VISIT OF S/WCI AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON TO BRUSSELS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000180 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/30/2017 TAGS: PHUM PREL EUM SUBJECT: VISIT OF S/WCI AMBASSADOR WILLIAMSON TO BRUSSELS REF: BRUSSELS 3543 Classified By: Alyce Tidball, Deputy Minister Counselor for Political A ffairs for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (C) Summary: Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Clint Williamson visited Brussels January 8 and 9 to discuss war crimes issues with EU and Belgian officials. Discussions focused on current operations of war crimes tribunals, judicial development programs in Rwanda, and the general future of the system of international criminal law. He also met with HR Solana's Representative for Human Rights to discuss resettling some Guantanamo detainees in EU Member States. While unable to make any promises, the EU expressed hope that Europe would be able to offer informal support. End Summary ¶2. (SBU) Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues Clint Williamson and Special Assistant Matthew Lavine visited Brussels January 8 and 9. This trip was a follow-up to a visit by Deputy for War Crimes Issues Milbert Shin in December 2007 (see reftel). ¶3. (C) At the European Commission, Amb. Williamson met with Rolf Timans, Head of Unit for Human Rights and Democratization. They discussed several war crimes processes in Africa, including the potential for accountability mechanisms in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Burundi, the trial of ex-Liberian leader Charles Taylor, and the proposal to try former Chadian leader Hissene Habre in Senegal. Mr. Timans was especially happy with the developments regarding Habre, since it represented the first example of the AU supporting the trial of an African leader on African soil. When asked about the Khmer Rouge tribunal (KRT),Timans suggested Amb. Williamson's best points of contact would be the Member State representatives to the COJUR working group. Timans confirmed that, in principle, the EU supports continued funding for the KRT, but that it would be coordinated by the EuropeAid office. ¶4. (SBU) Amb. Williamson next visited Doris Pack, a German Member of the European Parliament with a long history of interest in Balkans issues. Pack and the Ambassador shared views on the current status of the ICTY, Serbia's prospect for accession to the EU, and other regional war crimes issues. ¶5. (C) Amb. Williamson met with Dr. Riina Kionka, HR Solana's Personal Representative for Human Rights, and Dr. Christiane Hoehn from the office of Transatlantic Relations. After reviewing some of the points Shin made to Kionka's staff, the Ambassador asked about potential roles for the European Council in resettling former Guantanamo detainees. He stressed that the United States wanted to avoid formal Council deliberations on this issue. Instead, the United States would prefer that HR Solana use his stature to publicly and/or privately support the idea of European resettlement of detainees, and an EU statement of support after Member States had made their announcements to accept them. ¶6. (C) Kionka promised to bring this issue to Solana, stating that it was a serious proposal that demanded a serious response. She argued that since the EU had criticized the United States on Guantanamo, it now had an obligation to help if at all possible. She agreed that it was best to approach this informally, as any attempt to form a common position at the European Council on this topic would likely fail. In response to Amb. Williamson's statement that human rights groups would publicly support any Member State that made the humanitarian gesture of accepting detainees from GTMO, she cautioned that some Member States might react negatively to high profile statements from civil society this early. Kionka inquired how the acceptance of 20 or 30 detainees would potentially speed the closing of Guantanamo. Williamson explained that the current population at GTMO, 275 (down from 785 or so originally),comprises several distinct groups of individuals, making any single resolution for GTMO difficult. There are 23 "hard cases" for whom repatriation is not possible, the ones we are now discussing with EU Member States. This group includes Uighers, Uzbeks, and others from states that are chronic HR abusers. In response to a question from Hoehn, Williamson said the detainees we are seeking to resettle in Member States did have ties to terrorist organizations, but the United States currently assesses them to be of low security risk, and so they would not require detention or constant surveillance. The United States is asking states willing to accept these detainees to ensure that they won't engage in terrorism, but is not demanding any specific plan of action. Measures may include travel restrictions, random visits, or other measures consistent with the local legal framework. Williamson closed BRUSSELS 00000180 002 OF 003 the meeting by stating that Secretary Rice has made closing Guantanamo a priority; Kionka promised to convey Solana's response through USEU staff. . ¶7. (C) Ambassador Williamson met with the European Commission's Elisabeth Tison, Head of Unit for Central Africa, and Beatriz Salvador Garcia, Rwanda and Burundi desk officer, to discuss judicial reform in Rwanda, the truth and reconciliation process in Burundi, and the planned Habre trial in Senegal. On Rwanda, Tison and Salvador Garcia agreed with Williamson that Rwanda must provide adequate prison facilities before those convicted at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha can be sent home to serve their sentences. They also noted that the improvements should be comprehensive throughout Rwanda to avoid a two-tiered system in which those convicted of genocide are housed in nicer facilities than Rwandan common criminals ¶8. (C) Williamson shared with the EC a written assessment of the Rwandan judicial system that was requested by the Rwandan government and carried out by the International Legal Assistance Consortium (ILAC) with funding from a human rights NGO. Salvador Garcia said that the EC would be willing to organize a conference of international donors to share ideas and plans for assisting Rwanda with judicial reform. Tison would like to expand the group beyond traditional donors to include some non-Western countries like South Korea. She noted that many donors have an interest in seeing the Rwandan judicial and prison system brought up to international standards because they would like to extradite Rwandans to stand trial domestically, but cannot because their courts have barred transfer out of concern for due process within Rwanda. ¶9. (C) On Burundi, Williamson said there is widespread support on the ground for the UNSCR establishing a truth and reconciliation process but debates still continue on a special court to try perpetrators. Salvador Garcia said that echoes the sentiments of members of the Burundian government who have come to see the European Union saying they favor a truth and reconciliation process but oppose the creation of a court. Finally, on the planned trial in Senegal of former Chadian President Hissene Habre, Williamson said the original cost estimate of 66 million Euros presented by the Senegalese government and its revised estimate of 29 million Euros were still much too high. He noted, however, the important precedent being set by Africans taking ownership of a prosecution for crimes against humanity. ¶10. (SBU) The U.S. Embassy in Belgium organized a roundtable discussion for Williamson with representatives of the Belgian MFA who will participate in Belgium's chairmanship of the UN Security Council Working Group on Tribunal Residual and Legacy Issues. This working group will ultimately present recommendations to the Security Council on the process of closing down the ICTY and the ICTR, including the potential transferal of cases to Rwanda. The Belgian delegation was led by Amb. Benedicte Frankinet, Director, United Nations Office. Other attendees were Rwanda desk officer Paul Jansen, Nathalie Rondeux from the Rights Office, Alexis Goldman from the Legal Department and Gerard Dive from the Public Federal Service Justice. Amb. Williamson was accompanied by his Special Assistant, PolMin Counselor from U.S. Embassy Belgium and USEU PolOff. ¶11. (C) Amb. Williamson said the GoR had approached the USG , stating that they want to be able to accept the transfer of ICTR trials. Williamson said that in recent visits with all embassies in Kigali, the consensus from the international community was that, despite solid progress in its judicial sector ) due largely to Belgian support ) enhanced coordination and targeted capacity building was still necessary.. ¶12. (C) Amb. Williamson referred to the ILAC report; the Belgians criticized this report as being disconnected from the political and judicial realities in Rwanda. In particular, they expressed concern that it did not account for the development work that was already on-going. Williamson explained that the report's purpose was to do an overall assessment of the condition of the Rwandan judiciary, without prejudice to what is already being done to improve the situation. He suggested convening an informal "donor's conference" to discuss its recommendations and to discuss which of the deficiencies cited by the report were not currently being addressed. The Belgians responded that they were pleased to find out that this report would not be a stumbling block to further action. The MFA also said they expected the international community in Kigali would also be pleased with this news. BRUSSELS 00000180 003 OF 003 ¶13. (C) Participants discussed the future of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and of the ICTR. Amb Williamson outlined the difficulty of finding a balance between not having completely open-ended tribunals, while at the same time not giving the impression to any remaining fugitive ) especially Mladic, Karadzic, and Kabuga ) that they could avoid prosecution by just staying in hiding long enough. Williamson indicated he expects neither tribunal will meet its completion strategy goals, but hopes that both will finish all first instance trials in 2009, with appeals running through 2010 for ICTR and 2011 for ICTY. ¶14. (C) The Belgians asked for U.S. reactions to the Rwandan request for the transfer of ICTR archives to Rwanda. Amb. Williamson replied that the United States has major concerns with respect to Rwanda's ability to ensure survival of the materials and the security of witnesses and other participants given current resources. The United States is, however, open to consideration of all proposals, including the return of the ICTR archives to Kigali, so long as they are detailed and address all our concerns. ¶15. (SBU) The meeting ended with discussion of the United States and the International Criminal Court. Amb. Williamson noted that, while it is very unlikely that the United States will join the ICC for the foreseeable future, the United States recognizes the role of the ICC in international justice. However, for practical reasons, it should remain a court of last resort, not become a replacement for national courts and hybrid tribunals. The ICC has a limited capacity, and, with the costs of translation, interpretation, travel, and other administrative tasks, it can not manage more than 5 or 6 cases at a time. Consequently, it remains a U.S. priority to maintain support for domestic and hybrid courts. He also explained the importance of developing templates for future tribunals that incorporate lessons learned from ICTY, ICTR, and other courts. ¶16. (C) Amb. Williamson's final meeting was with Myriam Verger from the cabinet of Commissioner for Enlargement Olli Rehn. She stated that, in her opinion, the EU should not sign the SAA with Serbia until Serbia fully cooperates with the ICTY. Verger asked if the United States could share information with the EC regarding the whereabouts of the most wanted war criminals from the former Yugoslavia. ¶17. (U) Note: Amb. Williamson has cleared this cable. .