MAJOR DONORS TO LEBANON SPECIAL TRIBUNAL DECIDE ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 001138 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/07/2017 TAGS: PREL PTER UNSC SY LE SUBJECT: MAJOR DONORS TO LEBANON SPECIAL TRIBUNAL DECIDE ON MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE REF: USUN 1059 Classified By: Amb. Mark Wallace, for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (C) BEGIN SUMMARY: In the UN's second meeting with major donors and potential donors to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon ("Tribunal") on December 5 (reftel),UN Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs Nicolas Michel announced that the UN and the Dutch had initialed the text of a Headquarters Agreement for the Tribunal, and German DPR Ney said Germany would provide an initial contribution of approximately USD 1 million to the Tribunal. Amb. Wallace, as well as the DPRs from the French, UK, and Germany Missions and the Dutch and Lebanese PermReps also agreed in principle that a Management Committee consisting of major contributors to the Tribunal should be established to provide financial oversight for the Tribunal. Michel sought donors' guidance on the terms and conditions of service for judges and other Tribunal personnel, and participants agreed that the UN could advise the Netherlands that the building the Dutch have offered for the Tribunal appears suitable, subject to the Management Committee's approval of associated costs. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) Michel opened by announcing that the UN and the Dutch have initialed the Headquarters Agreement with the Netherlands, and the Dutch hope their government will reach a final decision on it before Christmas. (The agreement then would be submitted to Parliament for ratification.) Michel asked participants to keep that news confidential, noting that the UN could not make a public announcement until the Secretary-General has reported to the Security Council, SIPDIS consistent with resolution 1757 (2007),that the Agreement could not be concluded trilaterally with Lebanon, and the Dutch have reached a final decision. Michel stressed that the UN had consulted with the Lebanese a few weeks ago and that the Lebanese had confirmed that, given the political situation, Lebanon would not be a party to the Headquarters Agreement. The UN will start preparing the groundwork in the next few days to be sure that all Council Members understand the Secretary-General's assessment that the Lebanese cannot be a party. ¶3. (C) Michel also reported that the UN hopes to appoint the Tribunal's judges by the end of the year. For security reasons, the Secretary-General would only confirm that he has made the appointments but would not announce names. The UN's security office is still determining whether the judges should be relocated if their names became public, Michel said. Management Committee Proposals ¶4. (SBU) Participants discussed two options for providing financial oversight for the Tribunal: (1) retaining the UN Trust Fund the UN has established, meaning the UN would control contributions and administer the funds according to the UN's financial regulations and rules; or (2) establishing a new account controlled by the Tribunal and overseen by a Management Committee, in keeping with the practice being used with the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). Amb. Wallace, along with UK DPR Pierce, and Netherlands PR Majoor favored the SCSL model, which provides donors direct control over their contributions, does not entail paying overhead costs to the UN (which typically are 13 percent),and offers greater flexibility. Stressing the need to ensure that management of the funds is "irreproachable and as transparent as possible," French DPR LaCroix said France could agree to the SCSL model as long as the UN's financial regulations and rules would be applied. In conclusion, participants agreed in principle that contributions should be directed to a new account controlled by the Tribunal, over which a Management Committee would have full oversight authority. ¶5. (SBU) Participants also provided broad views on the composition and terms of reference of the Management Committee. The Dutch stressed their desire to sit on the Committee, while noting that their contributions to the Tribunal would likely be in-kind. Amb. Wallace and UK DPR Pierce said the SCSL model provides a good basis, and French DPR LaCroix agreed on the need for a "certain degree" of geographic diversity. German DPR Ney, who announced that Germany it would be contributing approximately USD 1 million at the outset, said the Committee should be open to other states that provide significant contributions after the Committee is established. Amb. Wallace stressed the need for the Committee to operate by consensus, while French DPR LaCroix and UK DPR Pierce said they wanted to be sure the Committee could prevent one member from "stonewalling." Michel said OLA would prepare revised terms of reference, USUN NEW Y 00001138 002 OF 002 which Missions' technical experts could discuss at a future meeting. ¶6. (SBU) Separately, the Belgian Mission told USUN that Belgium would pledge $250,000 as an initial contribution to the Tribunal, which, given the ongoing political impasse in Belgium and the difficulty of obtaining appropriations, they characterized as a significant reflection of Belgium's interest in the Tribunal. In that vein, they expressed interest in serving on the Management Committee. The Belgians also implied, although they could not promise, that they would be providing additional contributions in the future. Terms and Conditions of Service ¶7. (SBU) Michel and UN consultant Robin Vincent, who served as the Registrar of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and is the presumptive nominee for Registrar of the Tribunal, also summarized the UN's proposals for the terms and conditions of service of the judges and staff. Costs relating to the judges and staff would form up to 70 percent of the Tribunal's budget, Vincent said, as is the case with the SCSL. He stressed that donors should reach decisions soon on how to handle the issue. A key question is whether the Tribunal would follow the same approach as the SCSL, which provides lump sums in lieu of entitlements but does not meet Dutch social security requirements for its staff who work in The Hague, or whether the Tribunal will adopt an approach that complies with the Dutch system. Under Dutch law, all employers must participate in the Dutch social security system unless a "comparable" system is provided. Obligatory areas are health coverage and long term care, long illness, partial and total disability benefits, survivor's benefits, and pension. (Comment: Although Vincent and Michel did not say so, the Headquarters Agreement would require the Tribunal to contribute to the Dutch social security system or ensure that comparable coverage is in place, meaning that the Tribunal would not have the same flexibility as the SCSL has enjoyed. End Comment.) Budget/Building ¶8. Finally, participants authorized Michel to inform the Dutch that the building the Dutch have proposed for the Tribunal appears suitable, subject to the Management Committee's final approval. The building, which the Dutch intelligence services are vacating, has appropriate security and other facilities but needs courtroom space. Khalilzad