GENERAL ASSEMBLY COUNTER-TERRORISM

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000550

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PTER UN
SUBJECT: GENERAL ASSEMBLY COUNTER-TERRORISM
STRATEGY-FACILITATOR CONVENES CONSULTATIONS



1. Summary. Informal consultations on the General
Assembly's Counter-terrorism Strategy follow-up focused on
plans for the September review. Delegations struck a
positive tone and comments were generally constructive. The
current trend is toward a resolution reaffirming the
Strategy. Some delegations are pushing to establish a
General Assembly Working Group or other mechanism to monitor
implementation and direct Secretariat efforts. The
establishment of a small Task Force Co-ordination Office
within the Secretariat also continues to be an issue two
years after the resolution mandated it. End Summary.


2. On June 13, 2008 Ambassador Gert Rosenthal, Permanent
Representative of Guatemala, in his capacity as facilitator
of the review process of the United Nations Global
Counter-Terrorism Strategy, held an informal meeting open to
all Member States and Observers. Delegates engaged in a
preliminary exchange of views on the expected outcome of the
September 4 meeting convened by the President of the General
Assembly, in compliance with Resolution 60/288. Rosenthal
identified four issue areas of particular
relevance for discussion:

a. Whether delegations felt that the four substantive
pillars of the Strategy merited further discussion or were
susceptible to a broad reaffirmation?

b. What additional steps would be required to improve
implementation and to give the Strategy further impetus?

c. What institutional issues require further clarification
which including:the role of the Task Force, its budgetary
implications, the manner in which it interacts with the
General Assembly, and what further steps are required to
marshal all the resources at the disposal of the United
Nations to implement the Strategy?

d. What type of outcome document should be adopted at the
September 4 meeting?

With regard to the assessment of progress since 2006, the
main item mandated for the 2008 meeting, the facilitator said
that he had been informed by the Secretariat that the
note/report of the Secretary-General concerning what has been
accomplished since the adoption of the Strategy would be
available by the second half of July.


3. Comments, views and concerns were presented by the
following delegations: Pakistan, who spoke of behalf of the
OIC and also on behalf of its own delegation; Slovenia on
behalf of the EU, Egypt, Canada on behalf of CANZ, Qatar,
Japan, Panama, Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Cuba,
Mexico, Indonesia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom,
Colombia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkey, United States,
Peru and Syrian Arab Republic.

Most delegations said that their comments were preliminary
and that more concrete views would be forthcoming after the
report of the Secretary General was issued. There was a
clear pattern in the interventions. Virtually all speakers
recognized the singular achievement that the 2006 Strategy
represented, and the majority favored a general
reaffirmation, rather than a new debate on the contents.
Concern was expressed, however, on two matters: the first
was the importance of adopting further steps to implement the
Strategy at the national, regional and global level; the
second was the institutional aspects. On the latter, there
were differing points of view on how to make the
Secretariat's work more transparent and accountable, as well
as how to enhance interaction between the General Assembly
and the Counter-terrorism Task Force.


4. Delegations indicated they were looking forward to
receiving the Secretary General's report. Some said that
future review processes would be necessary. Many commented
about the "institutionalization" of the Task Force.
Different ideas on mechanisms to meet more frequently to
share information and provide guidance were mentioned. Some
stressed the need to implement the Strategy in an integrated,
comprehensive and more balanced manner. In the view of some
delegations (Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Syria) additional aspects of the Strategy required
more attention such as root causes, development, cooperation,
information sharing and capacity-building.


5. On the expected outcome, there was broad support for a
resolution, although some delegations found it too early to
decide on such a matter. For those who supported the idea of
a resolution, there was a trend toward a short, substantive
and focused document reaffirming the Strategyand enhancing
the Strategy to allow an effective and full
implementation.THey also noted the need to clarify the
interaction of the Task Force with Members States and


resource requirements.

With regard to the resource requirements of the Task Force,
several delegations stressed the importance of resolving this
matter before the September 4 meeting. The EU and U.S. said
that this should be achieved in accordance with GA Resolution
60/288 which stipulated "existing resources". In addition,
comments were made concerning the need for more support and
cooperation with the Security Council counter-terrorism
bodies.

Some views on the format of the meeting of September 4 were
also presented, indicating the wish to have an interactive
debate on the steps needed by Member States to implement the
Strategy including best practices.
Khalilzad