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