UN/RWANDA SANCTIONS: RWANDA SEEKS US SUPPORT FOR

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 000159

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2017
TAGS: PREL UNSC ETTC RW
SUBJECT: UN/RWANDA SANCTIONS: RWANDA SEEKS US SUPPORT FOR
EASING OF THE ARMS EMBARGO

Classified By: MINISTER COUNSELOR WILLIAM BRENCICK, FOR
REASONS: 1.4(B) AND (D)


1. (U) This is a guidance request, please see paragraph 7.


2. (C) USUN Sanctions Unit Chief was approached by Rwandan
First Counselor Nicholas Shalita on February 23 to request
that the United States support a new resolution to modify the
arms embargo on Rwanda. The Rwandans are consulting with all
Council members (with the exception of the French) to push
for an end to the requirement imposed under resolution 1011
(1995) that all states notify the Rwanda Sanctions Committee
of exports of arms or materiel to the Government of Rwanda
(GOR).


3. (C) Shalita argued that the political and security
situation in Rwanda has vastly improved since the imposition
of the embargo during the genocide in 1994, and that the
notification requirement is no longer necessary given the
stable situation on the ground. Shalita pointed to the
Committee's 1996 press release, in which the Committee stated
such that notifications were no longer required of states, as
evidence that Committee has not considered the provision to
be necessary in over ten years. Shalita provided USUN with
the points in paragraph 8 below.

--------------
BACKGROUND
--------------


4. (U) Resolution 1011 (1995) lifted the embargo imposed
under resolution 918 (1994) on arms exports to the Government
of Rwanda (GOR),while reaffirming the embargo on
non-governmental forces. It also required member
states--including Rwanda--to notify the Committee of all
shipments of arms or materiel to the GOR (paragraph 11).


5. (U) However, on September 11, 1996, the Committee issued a
press release stating that since the comprehensive embargo
imposed by resolution 918 had been terminated, "no
notifications (were) required to be submitted by States of
exports from their territories of arms or related materiel to
the Government of Rwanda or by the Government of Rwanda of
imports of arms and related materiel."


6. (SBU) The question of notifications remained dormant for
ten years until the Rwanda Committee chair received a letter,
dated March 14, 2006, from the Chair of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo Sanctions Committee regarding a
potential violation of the notification provision by Bulgaria
that had been uncovered by the DRC Group of Experts. The
letter prompted the Committee to reconsider the status of the
notification provision. USUN and France argued that the
provision remains in force absent a resolution formally
terminating the requirement, regardless of the content of the
1996 press release.


7. (C) USUN seeks Department guidance on whether to support a
new resolution terminating the embargo notification in
paragraph 11 of resolution 1011 (1995).


8. (C) Begin Rwandan paper:

918 Committee on Rwanda

Background

In May 1994 the Security Council adopted resolution 918
which, in para. 13, imposes an arms embargo on Rwanda. The
circumstances under which the embargo was imposed are clear;
the Genocide was on-going. Any arms importations would make a
catastrophic situation even worse.

In September 1996 the Council adopted resolution 1011 which
lifted the arms embargo for the Rwanda government, but in
para. 11, imposed a requirement for all exports of arms and
related materiel to Rwanda to be brought to the attention of
the 918 Committee. On 11 September of the same year, the
Committee issued a press statement in which it said that
notifications were not required. This decision was reiterated
in the Committee's report to the Security Council for 1996.
This is the status quo.

USUN NEW Y 00000159 002 OF 002



The Chairman of the Security Council Committee for 2006
presented his report to the Security Council on 19 December

2006. In his statement, the Chairman said that the future
status of the notification requirement was yet to be decided.
A meeting held on 3 November 2006 was unable to resolve the
issue of the future status of the notification requirement.
At the same meeting the UN Office of Legal Affairs presented
a legal opinion stating that the 11 September 1996 Committee
statement did not lift the notification requirement, and that
only the Security Council has the mandate to do this.

On 10 March 2006, the Chairman of the 1533 committee on the
DRC wrote a letter to the Chairman of the 918 committee
observing that the arms imports into Rwanda referred to in
the Group of Experts report should fall under the paragraph
11 of resolution 1011 notification requirement. In his
response, the Chairman of the 918 committee stated that the
status of the notification requirement had not changed since
the 11 September 1996 statement.

The future status of the notification requirement will again
be considered by the 918 committee at its next meeting in
March 2007 under the Chairmanship of Indonesia.

Key questions:

Given positive political and security developments in Rwanda
over the last decade, is the notification requirement that
had been deemed unnecessary in 1996 necessary now? Should the
Committee not take account of the positive developments on
the ground?

Given positive developments in the wider sub-region in the
last 3-4 years, in particular the signing of the Peace Pact
at the 2nd Summit of the International Conference on the
Great Lakes Region in December 2006, is the notification
requirement that had been deemed unnecessary in 1996
necessary now?

How will the notification requirement impact on Rwanda's
capacity to equip its Troops and Police serving in UN and AU
peacekeeping missions in Sudan, Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire and
Haiti?

Given the above, shouldn't the notification requirement be
lifted altogether?

The 918 Committee was established in the context of genocide
in Rwanda. Given that the genocide ended 13 years ago and
tremendous progress has been registered in all areas,
including peace, security and human rights, should the 918
Committee consider its status?
WOLFF