Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09CANBERRA582
2009-06-23 06:26:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy Canberra
Cable title:
AUSTRALIAN REACTION TO USG POSITION ON UN
how-toVZCZCXRO6379 RR RUEHPT DE RUEHBY #0582 1740626 ZNR UUUUU ZZH R 230626Z JUN 09 FM AMEMBASSY CANBERRA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1663 INFO RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA 0430 RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 9505 RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN 1150 RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 2086 RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 1563 RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 2342 RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1566 RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 1060 RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 2393 RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 3580 RUEHWR/AMEMBASSY WARSAW 0854 RUEHBN/AMCONSUL MELBOURNE 6445 RUEHPT/AMCONSUL PERTH 4709 RUEHDN/AMCONSUL SYDNEY 4678 RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0819 RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
UNCLAS CANBERRA 000582
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR L/LEI,IO,S/CT AND EAP
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PTER
SUBJECT: AUSTRALIAN REACTION TO USG POSITION ON UN
COMPREHENSIVE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
REF: A. A. STATE 66265
B. B. STROHMEYER-DAUGIRDAS E-MAIL OF JUNE 18
UNCLAS CANBERRA 000582
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR L/LEI,IO,S/CT AND EAP
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PTER
SUBJECT: AUSTRALIAN REACTION TO USG POSITION ON UN
COMPREHENSIVE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
REF: A. A. STATE 66265
B. B. STROHMEYER-DAUGIRDAS E-MAIL OF JUNE 18
1. June 17, poloff delivered the talking points in reftel a.
to Peter Scott, Director Sanctions and Transnational Crime
Section, International Legal Branch of the Australian
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Mr. Scott replied
that Australia was in basic agreement with the U.S.
positions; however, he wanted the Australian arguments to be
contextualized. Post sent this reply via email to Peter
Guthrie L/LEI June 18 (reftel b.).
2. The following is the Australian position set out in a
non-paper provided by Mr. Scott:
Begin text of Australian non-paper:
The conclusion of a comprehensive convention on international
terrorism would demonstrate, unambiguously, a global
political commitment to criminalise all terrorist acts and to
cooperate to prosecute those responsible for such atrocities.
The Convention's adoption would provide a legal basis to
tackle the diverse threats and methods of terrorism we
continue to face, building upon - but not replacing the
existing sectoral Conventions.
Australia, together with other Western States, wishes to
ensure the activities of armed forces during armed conflicts
(as those terms are understood under international
humanitarian law) are excluded from the Convention's scope,
but that the activities of non-State forces are included
within its scope. The position of the Organisation of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) States, however, is that peoples
involved in a legitimate struggle against foreign occupation
should be excluded from the Convention's scope, but that the
acts of armed forces of a State should fall within its scope
in certain cases. The most recent Ad Hoc discussions on the
Convention (25-26 February and 6 March 2008) made no progress
on resolving this issue. Australia's position, as stated
publicly, remains to retain our support of the coordinator's
text on Article 18.
End text.
3. Comment: The Australians feel a greater connection to the
Convention than does the USG; however, they are not willing
to see the definition of terrorism enlarged to include state
military actions, while at the same time, excluding terrorist
acts perpetrated by national liberation movements.
CLUNE
SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR L/LEI,IO,S/CT AND EAP
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PTER
SUBJECT: AUSTRALIAN REACTION TO USG POSITION ON UN
COMPREHENSIVE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
REF: A. A. STATE 66265
B. B. STROHMEYER-DAUGIRDAS E-MAIL OF JUNE 18
1. June 17, poloff delivered the talking points in reftel a.
to Peter Scott, Director Sanctions and Transnational Crime
Section, International Legal Branch of the Australian
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Mr. Scott replied
that Australia was in basic agreement with the U.S.
positions; however, he wanted the Australian arguments to be
contextualized. Post sent this reply via email to Peter
Guthrie L/LEI June 18 (reftel b.).
2. The following is the Australian position set out in a
non-paper provided by Mr. Scott:
Begin text of Australian non-paper:
The conclusion of a comprehensive convention on international
terrorism would demonstrate, unambiguously, a global
political commitment to criminalise all terrorist acts and to
cooperate to prosecute those responsible for such atrocities.
The Convention's adoption would provide a legal basis to
tackle the diverse threats and methods of terrorism we
continue to face, building upon - but not replacing the
existing sectoral Conventions.
Australia, together with other Western States, wishes to
ensure the activities of armed forces during armed conflicts
(as those terms are understood under international
humanitarian law) are excluded from the Convention's scope,
but that the activities of non-State forces are included
within its scope. The position of the Organisation of the
Islamic Conference (OIC) States, however, is that peoples
involved in a legitimate struggle against foreign occupation
should be excluded from the Convention's scope, but that the
acts of armed forces of a State should fall within its scope
in certain cases. The most recent Ad Hoc discussions on the
Convention (25-26 February and 6 March 2008) made no progress
on resolving this issue. Australia's position, as stated
publicly, remains to retain our support of the coordinator's
text on Article 18.
End text.
3. Comment: The Australians feel a greater connection to the
Convention than does the USG; however, they are not willing
to see the definition of terrorism enlarged to include state
military actions, while at the same time, excluding terrorist
acts perpetrated by national liberation movements.
CLUNE