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