INTERIM REPLY TO MARITIME POLICE UNIT FUNDING

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 024249 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/27/2017 TAGS: SNAR KCRM PTER PGOV RP SUBJECT: INTERIM REPLY TO MARITIME POLICE UNIT FUNDING REQUEST REF: A. 06 MANILA 3789 ¶B. 2006 E-MAIL RICHARD/JONES/O'FRIEL/KAPOYOS Classified By: INL Assistant Secretary Anne W. Patterson for Reasons 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (U) This is an action request cable. See paragraphs 12 through 16. ¶2. (C) SUMMARY. Post requested via reftels two million USD to purchase boats and ancillary items for a maritime security unit. In 2005 the USG conducted an assessment of the Philippines National Police (PNP) and made recommendations and prioritized the assistance that would be necessary to support the PNP's efforts to reform and transformation as an institution. The assessment found that the PNP is afflicted by severe and debilitating systemic deficiencies. To support the PNP's stated goal of reform and transformation, the assessment identified in priority order deficiencies in the following categories: budget and funding; internal affairs; core training; links between police and prosecutors; and prison management. ¶3. (C) SUMMARY CONTINUED. While an infusion of resources may benefit the capabilities of the PNP's maritime law enforcement capability, by not funding assistance for the prioritized items, the institution of the PNP will remain weak, corruptible and ineffectual. Bureau asks post the below questions to better understand how the proposal fits into post's goals for the PNP, as Post's proposal does not on its face address the identified priorities for reforming and restructuring the PNP. END SUMMARY. ¶4. (C) BACKGROUND. Embassy Manila requested (reftel A) two million USD to fund a the purchase of six boats for use by the PNP on an island in the southwest Philippines, an area that is home to a natural gas facility and tourist resorts, and is vulnerable to narcotics trafficking and other transnational crime, as well as transit of terrorists. Specifically, to purchase six watercraft for a maritime police unit in the PNP, and to purchase related equipment, technical and training assistance. Post informed (reftel A) the Department that this project would help the Philippines better secure its maritime borders and internal seas. A robust version of this proposal may address counterterrorism capabilities. Embassy Manila wrote in reftels that JIATF-West and SOCPAC were going to offer funding for training and infrastructure construction, as well as a commitment from the Philippine government to sustain costs beyond the first year of operations. END BACKGROUND. -------------- How robust is the proposed project? -------------- ¶5. (C) In Embassy Manila's proposal, operational items such as fuel an on-going maintenance costs are not addressed. We do not have copies of signed commitments from the other two USG agencies that quantify the nature and date of their assistance, nor have we even seen drafts of such. ¶6. (C) INL is concerned about the need for training and infrastructure as well as long-term use and maintenance of boats. Our budgets for programs in the Philippines have no provision for a stream of funds that will be required to support such a maritime police unit project over the requisite number of years to achieve full implementation. -------------- What impact on agreed fundamental reforms? -------------- ¶7. (C) Our core project, support for PNP reform, will likely cost between 1.5 and 2 million USD over two years, and need to service the other priorities set forth in the assessment. The approximately 3.8 million USD had been intended for continuing the funding of projects that addressed already identified core issues. Were the USG to fund the boat purchase proposal, based on our experiences in Indonesia, we would anticipate that the Philippines will likely expect follow-on funding, and plan based on their desires rather than what we have in the budgets for FY07 and FY08. ¶8. (C) INL is concerned that funding post's proposal would negatively impact other initiatives such as support for the Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA),and the FBI Automated Fingerprinting Identification System (AFIS). The FY08 budget request has 1.2 million USD for INL activities in the Philippines. If post chooses to use the 5.88 million USD (combined total of FY 2005 and FY 2006) for the ongoing police reform program and the marine project, that will use up the available pipeline and conclude INL's activities in the Philippines. -------------- Indonesia; the Benchmark -------------- ¶9. (SBU) In Indonesia, INL first funded infrastructure construction and then provided training and assistance to develop an in-service, replicable training model that the Indonesians would be able to continue on their own. Once these were in place, INL then funded the purchase of boats. ¶10. (SBU) INL's experience in Indonesia illustrated that a maritime police program required a serious and sustained commitment by the Government of Indonesia, a minimum of four years of joint development, required at least 11 million USD spread over four years, and required that the Government of Indonesia provide dockside and drydock facilities as well as preventative and routine maintenance. ¶11. (C) The 11 million USD required for Indonesia's program represents a level of funding that far exceeds what is currently and what is anticipated to be available for the Philippines. Furthermore, the amount sought in the Philippines would require post to abandon the Senior Law Enforcement Advisor (SLEA) Miller project at the end of this fiscal year, despite the fact the latter is exactly what was specified in the assessment report and the preliminary reports of success. -------------- ACTION REQUESTS -------------- ¶12. (C) Bureau asks post to identify which priorities, as laid out in the 2005 USG Assessment of the PNP, the maritime police unit (MPU) addresses, and to describe how the MPU fulfills the identified priorities. ¶13. (C) Has post signed agreements with JIATF-West and SOCPAC? If yes, INL would appreciate a copy (scanned into PDF format or physical copy via pouch) of each agreement. ¶14. (C) Has the PNP committed to provide key infrastructure support for the MPU? If yes, INL would appreciate a copy. Has the PNP agreed to the obligations for use of provided equipment? If yes, INL would appreciate a copy. ¶15. (C) Has the Philippine Congress passed legislation that will provide a regular, steady stream of funding to the PNP. ¶16. (C) Has post reprioritized assistance to PNP, such that reftel A reflects the new prioritization? -------------- END ACTION REQUESTS -------------- ¶17. (U) Responses should be slugged to INL/AAE attention Sani Sadaghiani. INL thanks post for the project submission. RICE