STATE SECRETARY VIERITA ON THE RETURN OF ROMANIAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BUCHAREST 000374

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR EUR/NCE AARON JENSEN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/28/2017
TAGS: PREL MARR MCAP PHUM SR RO
SUBJECT: STATE SECRETARY VIERITA ON THE RETURN OF ROMANIAN
GENDARMES FROM KOSOVO


Classified By: DCM Mark Taplin for Reasons 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (C) MFA State Secretary Adrian Vierita accompanied by UN
Director Petru Dumitriu and Director General for Europe
Razvan Rusu, on March 28 raised with DCM and POLMILOFF
Romanian concerns on UNMIK's attitude and handling of the
investigation into the deaths of two ethnic Albanians during
a violent demonstration on February 10 in Pristina. Vierita
said Romania was surprised that the UN's press releases
expressing disappointment with the decision of Romanian
authorities to proceed with the scheduled rotation of its 75
Gendarmes from Kosovo. Vierita said he saw the original press
draft from UNMIK and was shocked that it was so "verbally
violent." He added that although the final UN release was
somewhat milder in tone, it was still disappointing,
particularly in view of the strong track record Romania has
established in the region.


2. (C) Vierita noted that, contrary to the UN's statement,
four members of the Gendarmes unit in question--all
commanders--remained in the region while the rest had
returned to Romania following an "extraordinarily long
prolongation" of their deployment, having spent more than a
year in Kosovo. Furthermore, he pointed out that UNMIK
authorities were aware of the scheduled rotation, and that
this rotation was decided well before UNMIK subsequently made
its second request for Romania to continue keeping the
Gendarmes unit in Kosovo. That request, he said, was for the
sole purpose of investigating the allegation that the
Romanians used excessive force against members of the
Albanian Self-Determination Group (Vetevendosja) who took to
the streets to protest against UN SE Ahtisarri's plan for
Kosovo's future status. Vierita emphasized that the Romanian
unit had already been deployed longer than any other unit
among the allies. He also pointed out that Romania did not
consider the UNMIK investigation would take so long to
conclude. He said that Romania's withdrawal of the Gendarmes
followed established UNMIK procedures, and did not hamper the
investigation since the unit was available for additional
interviews in Romania. Vierita agreed with the DCM that it
would also be appropriate for the Interior Ministry, at a
minimum, to conduct its own internal investigation into the
events.


3. (C) Vierita shared talking points provided to him by the
Ministry of Administration and Interior, which he said
informally expressed the views of the Romanian gendarme.
They were not part of his formal presentation, he stressed:

/Begin text/

Talking Points for the meeting of State Secretary Adrian
Vierita with Mark Taplin, DCM, US Embassy in Bucharest
MFA, 28 March 2007

UN Investigation Commission into the incidents of 10 February
2007 in Pristina/Kosovo

According to the evaluation of the Ministry of Administration
and Interior Affairs, the undergoing inquiry is not in full
compliance either with the Guidelines for Formed Police Units
on Assignment with Peace Operations (May 2006),or with
Article 6 of the UN Convention on Privileges and Immunities
(1946).

Arguments:


1. The Romanian authorities were prevented from providing
proper assistance promptly to its police officers under
investigation as UNMIK did not inform immediately the DPKO,
and implicitly Romania, on the start of this investigation;

2. UN high officials assured the Romanian authorities that
the investigation would be conducted in a transparent manner.
In reality, the Romanian authorities have not been informed
on any aspect related to the investigation, as the
information has been classified as "secret";

3. The assumption of self-defense has been ignored since the
beginning;

4. During preliminary investigations, the international
prosecutor requested to the Romanian contingent to provide
evidence on the basis of the Kosovo Criminal Law instead of
the UN Convention on the Privileges and Immunities;

5. Although officially, the Romanian police officers were
heard as witnesses, it is clear that the Commission intends
to reverse this capacity to that of defendant;

6. According to the provisions of Chapter VIII, Article 16

BUCHAREST 00000374 002 OF 002


of the Directives for Disciplinary Matter involving Civilian
Police Officers and Military Observers (DDCPO/2003/001),a
"Board of Inquiry shall not be a judicial body; it is a
management tool to assist the Head of Mission in discharging
his/her responsibilities. It may also assist the
participating State concerned in its own investigation of the
incident or act, for the purpose of appropriate national
disciplinary proceedings"; in reality is used as such;

7. Apparently, the time foreseen for the investigation has
been extended due to procedural flaws, including the use of
unauthorized interpreters, during the first stage of the
inquiry; this fact determined a rather late second request by
the UN for a new extension of the tour of duty;

8. Persons with high responsibilities in the UNMIK chain of
command, involved in the events of 10 February, have been
discharged and apparently have left Kosovo, thus depriving
the investigation of significant information.

9. Romania reiterated its support for UNMIK and its
availability to further cooperate in the investigation.

Conclusion: the investigation seems to go into the direction
of indicating the individual responsibility of the members of
the Romanian FPU, while trying to avoid the responsibilities
of the UN Interim Administration, of the command the UNMIK
police force and Kosovo Protection Service.

/End text/


4. (C) Comment: The MFA was genuinely surprised by the UN
press release (March 23),and wanted to assure the U.S. that
Romania was neither hampering the investigation nor being
uncooperative with the UN investigation into the February 10
events. At the time of the incident, Romanian television
showed images of a rather violent confrontation in Pristina,
including what appeared to be Albanian demonstrators running
towards the police line and throwing rocks and bottles at
Gendarmes. Our Romanians interlocutors seem to be genuinely
discomfited by the incident, and it not hard to imagine why
this situation is awkward in the face of an international
investigation into their conduct in Kosovo. We pledged to
convey their views in this channel, without otherwise
commenting on the validity of their observations. At a
minimum, we hope that this episode will provide an impetus
for better training of Romanian Gendarmes to operate in
multilateral operations, whatever the specific circumstances
were on the ground on February 10. End Comment.
TAUBMAN