AD HOC COMMITTEE CONTINUES STALEMATE ON

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000432 SIPDIS SIPDIS DOJ FOR OIA - BURROWS, CTS - KASTER AND DOD FOR OSD/GC - BURGER AND LOURIE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PTER UNGA SUBJECT: AD HOC COMMITTEE CONTINUES STALEMATE ON COMPREHENSIVE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM (CCIT) ¶1. (U) Summary. The Ad Hoc Committee (AHC),established by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, met at UN Headquarters February 27-March 3, 2006 to continue negotiations on the CCIT. Deep-seated differences over key text between member States of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and most other delegations precluded any progress on the long-stalled negotiations. The AHC also gave further consideration to the Egyptian proposal for a high-level conference or special session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) to formulate a joint organized response to terrorism. Delegations expressed divergent views along the lines laid out during the Sixth Committee Working Group discussions in October 2005. The AHC adopted its final report on March 3 with a recommendation. End summary. -------------- Draft Comprehensive Convention -------------- ¶2. (U) There was no general debate on the draft CCIT. Rather, discussions took place in the form of bilateral contacts between delegations and with the chairman (Perera ) Sri Lanka). In his meeting with the U.S. delegation, Perera said the Bureau has talked with many delegations that want to make progress on the text. Most delegations have indicated support for adding a preamble paragraph on self-determination, along the lines proposed in October 2005 (copy faxed to IO/UNP). Some delegations (presumably including hard-core OIC members Egypt, Syria, Pakistan and Jordan) have said that changes in the preamble would be agreeable, so long as there are also changes in operative Article 18 (military exclusion) of the coordinator,s text. ¶3. (U) To date, no delegation has offered specific language, but one idea would be to add a new paragraph (5) to Article 18 that would exclude from the scope of the convention acts committed during an international armed conflict that are governed by international humanitarian law (IHL) and are not unlawful under that law. (Comment: This idea is a variation of the Liechtenstein proposal submitted in October 2005 (copy faxed to IO/UNP),but would exclude only acts committed during an international armed conflict. This would mean that acts committed by non-State actors during a non-international armed conflict would be governed by the CCIT. End comment.) The chairman stressed that he has discouraged delegations from re-opening paragraphs (2) ("armed forces") and (3) ("military forces of a State") in the coordinator,s text. Perera said, at this time, he does not envision putting forward such a proposal on behalf of the chair, and it would be up to national delegations to make any such proposal. Some delegations interested in this idea have made clear that they regard the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as an "international armed conflict," so that acts committed during that conflict would benefit from the exclusion that would be provided by a new paragraph (5). ¶4. (U) The U.S. delegation reaffirmed its support for the coordinator,s text, including Article 18, and indicated it is prepared to continue to work on the draft convention and would carefully review any new written proposals. ¶5. (U) U.S. delegation met separately with the Austrian delegation, which has assumed the European Union (EU) Presidency from the United Kingdom (UK). The Austrians affirmed EU support for the coordinator,s text for Article 18, and asked whether there are any new ideas for resolving the stalemate. They acknowledged the Liechtenstein proposal has not achieved consensus as a solution. The Austrians floated a number of ideas, e.g., a new paragraph (5) (some variation of the Liechtenstein proposal) in Article 18, new preambular language (along the lines proposed by Egypt for the Nuclear Terrorism Convention that was withdrawn as part of the final agreement on that convention),or a new definition of "armed forces" in Article 1 of the CCIT. (Comment: The Austrian questions appeared to reflect continuing unease among some EU countries over the continuing stalemate, and the perceived need to come up with new proposals. End comment.) The U.S. delegation reaffirmed its support for the coordinator,s text for Article 18, noting the precedents contained in other recent international counter terrorism instruments. The U.S. delegation again indicated its willingness to review any new proposal, provided it is consistent with U.S. substantive interests. ¶6. (U) In a separate meeting, UK delegation confirmed that there is continuing unrest among some EU countries, but so far the UK and France have persuaded their EU colleagues to hold the line. In an effort to forestall unhelpful proposals from others in the EU, UK delegation has asked London for approval to pursue a new proposal that would add a new definition of "armed forces" in Article 1, based on language drawn from Article 43(1) of Geneva Protocol I. If London approves, UK delegation undertook to vet specific language with the U.S. before going forward. -------------- -------------- Egyptian Proposal for a High-Level Conference -------------- -------------- ¶7. (U) The AHC also gave further consideration to the Egyptian proposal to convene a high-level conference or special session of the UNGA to formulate a joint organized response of the international community to terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. This item previously was discussed at length during the Sixth Committee Working Group meetings in October 2005. Again delegations lined up mostly as expected, with Egypt supported by OIC countries, North Korea, Sierra Leone, Cuba and Venezuela. The U.S. and like-minded delegations (Australia, Austria on behalf of the EU and associated States, Chile, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland and Ukraine) argued that consideration of such a conference should be deferred until work has been completed on the CCIT. Departing from prior positions, Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador endorsed the Egyptian proposal, although the latter two hedged their statements by saying efforts should also continue to conclude the CCIT. Several delegations that spoke in favor of convening such a conference said it could produce an internationally agreed "definition" of terrorism that, in their view, should be distinguished from the peoples, struggle against foreign occupation and self-determination. They also see the conference as a forum for discussion of the "root causes" of terrorism. Egyptian Perm Rep Abdelaziz expressed "satisfaction" with the discussion, noting that all seemed to support the idea in principle, although there are differences over timing and priorities. -------------- Comments -------------- ¶8. (U) The CCIT negotiations remain at impasse over deep-seated political issues that divide the OIC member States from most of the other delegations. The key issues are (1) the OIC demand to exclude national liberation movements from the scope of the convention, and (2) the OIC proposal to limit the availability of the military exclusion to activities that are in conformity with international law. (Under the latter proposal, any violation of international law by State military forces would automatically be equated with an act of terrorism.) Despite numerous efforts over the past four years, delegations have been unable to find a solution to this stalemate. In the coming months, Department and other agencies may wish to consider ways to shift the spotlight from the stalled CCIT negotiations onto other more promising approaches for UN action to combat terrorism. BOLTON