UN REITERATES PLEA FOR U.S. HELP TO RELEASE

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 002211 SIPDIS SIPDIS FOR IO/UNP:CEDMONDSON AND L/DL:CLIGHT E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: OFDP UN WE JA SUBJECT: UN REITERATES PLEA FOR U.S. HELP TO RELEASE BLOCKED FUNDS REF: A. BROWN/WILCOX EMAIL--11/07/06 ¶B. WILCOX/LIGHT/BROWN EMAIL--11/07/06 ¶C. STATE 7911 ¶D. BROWN/WILCOX/LIGHT EMAILS--10/19/06 ¶E. WILCOX/EDMONDSON EMAIL--09/11/06 ¶F. WILCOX/LIGHT EMAIL--07/06/06 ¶G. LIGHT/WILCOX EMAIL--05/31/06 ¶H. USUN 255 ¶1. This is an action request. Please see para 7. ¶2. On November 7 (refs A-B),the UN's Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) provided USUN with copies of correspondence between the UN Development Program (UNDP) and Bank Leumi, concerning UNDP's effort to secure the return of $1,842,543.50, which UNDP had tried to transfer to the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR) through Bank Leumi on July 5, 2005. In November 2005, UNDP requested U.S. assistance in securing the release of these funds, which the Bank of New York is holding in a non-interest bearing account pursuant to a judgment entered against the Palestinian Authority and the PLO. The Japanese government provided these funds for two UNDP projects in the West Bank, and because the Bank of New York has frozen them, UNDP cannot use them for the humanitarian purposes for which the Japanese government provided them. According to OLA, the Japanese government recently began pressuring UNDP to secure the return of the funds, suggesting that the delay in UNDP's implementation could call in question Japan's willingness to provide future donations. ¶3. In response to UNDP's request for U.S. assistance in securing the release of these funds and per ref C, USUN and L held a conference call with OLA on March 3, 2006, during which OLA was advised that the most expeditious way for UNDP to recover its funds would be to seek a refund from Bank Leumi. (Note: The transfer request document indicates that it is not valid after 180 days. USUN advised OLA that because Bank Leumi did not successfully transfer the funds within 180 days, UNDP, as a depositor whose instructions were not carried out, should assert its legal right to the return of its funds. End Note.) OLA was also advised to consider hiring a lawyer in Israel to seek additional information on its remedies under Israeli law. ¶4. USUN followed up regularly with OLA by phone (refs D-G), and was told that OLA had advised UNDP to seek a remedy from Bank Leumi. USUN asked OLA to provide us with copies of UNDP's correspondence with Bank Leumi so the United States could help if Bank Leumi declined UNDP's request for a refund. ¶5. On October 18, 2006, Bank Leumi declined UNDP's request, advising that the Bank of New York has blocked the transfers for two reasons: (1) an interim order by a U.S. court that the funds should be held pending judgment; and (2) a block by the U.S. Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control relating to PECDAR. (Comment: The UN has never asked USUN about the OFAC block to which the Bank of New York referred. USUN understands that OFAC blocked funds of the Palestinian National Authority in April 2006; the Bank of New York's letter might have referred to that order. End Comment.) In discussions with OLA immediately thereafter, USUN expressed concern (per ref C-F) that UNDP's request to Bank Leumi did not pose the correct question and suggested that UNDP submit a revised request to Bank Leumi, articulating the correct legal basis for its request for a refund. ¶6. In a November 8 telcon, OLA renewed UNDP's request for U.S. assistance, arguing that UNDP's correspondence with Bank Leumi shows that Bank Leumi will not refund UNDP's money. Even though the text of UNDP's request to Bank Leumi does not specifically assert its legal rights as a depositor, OLA argued that having UNDP submit a revised request to Bank Leumi would be fruitless. To seek to compel Bank Leumi to act, OLA said UNDP would have to initiate civil proceedings in Israel. OLA reiterated its contention that the Headquarters Agreement obligates the United States to intervene either with the Bank of New York or with the appropriate U.S. court to secure the return of UNDP's funds. They acknowledged that another option would be for UNDP to sue Bank Leumi in Israel to recover its funds, but said that option would be time consuming and would not necessarily succeed. ¶7. During that conversation, USUN agreed to seek additional guidance from the Department. Begin Action Request: USUN seeks instructions from Department as to whether USUN should advise OLA again that UNDP should submit another written request to Bank Leumi, seeking return of its funds. If that is still the recommended course of action, USUN suggests providing a draft text of the request that UNDP should send to Bank Leumi. End Action Request. BOLTON