UN/SUDAN SANCTIONS:COMMITTEE DIVIDED ON EXPERT

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 USUN NEW YORK 001051 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/10/2018 TAGS: PREL UNSC ETTC SU PGOV SUBJECT: UN/SUDAN SANCTIONS:COMMITTEE DIVIDED ON EXPERT RECOMMENDATIONS REF: USUN NEW YORK 946 Classified By: DEPUTY POLITICAL COUNSELOR ELLEN GERMAIN, FOR REASONS: 1 .4(B) AND (D). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: On November 4, the Sudan Sanctions Committee discussed possible Committee response to the recommendations made by the Sudan Panel of Experts (POE) in its final report. The Committee reviewed POE recommendations that the Committee should encourage Sudan to cease its violations of the Darfur arms embargo, propose a greater arms embargo monitoring role for UNAMID, and recommend expansion of the arms embargo to the whole territory of Sudan. The Committee divided along predictable lines, with China and Libya (often supported by Russia, Indonesia or Vietnam) opposing even the mildest Committee response to the POE recommendations, such as inviting the Perm Rep of Sudan to a meeting of the Committee. Despite the support of the United States, France, Belgium, Costa Rica, and Panama, the Committee will take little or no action on the majority of POE recommendations, although it will engage with the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations to explore the feasibility of a greater arms embargo-monitoring role for UNAMID. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) On November 4, the Sudan Sanctions Committee discussed possible Committee actions to respond to recommendations made by the Sudan Panel of Experts (POE) in its final report. (NOTE: The Sudan Panel of Experts is a six-person team of UN contractors charged by the Security Council with monitoring implementation of the Darfur arms embargo and targeted sanctions measures imposed in Sudan. USUN sent a summary of the Panels' final report reftel. END NOTE). The Chair of the Committee, Italian Perm Rep Terzi, provided the Committee with a table containing the recommendations of the POE and his proposals for Committee action in response to each recommendation. Embargo Notification/Compliance -------------- ¶3. (C) In its final report, the POE recommended that the Committee call on the Government of Sudan (GOS) to cease activities that violate the arms embargo on Darfur. In response to this recommendation the Chair proposed that the Committee write to the UN Perm Rep of Sudan, requesting the implementation of the recommendations and reminding him of Sudan's obligations under UNSCR 1591. The Chair further proposed inviting the Perm Rep of Sudan to discuss these issues in person with the Committee. ¶4. (C) China and Russia challenged the validity of the POE's recommendations, stating that the recommendations overstepped the scope of Security Council resolutions. They said it was inappropriate for the Chair either to write a letter to the Perm Rep of Sudan or invite him to the Committee at this time given the political situation. Burkina Faso agreed with Russia, saying that the Committee must be patient with the political process. The representatives of Viet Nam and Indonesia said that an invitation to the Perm Rep of Sudan would be "unbalanced" and imply that the GOS was the only party in violation of the arms embargo. As a possible alternative, the Indonesian representative suggested the Chair meet with the Sudanese Perm Rep in his personal capacity. The Libyan representative opposed both proposals by the Chair, arguing that the current situation in Sudan is completely different from when resolution 1591 was adopted, and that the GOS had a need for weapons in Darfur to assist UNAMID with its operations. ¶5. (C) The U.S. representative expressed full support for the Chair's proposals to write a letter to the Perm Rep of Sudan and invite the Perm Rep to the Committee. Reading from resolution 1591, the U.S. representative stressed that such an invitation falls squarely within the Committee's mandate to "encourage a dialogue between the Committee and interested Member States." He further argued that a dialogue would allow the GOS to address the controversial aspects of the report and could support the political process. The Belgian and French representatives also stated their support for the Chair's proposals. Panama argued for an invitation to the Perm Rep of Sudan, and pointed out that the Committee could and should invite any interested Member State into a dialogue. USUN NEW Y 00001051 002 OF 003 ¶6. (C) Observing the division in the Committee, the Chair decided he would not bring the POE's recommendations regarding arms embargo compliance to the attention of the Security Council or proceed with his proposal to invite the Perm Rep of Sudan to the Committee. He said he would, however, personally convey the nature of the Committee's discussion to the Sudanese Perm Rep. In light of the previous discussion, the Chair added that he would try to draft a letter to the Perm Rep of Sudan for the Committee's review. Arms Embargo Monitoring -------------- ¶7. (C) The chair also proposed letters to the Under Secretary Generals (USGs) of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) and Department of Field Support (DFS) drawing their attention to POE recommendations that UNAMID play a greater role monitoring the arms embargo. The Chair further suggested inviting the USGs of DPKO and DFS to the Committee to discuss implementation. ¶8. (C) The representatives of Russia and China expressed concern that certain POE recommendations about arms embargo monitoring were too broad. The Costa Rican and Indonesian representatives warned against acting on recommendations that requested action beyond the logistical capacity of UNAMID. International Humanitarian Law -------------- ¶9. (C) The POE recommended the Committee draw to the attention of Security Council certain recommendations about International Humanitarian Law, including the recommendation that the Council ask for regular updates on the disarmament process. The POE had also recommended that the Council grant the POE an increased human rights monitoring capacity. The Chinese representative, however, said she did not think the Council should be informed of this request because the Council had just renewed on October 15 the POE's existing mandate, which maintained its current capacity, and therefore it would not be practical to expand the team at this time. Embargo/ Aviation- Overarching -------------- ¶10. (C) Noting the POE recommendation that the GOS issue multiple entry visas to all members of future POEs, the Chair proposed requesting this in a letter to the Perm Rep of Sudan. The Russian representative, however, insisted that it is the GOS's "sovereign right" to issue visas to whomever it chooses and that the Committee could "request, but not require" the GOS to implement the recommendation. The representative of China agreed with the Russian and said the GOS had shown improvements in this area and ought to be encouraged. ¶11. (C) The chair also noted that the POE had asked the Security Council to expand the arms embargo to all of Sudan, Chad, and parts of the Central African Republic (CAR). He proposed drawing this recommendation to the Security Council's attention and expressing the Committee's support, as well as inviting the Perm Reps of Sudan, CAR, Chad, and other relevant Member States to discuss the recommendation in person with the Committee. ¶12. (C) The Chinese representative forcefully reiterated her delegation's position against any expansion of the embargo. She said that it was the job of the Committee to determine how to effectively implement current sanctions not to look into their expansion, and she expressed frustration at the ineffectiveness of the regime at preventing the flow of arms to rebels. The Russian representative stated bluntly that his delegation could not support the recommendation. The Viet Nam and Libya representatives also did not agree with expansion of the embargo. ¶13. (C) No delegation expressed outright support for expanding the embargo, and although France and Belgium agreed with the general concept, they saw no way forward at present. They, along with Panama, did support sending an invitation to all relevant Member States to speak to the Committee on the feasibility the recommendation. USUN NEW Y 00001051 003 OF 003 ¶14. (C) The Committee also considered the POE's recommendation that Member States implement self-imposed end-use certification on military goods and services traded with Sudan. The Chair proposed sending a Note Verbale to Member States urging implementing the recommendation. China, Libya, and Russian rejected the idea. The Chinese representative claimed it would be impossible for exporters to guarantee end-use in Sudan, especially since the JEM rebel group frequently conducted missions to capture military supplies from elsewhere in Sudan that ended up in Darfur. The Russian representative said it was beyond the authority of the Committee to interfere in Member States' military cooperation with Sudan. The representatives of the United States, France, Belgium, Costa Rica, and Panama all supported the POE's recommendation and the Chair's proposed action. They argued that any end-use certification would be voluntary. Given Committee division on the issue the Chair said he was unable to act beyond planning to rel ay the discussion to Security Council. Targeted Individual Sanctions -------------- ¶15. (C) The chair raised the POE recommendation that targeted sanctions (asset freeze / travel ban) be imposed on leadership of the SAF and Sudanese Ministry of Defense when military equipment with End User Certification has proven to be used in Darfur. In response, the representative of Russia said that the Committee should sanction individuals according to its established procedures. The representative of China also rejected the recommendation because it was "unbalanced". The Committee was unable to agree on any action regarding the POE's recommendations on targeted sanctions, although this issue may be mentioned in a draft letter to the Perm Rep of Sudan. Next Steps -------------- ¶16. (C) At the end of the meeting, the Chair summed up next steps: -- The Chair will circulate a draft letter to the Committee that will formally transmit the POE report to the Security Council (NOTE: After transmittal, the POE report, which was previously confidential, will become a public document. END NOTE.) -- The Chair will note several of the POE's recommendations in his upcoming report to the Security Council, although he will clarify that none of the recommendations will be endorsed by the Committee. -- The Chair will draft letters for the Committee to send to the UGSs of DPKO and DFS asking for their opinions about the feasibility of a greater arms embargo monitoring role for UNAMID. -- The Chair will draft a letter for the Committee to send to the Perm Rep of Sudan highlighting some of the issues above. (NOTE: Given the determined positions of some Committee members, we expect this letter will be largely without substance). Khalilzad