CANVASSING SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS' FOR VIEWS ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 058678

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/29/2017
TAGS: UNSC LE PREL PTER
SUBJECT: CANVASSING SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS' FOR VIEWS ON
ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL TRIBUNAL FOR LEBANON

REF: EMAIL MEYER/REINEMEYER/PHEE/KUMAR 4/30/07

Classified By: Assistant Secretary Kristen Silverberg,
for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).


1. (C) This is an action request. Department requests USUN
to canvass the Missions of Italy, Belgium, Slovakia, Peru,
Panama, Congo-B, China, Indonesia, and Ghana about their
views on establishing the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, given
the impasse in Lebanon. The information will be used to
develop tailored arguments for demarches or other contacts
with individual Council members. Department is clear on the
need for UN Security Council action to establish the Tribunal
via a Chapter VII resolution, but specific questions on
timing and content of a resolution are still under
discussion. Thus, USUN should not engage directly at this
time on the question of how Chapter VII might be used.


2. (U) Objectives: Department requests USUN pursue the
following objectives, drawing on background material in paras
3-5 below.

-- Solicit Council members' views on how to establish the
Tribunal given the impasse in Lebanon.

-- For countries either leaning towards support for Council
action, or completely undecided: Encourage them to make
statements during Wednesday's consultations expressing
concern about the failure of the Lebanese Parliament to open
and endorse the establishment of the Tribunal, and support
for prompt action in view of the long lead-time needed to get
the Tribunal up and running.

-- For Belgium and Slovakia: Urge them to mention the need
to consider Security Council action to establish the Tribunal
if all other options have been exhausted.

-- For Italy: Underscore the importance of Italian support
for the Tribunal given Italy,s role in UNIFIL. Urge the
Italians to support consideration of UN action to establish
the Tribunal.


3. (C) Background: On May 2, UN Legal Advisor Nicolas
Michel is expected to brief the Council on his recent trip to
Lebanon and his assessment that the establishment of the
Hariri Tribunal has reached an impasse in Lebanon. It
follows that this will prompt Council members to consider
whether the Council should take action to establish the
Tribunal. Based on previous discussions of the Tribunal in
the Council, Department expects that Russia, Qatar and South
Africa will make strong statements against the UN Security
Council taking action to establish the Tribunal via a Chapter
VII resolution. The U.S., France and Britain (although
reserved) will support UN action to establish the Tribunal,
but will refrain from discussing specific next steps.
Department is less clear about what other Council members are
preparing to say during consultations about the establishment
of the Tribunal.


4. (U) Background continued: Per Ref email, a delegation
from The American Lebanese Coalition (ALC) met with Council
members in NY April 24-26 to discuss the Tribunal and other
subjects. According to a readout provided by the ALC, the
main arguments raised by Council Members against UN action to
establish the Tribunal included:

-- Lebanon is not united behind a Chapter VII resolution to
establish the Tribunal.

-- The Government of Lebanon has not requested a Chapter VII
resolution.

-- Some Council members are uncomfortable "imposing" a
Chapter VII resolution on a sovereign government to establish
a Tribunal.

-- The internal Lebanese situation will deteriorate if the
UN imposes the Tribunal.

-- Brammertz' investigation is going nowhere. Why hurry
with the Tribunal?

According to the ALC,s assessment, Council Members fall into
these general categories:

-- Pro-Lebanon: U.S. and the 5 EU members, with Italy being
the most reserved.

-- Pro-Syria: Russia, Qatar, and South Africa.

-- Leaning pro-Lebanon: Peru and Panama.

-- Unclear: China, Indonesia, Congo, Ghana.


5. (U) Additionally, USUN may draw from the following
points, at its discretion, to address concerns that some
Council members may have:

-- Efforts to weaken Siniora,s Cabinet are clearly intended
to undermine Lebanon's sovereignty and political
independence.

-- It is clear that the Lebanese people want to see justice
done in this case. As indicated in the April 3 letter to
UNSYG Ban, the majority of the Lebanese Parliament favors the
Tribunal and is actively seeking UN assistance to establish
it. Yet a minority within Lebanon and forces outside of
Lebanon are blocking the process, and in doing so are
paralyzing Lebanon.

-- Establishment of the Tribunal is necessary to see justice
done, prevent future crimes, and preserve the Lebanese
judicial process.

-- It is particularly disconcerting to note that the
Lebanese parliament, which was scheduled to reconvene its
regular session on March 20, has still not met.

-- Lebanese parliamentary action to approve the Tribunal
would of course be preferable, but last-ditch diplomatic
efforts to secure Lebanese parliamentary ratification of the
Tribunal have failed. At this point there is no realistic
prospect for breaking the impasse.

-- We understand you might be concerned that Council Action
could interfere with Lebanese sovereignty. The best way for
the Council to help preserve Lebanese sovereignty would be to
establish the Tribunal and protect Lebanon from those who
seek to destroy its sovereignty through continued violence
and assassinations.

-- We understand fully the importance of respecting the
internal processes of member states, but this is a case where
the subversion of that process - through terrorism and other
threats of violence - is itself the heart of the problem.


6. Point of contact: USUN should report feedback to IO/UNP:
Anneliese Reinemeyer (202 647-0046 or in the GAL).
RICE