the
Congress decides to obstruct this project in its current
form, we will look for another way." The same day, FM Briz
privately expressed chagrin to the Ambassador about the lack
of discipline of Congressional members of the GANA coalition.



7. Immediately after the Congressional vote, Frank LaRue,
head of the President's Commission for Human Rights
(COPREDEH),told the Ambassador that he would suggest to Vice
President Stein that the Executive officially withdraw the
proposal before Congress votes on it, renegotiate problematic
language with the United Nations, and request a Court review
before resubmitting it to Congress. However, this strategy
is complicated by Congressional rules. According to the
Legislative Secretariat, President Berger could legally make
this request, but the plenary must approve it with a vote.
If the proposal is not successfully withdrawn, the Executive
would have to wait one year before submitting the measure
again to Congress, unless more than 30% of the new agreement
had been changed.

UN Willing to Talk
--------------


8. (SBU) On May 5, the Ambassador met with Martha Doggett,
the UN lead for CICIACS, and Patrick Gavigan, head of the
MINIGUA Human Rights Office. The UN is open to some
renegotiation on the proposal, they said, but is not
interested in investing donor funds in a water-downed
agreement. The Ambassador pledged to lend support in
lobbying Stein and LaRue to act swiftly and to encourage FRG
Congressmen Arenales to be open-minded about allowing the
Executive to find a viable solution with the UN on CICIACS to
address sovereignty and constitutionality concerns. Arenales
subsequently expressed his willingness to cooperate to the
Ambassador, specifically to refrain from deep-sixing CICIACS
before the Executive branch can renegotiate it with the UN.
Comment
--------------


9. (SBU) The setback in Congress, abetted by members of its
own GANA coalition, has embarrassed the Berger Government,
which had been publicly supportive of CICIACS and had been
categorical on the subject with USG officials in Washington.
It reflects both a lack of attention on the part of the
Executive, and the will of Congress to act independently when
neglected. It also reflects a strong nationalist political
consensus against an unchecked UN role in the justice system,
which must be addressed by any revised CICIACS agreement. We
have encouraged the GOG and UN to seek an agreement which
would strengthen the rule of law while addressing these
concerns.


10. Action request: Continue to hold the funds for CICIACS
that were notified to the Congress. Despite this serious
setback, it is too soon to conclude that CICIACS cannot
succeed.
HAMILTON