Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09BRUSSELS819
2009-06-15 11:07:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
USEU Brussels
Cable title:
COUNCIL SECRETARIAT DISCUSSES PIRACY PROSECUTION
how-toVZCZCXRO8727 PP RUEHIK RUEHPOD RUEHYG DE RUEHBS #0819/01 1661107 ZNR UUUUU ZZH P 151107Z JUN 09 FM USEU BRUSSELS TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI PRIORITY RUEHPL/AMEMBASSY PORT LOUIS PRIORITY RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY RUEHSW/USDAO BERN SZ PRIORITY RUENAAA/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RUEHBS/USDAO BRUSSELS BE PRIORITY RHMFIUU/HQ USAFRICOM STUTTGART GE PRIORITY RUEHCP/USDAO COPENHAGEN DA PRIORITY RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY RUEHLI/USDAO LISBON PO PRIORITY RUEKJCS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RUEHLO/USDAO LONDON UK PRIORITY RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY RUEHMD/USDAO MADRID SP PRIORITY RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY RUEHNR/USDAO NAIROBI PRIORITY RHMFIUU/CNO WASHDC PRIORITY RUEHNC/USDAO NICOSIA PRIORITY RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY RUEHNY/USDAO OSLO NO PRIORITY RUEHNO/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE PRIORITY RUEHOT/USDAO OTTAWA CA PRIORITY RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RUEHFR/USDAO PARIS FR PRIORITY RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY RUEHPG/USDAO PRAGUE EZ PRIORITY RUZBCAA/NAVCENT INTEL MANAMA BA PRIORITY RUEHRO/USDAO ROME IT PRIORITY RUEHSM/USDAO STOCKHOLM SW PRIORITY RUEHTC/USDAO THE HAGUE NL PRIORITY RUEHTH/USDAO ATHENS GR PRIORITY RUEHRL/USDAO BERLIN GE PRIORITY
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 000819
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
PASS TO NAVCENT POLAD
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: MOPS MARR PREL EWWT XW XF EUN
SUBJECT: COUNCIL SECRETARIAT DISCUSSES PIRACY PROSECUTION
OPTIONS
REF: A. SECSTATE 58579
B. USEU BRUSSELS 702
C. USEU BRUSSELS 692
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 000819
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
PASS TO NAVCENT POLAD
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: MOPS MARR PREL EWWT XW XF EUN
SUBJECT: COUNCIL SECRETARIAT DISCUSSES PIRACY PROSECUTION
OPTIONS
REF: A. SECSTATE 58579
B. USEU BRUSSELS 702
C. USEU BRUSSELS 692
1. (SBU) Summary: On June 12, Poloffs delivered REF A
points and nonpaper on U.S. opposition to an international
piracy court to Didier Lenoir, Head of the EU Council
Secretariat's Operations and Exercises Unit. Lenoir confirmed
that EU Member States are divided on the question of an
international piracy court. The Council Secretariat, however,
is concerned about the sustainability of the current legal
arrangement with KENYA and probable future arrangement with
the Seychelles. Lenoir proposed two alternatives to an
ICC-style international court: a locally-run,
internationally-supported regional piracy tribunal, or an
international community commitment to substantial, long-term
financial and structural support for states prosecuting
pirates. End Summary.
2. (SBU) On June 12, Poloffs delivered REF A points and
nonpaper on U.S. opposition to an international piracy court
to Didier Lenoir, Head of the EU Council Secretariat's
Operations and Exercises Unit. European Commission contacts
tell us the Commission does not have oversight of this issue,
but USEU will raise the issue with Commission officials as
appropriate.
3. (SBU) Lenoir confirmed that EU Member States are divided
on the question of an international piracy court. Lenoir said
EU Ambassadors had discussed the issue once, but the meeting
was limited to announcements of known positions rather than a
substantive exchange.
4. (SBU) The Council Secretariat, on the other hand, is
concerned about the sustainability of current legal
arrangements. The Secretariat wants to ensure continuity
between military operations and legal arrangements, because
the EU cannot afford to have ships taken out of operations
for extended periods while holding captured pirates. For that
reason, the EU finalized an agreement with KENYA in March and
is coming close to signing a similar agreement with the
Seychelles. (Note: Lenoir acknowledged that the recent
decision by the EU to extend the EU operation's area of
responsibility to the Seychelles, reported REF B, was part of
the deal in getting the Seychelles to sign an agreement. End
note.) In addition to these measures, Lenoir supported the
idea of victim states prosecuting pirates, but noted that a
lack of political will makes victim state prosecution
impossible in many cases. He cited examples with Greece and
Germany, both of which recently demurred when asked to accept
pirate suspects. Noting that some NGOs are already
BRUSSELS 00000819 002 OF 002
criticizing the EU for failing to ensure captured pirates are
treated well by Kenyan law enforcement authorities, Lenoir is
concerned that pirates prosecuted in certain victim states
would be subject to human rights violations.
5. (SBU) In the short term, Lenoir said that the EU can
rely on KENYA and the Seychelles for piracy prosecutions.
However, he assessed that the Kenyan court systems will be
beyond capacity in three to four months, with the Seychelles
soon to follow. The international community must find a
long-term solution, he contended. Lenoir agreed that an
ICC-like international tribunal would not be cost effective,
but suggested two alternatives. The first is to establish a
regional tribunal dedicated to piracy prosecutions. The
tribunal would be locally-run but supported by the
international community. Alternatively, Lenoir said the
international community could commit to a substantial,
long-term program of support to states prosecuting pirates.
In this case, he said the EU would have to go beyond its
current 1.75 million euro commitment to KENYA (REF C).
International aid would have to include structural support,
including building prisons and other facilities. Lenoir
reiterated that these were not EU-wide proposals, but noted
that those overseeing the EU naval operations doubt the
sustainability of the current arrangement.
MURRAY
.
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
PASS TO NAVCENT POLAD
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: MOPS MARR PREL EWWT XW XF EUN
SUBJECT: COUNCIL SECRETARIAT DISCUSSES PIRACY PROSECUTION
OPTIONS
REF: A. SECSTATE 58579
B. USEU BRUSSELS 702
C. USEU BRUSSELS 692
1. (SBU) Summary: On June 12, Poloffs delivered REF A
points and nonpaper on U.S. opposition to an international
piracy court to Didier Lenoir, Head of the EU Council
Secretariat's Operations and Exercises Unit. Lenoir confirmed
that EU Member States are divided on the question of an
international piracy court. The Council Secretariat, however,
is concerned about the sustainability of the current legal
arrangement with KENYA and probable future arrangement with
the Seychelles. Lenoir proposed two alternatives to an
ICC-style international court: a locally-run,
internationally-supported regional piracy tribunal, or an
international community commitment to substantial, long-term
financial and structural support for states prosecuting
pirates. End Summary.
2. (SBU) On June 12, Poloffs delivered REF A points and
nonpaper on U.S. opposition to an international piracy court
to Didier Lenoir, Head of the EU Council Secretariat's
Operations and Exercises Unit. European Commission contacts
tell us the Commission does not have oversight of this issue,
but USEU will raise the issue with Commission officials as
appropriate.
3. (SBU) Lenoir confirmed that EU Member States are divided
on the question of an international piracy court. Lenoir said
EU Ambassadors had discussed the issue once, but the meeting
was limited to announcements of known positions rather than a
substantive exchange.
4. (SBU) The Council Secretariat, on the other hand, is
concerned about the sustainability of current legal
arrangements. The Secretariat wants to ensure continuity
between military operations and legal arrangements, because
the EU cannot afford to have ships taken out of operations
for extended periods while holding captured pirates. For that
reason, the EU finalized an agreement with KENYA in March and
is coming close to signing a similar agreement with the
Seychelles. (Note: Lenoir acknowledged that the recent
decision by the EU to extend the EU operation's area of
responsibility to the Seychelles, reported REF B, was part of
the deal in getting the Seychelles to sign an agreement. End
note.) In addition to these measures, Lenoir supported the
idea of victim states prosecuting pirates, but noted that a
lack of political will makes victim state prosecution
impossible in many cases. He cited examples with Greece and
Germany, both of which recently demurred when asked to accept
pirate suspects. Noting that some NGOs are already
BRUSSELS 00000819 002 OF 002
criticizing the EU for failing to ensure captured pirates are
treated well by Kenyan law enforcement authorities, Lenoir is
concerned that pirates prosecuted in certain victim states
would be subject to human rights violations.
5. (SBU) In the short term, Lenoir said that the EU can
rely on KENYA and the Seychelles for piracy prosecutions.
However, he assessed that the Kenyan court systems will be
beyond capacity in three to four months, with the Seychelles
soon to follow. The international community must find a
long-term solution, he contended. Lenoir agreed that an
ICC-like international tribunal would not be cost effective,
but suggested two alternatives. The first is to establish a
regional tribunal dedicated to piracy prosecutions. The
tribunal would be locally-run but supported by the
international community. Alternatively, Lenoir said the
international community could commit to a substantial,
long-term program of support to states prosecuting pirates.
In this case, he said the EU would have to go beyond its
current 1.75 million euro commitment to KENYA (REF C).
International aid would have to include structural support,
including building prisons and other facilities. Lenoir
reiterated that these were not EU-wide proposals, but noted
that those overseeing the EU naval operations doubt the
sustainability of the current arrangement.
MURRAY
.