1267 COMMITTEE: FRENCH REACTION TO U.S. PAPER ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 001078 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/26/2011 TAGS: ETTC KTFN EFIN UNSC PREL PGOV SUBJECT: 1267 COMMITTEE: FRENCH REACTION TO U.S. PAPER ON FAIRNESS REF: A. STATE 65363 ¶B. PARIS 3382 ¶C. USUN 917 ¶D. MOSCOW 4497 ¶E. LONDON 3046 ¶F. BEIJING 7918 Classified By: Deputy Political Counselor Molly Phee, for Reasons 1.4 (B and D) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: The French Mission stressed its desire to work closely with the USUN to reach agreement on how to revise listing and de-listing procedures in the UN Security Council's 1267 (al-Qaida/Taliban) Committee. French Mission officials met with USUN on May 22 to respond to our April 27 demarche (ref A). The French argued that their proposal to revise de-listing procedures by creating a "focal point" would keep the Security Council in control of decision-making, while removing States from the "forefront" of the de-listing process. The French Mission also stressed that its proposals would cover all of the Security Council's sanctions committees - not just the 1267 Committee, as the U.S. proposal does. As a compromise, the French Mission explained that Paris could agree to some role for States alongside the focal point, but expressed its view that the U.S. proposal to expand the number of States that could forward a de-listing petition to the Committee would be "difficult" for Paris to accept. USUN and the French Mission pledged to continue discussions on bridging our differences in anticipation of the 1267 Committee's June 5 meeting, when the Chairman plans to ask delegations to present national proposals. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) USUN met with the French Mission on May 22 to continue discussions on our two proposals for revising listing and de-listing procedures in the 1267 Committee. This discussion follows USUN's April 27 demarche to the French Mission (ref A). French Mission views of the U.S. paper track closely with the report from Embassy Paris (ref B). French Reaction to the U.S. Paper -------------- ¶3. (C) National Mechanisms: The French stated that the U.S. proposal to strengthen national mechanisms is good, but would take too long. Some States would never be able to develop such mechanisms, either because of capacity issues or political will. That said, the French would not oppose this proposal. ¶4. (C) Expanding the Circle: According to the French, our proposal to expand the circle of States, so that a listed individual could approach any member of the Security Council, in addition to his/her country of citizenship/residence, to request the forwarding of his/her de-listing petition to the Committee, would be "confusing" and would not address the concerns of those States most critical of targeted sanctions (i.e., Switzerland). Expanding the circle so that a listed individual could approach States with a nexus to the case (i.e., where assets are frozen) would also be confusing and many such States would be unwilling or unable to review a de-listing petition (France mentioned Switzerland again in this context). ¶5. (C) As Embassy Paris reported (ref B),the French Mission raised the "Venezuela scenario" of a future Security Council member flooding the Committee with petitions to stymie its work. Also as reported by Embassy Paris (ref B),the French are keenly interested in a "visible" change to procedures. They do not think our proposed expansion of the circle would be visible enough. ¶6. (C) Coversheet: The French support our proposal to create a coversheet in order to help improve the quality and to standardize listing requests. ¶7. (C) Notification of Listing: The French expressed concern that any direct notification to an individual might expose the State to judicial action. When USUN pressed the French on this point, questioning how direct notification that an individual has been listed would make the State more vulnerable to legal challenge than indirect notification, the French Mission wobbled a bit, but held to its point. The French "Focal Point" Paper -------------- ¶8. (C) French Focal Point: The French Mission reiterated that Paris is opposed to any judicial review or outside mechanism. France wants the Security Council to maintain control of decision-making, but not be at the "forefront" of the process. The French proposal to create a focal point in the Secretariat, who would transfer de-listing petitions received SIPDIS directly from the listed individual to the Committee, would remove the listed individual's State of citizenship/residence from this phase of the process. When USUN pressed the French on how routing de-listing petitions through a focal point would diminish a plaintiff's likelihood of bringing suit against a State, the French said that the focal point proposal is more of a "political message" than anything else. Next Steps -------------- ¶9. (C) France stressed that it wants to work closely with the U.S. to reach a consensus position. The French Mission said France may be able to accept some means for Member States to submit de-listing petitions to the Committee, but only alongside the "focal point" option that would ensure that the Committee would receive all petitions presented by individuals. The French reiterated that any enlargement of the circle of Member States would be "difficult" for Paris to accept. ¶10. (C) The French would like experts to continue discussing the issue in New York. The French do not want Paris to send a delegation at this stage. They admitted to us that there are serious disagreements among officials in Paris, which is why the French Mission thinks that experts in New York have a better chance of finding compromise. ¶11. (C) Based on the report from Embassy Paris (ref A) and USUN's May 22 discussion with the French Mission, USUN will review options for bridging the French and U.S. proposals, keeping in mind that Russia has expressed opposition to direct access, as has Japan. ¶12. (C) France and USUN both submitted our papers to the 1267 Committee Chairman on May 22 (the deadline). The Chairman asked that delegations present national proposals at the June 5 meeting of the 1267 Committee. Comment -------------- ¶13. (C) It seems that the French would accept a proposal similar to what currently exists in the Liberia Committee, which permits both individuals and the listed individual's State of citizenship/residence to submit de-listing petitions to the Committee. Interestingly, the French mentioned the Liberia Committee's de-listing case for French citizen Gerard Desnoes. This is the second time the French have mentioned Desnoes (in discussions of changing the 1267 Committee's de-listing procedures),and their experience dealing with the case (and their irritation) may have helped form some of the French thinking on de-listing. BOLTON