Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06USUNNEWYORK1040
2006-05-23 13:27:00
UNCLASSIFIED
USUN New York
Cable title:  

COUNTER-TERRORISM STRATEGY - WHERE ARE THE

Tags:  PREL PTER UNGA 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0023
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1040/01 1431327
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 231327Z MAY 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9111
INFO RUEHAM/AMEMBASSY AMMAN 0242
RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA 1059
RUEHLB/AMEMBASSY BEIRUT 0720
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN 0223
RUEHBO/AMEMBASSY BOGOTA 0124
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 1098
RUEHEG/AMEMBASSY CAIRO 0662
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 0265
RUEHDM/AMEMBASSY DAMASCUS 0290
RUEHIL/AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD 1139
RUEHJA/AMEMBASSY JAKARTA 1125
RUEHKL/AMEMBASSY KUALA LUMPUR 0567
RUEHKU/AMEMBASSY KUWAIT 0588
RUEHPE/AMEMBASSY LIMA 0165
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO 0571
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 1333
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO 0096
RUEHRB/AMEMBASSY RABAT 0576
RUEHRH/AMEMBASSY RIYADH 0091
RUEHYN/AMEMBASSY SANAA 0075
RUEHTV/AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV 1162
RUEHTU/AMEMBASSY TUNIS 0082
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA 0431
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA 0114
UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001040 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PTER UNGA
SUBJECT: COUNTER-TERRORISM STRATEGY - WHERE ARE THE
MODERATE ARABS?

REF: A.USUN 00977 B.STATE 76209

Sensitive but unclassified.

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001040

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PTER UNGA
SUBJECT: COUNTER-TERRORISM STRATEGY - WHERE ARE THE
MODERATE ARABS?

REF: A.USUN 00977 B.STATE 76209

Sensitive but unclassified.


1. (SBU) Summary. Discussion of the Secretary General's
counter-terrorism strategy (ref A) continued May 15-18 in
General Assembly informal consultations. Delegations were
divided among those who urged the Assembly to craft a
strategy from the elements on which all could agree and those
who said there should be no counter-terrorism strategy unless
there was agreement on all elements. Surprisingly, this
latter group was led by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait and
Jordan who joined Pakistan, Syria, and Iran in opposition to
those who urged a pragmatic approach. They insisted that an
exception for national liberation movements struggling
against foreign occupation and state terrorism must be
addressed in any "comprehensive strategy". Among the Arab
states, only Morocco and Tunisia took a more moderate stance.
The Co-Chairmen (Spain and Singapore) plan to produce a
draft paper in late May/early June for consideration during
the next phase of discussions. End Summary.


2. (SBU) The Co-Chairmen conducted a Chapter by Chapter
discussion of the Secretary General's Report "Uniting Against
Terrorism: Recommendations for a Global Counter-Terrorism
Strategy" during the week of May 15. The EU, US, Eastern
Europeans and most Latin Americans urged the GA to produce an
action oriented strategy based on concrete counter-terrorism
measures on which there is wide agreement. Many OIC members,
Cuba and Venezuela, however, stressed the need to cover all
aspects of terrorism from the definition, to root causes and
state terrorism. Egypt pointed out that to be a
comprehensive strategy, it must cover all of these elements.
Saudi Arabia declared that "there will be no strategy unless
it is balanced. To be balanced it must include, 1) foreign
occupation as one of the most important paragraphs because it
is one of the main reasons for terrorism and 2) the challenge
of state terrorism. Pakistan agreed that exclusion of
controversial issues will not produce a comprehensive
strategy. The Kuwaiti Permanent Representative added that
she did not think that adopting the Secretary General's
comprehensive counter terrorism strategy at the present stage
in the reform discussions should be made a priority.


3. (SBU) In an effective rebuttal, the EU countered that the

term "comprehensive strategy" is not mentioned in the GA's
mandate but rather the strategy is to promote a
"comprehensive response" to counter-terrorism which means
involvement of all actors. The EU urged the Assembly to put
aside the difficult issues (definition, state terrorism
(which they rejected),etc.) being dealt with in the GA Legal
Committee, not to avoid discussions but to avoid duplication
of discussions. They denounced the concept of State
terrorism, which the Jordanian delegate claimed is recognized
by international humanitarian law and unspecified Security
Council decisions. The EU supported examination of
conditions conducive to terrorism but stressed that none of
these could justify terrorist acts nor could there be any
direct causal relationship with terrorist activities.


4. (SBU) Some delegations (Kuwait, Egypt, Pakistan)
rejected the Secretary General's report while these and
others underscored its perceived deficiencies in the manner
in which it dealt with "root causes" (Kuwait, Pakistan,
Egypt, Brazil, Jordan, Iran, Indonesia, Cuba, Venezuela,
Lebanon, Malaysia, Syria),state terrorism (Egypt, Pakistan,


Jordan, Algeria, Lebanon, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia,
Yemen) and national liberation as an exception (Kuwait,
Pakistan, Guatemala, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Egypt,
Syria, Yemen).


5. (SBU) Delegations, generally recognized the progress
made by the Security Council CT Committees but some (Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, Philippines, Indonesia) urged
rationalization and better co-ordination, particularly with
regard to reporting requirements and country visits. There
were complaints from Kuwait, Indonesia, Pakistan and Ecuador
that the Report focused too much on Security Council
counter-terrorism activities and the General Assembly should
have the lead in that area. The delegate of Liechtenstein
helpfully responded, "If we don't act, the Security Council
will. Delegations must compromise in order to prove that the
General Assembly has a role."


6. (SBU) There was broad support (EU, US, Turkey, Colombia,
India, Peru, Israel, Morocco, Tunisia) for a focus on
concrete counter-terrorism measures. There was also support
for considering human rights issues related to terrorism.
The plight of victims was highlighted as an area of concern
but delegations envisioned dealing with it in different ways.
Benin and Guatemala called for reparations while Chile
supported the stress on the need to assist victims but not
through direct monetary compensation. Iran asked, what about
those victimized by use of force under the pretext of
counter-terrorism? On the same theme, Mexico said that such
abuses cannot be justified and the issue should be considered
by the Human Rights Council. The need for due process in
sanctions listing/delisting was mentioned by the EU, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, Chile, Pakistan, Switzerland, India,
Cuba, Peru, Morocco and Liechtenstein.


7. (SBU) Some states (Benin, Ecuador, Pakistan) said that
development should be a key element in any counter-terrorism
plan but balked at the suggestion that UN Development
Programme representatives could play a role in
counter-terrorism efforts (Pakistan, Kuwait, Cuba,
Afghanistan). The Kuwaiti representative said that any such
activity would be inconsistent with their host state
agreements.


8. (SBU) The next round of discussions will take place in
June, following release of a working paper which the
Co-Chairman will prepare on the basis of the informal
discussions.
BOLTON