DUBAI PROCESS CONFERENCE: AF/PAK CONVERSATIONS ON

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ISLAMABAD 001823 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PINR PK PREF PREL PTER SUBJECT: DUBAI PROCESS CONFERENCE: AF/PAK CONVERSATIONS ON MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND COUNTERNARCOTICS ISLAMABAD 00001823 001.5 OF 003 ¶1. (SBU) The Canadian Embassy hosted the most recent round of Dubai Process talks between Afghan and Pakistani officials from July 23-24 in Pakistan. Two of the five Dubai Process issues were covered: Movement of People and Counternarcotics. The next session, currently slated for October in Kabul, will cover Law Enforcement and Customs. MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE -------------- ¶2. (SBU) The Afghan delegation opened the first day by saying they wanted a biometrics system at three crossing points: Torkham (between Khyber Agency in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Nangahar Province), Ghulam Khan (between North Waziristan in the FATA and Khost Province),and Chaman (between Balochistan and Kandahar Province). At first, the system would be voluntary; later either a biometrics-enhanced identification card or a passport would be required to cross the border. They specifically highlighted the need for commercial drivers to have such ID cards and noted that the trucks themselves could also potentially be tracked in the future. The Combined Security Transition Command - Afghanistan (CSTC-A) is working with the Afghan Ministry of Interior (MOI) in developing a secure ID card, which includes biometrics data, but the Afghan delegation requested additional assistance from the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Border Management Task Force (BMTF). They noted that Rehman Malik, the Pakistan Interior Minister, had offered assistance from the Pakistani National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) on this front in Kabul several days earlier. The NADRA representative said they were eager to assist and stated that they should have Afghanistan's right of first refusal. (Note. The program for the following days included a visit to NADRA and a demonstration of its systems. End note.) ¶3. (SBU) Both the Canadian Chairman and the Pakistani delegation pointed out that the technology is only a small part of the solution. The operating environment has to be right or the system will pay no dividends. Security, honesty of officials manning the crossing points, and general acceptance by the population are all required for a biometrics system to add value. In addition, the concept was complicated by the existence of agreements in some tribal areas where local residents are specifically excluded from ID/immigration requirements and can/do cross at will. (Note. For example, at Torkham, about 30,000 to 35,000 people cross every day, and only 1 percent of those crossing are required to pass through the Personal Identification Secure Comparison and Evaluation System (PISCES). End note.) The Pakistani delegation repeatedly raised the issue of the Chaman Gate where, about two years ago, a biometrics system including the necessary infrastructure was installed but in a matter of days the hopes to implement the plan were destroyed by Afghan citizens because the local population did not accept its use. Instituting a new system takes time, noted the NADRA representative, and people have to be convinced of the advantages for its use. ¶4. (SBU) At the beginning of these discussions, the two sides agreed to implement a pilot plan by January 2010. BMTF discussed with the Canadian Chairman a suggestion that the delegations develop a thorough plan by January 2010, thus preventing the delegations setting themselves up for failure. The massive logistical requirements and political cooperation that are needed to implement the pilot project will require much more time. By the end of the first day, the two sides had agreed to develop a detailed plan by January 2010 to launch a biometrics pilot project at Torkham in the future, with a focus on documenting commercial truck drivers. A number of speakers, including the International Organization for Migration (IOM),expressed caution that there were several steps that had to be taken first, including an overview of the various systems currently in use, what would be needed to make them compatible, and the multiple parameters that needed to be set (including access to the information gathered on both sides). ¶5. (SBU) There was also a discussion initially about whether ISLAMABAD 00001823 002.2 OF 003 the pilot project should take place at Chaman or at Torkham. The Pakistanis believe that the Torkham gate is physically restrictive and fear that by initiating a pilot project there, logjams would occur and upset the population, creating opposition to the system. Therefore, the Pakistan delegation argued for the pilot program to take place at Chaman given that there is more space where accommodations could be made. The Afghan delegation objected to Chaman because of the concern that the negative public perception that had existed two years ago when the project was first attempted continued to exist and that they could not provide the necessary security for the program on their side of the border. In the end, the two delegations agreed upon Torkham. ¶6. (SBU) After the pilot project was agreed to, the Canadian Chairman suggested that a study on biometrics implementation for the AF/PAK border would help educate GIRoA and the Afghan Delegation on the subject. The study would also be designed to help facilitate the planning for a pilot project. This study could also shed light on the vast complexities that will require consideration when drafting the plan to implement a biometrics system. The Canadian Delegation offered to fund the study with IOM acting as the implementing partner. The Afghan Delegation accepted the offer and discussions on when the study could be completed began. IOM requested a completion date of March 2010, but both delegations and the Canadian Chairman were pushing for a date no later than December 2009. IOM express their reservations due to Ramadan and other holidays that would affect the work. No date was officially decided, but March 2010 was assumed to be the latest date of completion. MOU ON MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The Canadians reminded the delegations that they had committed to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on the Movement of People. The IOM representative (who was attending as an observer as were the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR),the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA),the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the USG) discussed several issues, including development of a permit regime (visas, work permits, etc.),the security environment at the crossing points (enforcement of immigration laws), special attention needed for migrant workers and the need for a phase-in schedule. By the end of the day, the delegations agreed that IOM would undertake to both pull together elements of an overall draft MOU and survey existing biometrics systems, identify ways to make them interoperable and propose an action plan. The Canadians agreed to fund this preparatory work. "BORDER" ISSUES CONTINUE TO BE SENSITIVE -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The two delegations discussed the use of the term "border." The Afghan delegation objected to the Canadian Chairman's references to the "border" and proposed that the meeting discuss the "north and south sides of the Durand Line." The Chair noted this was a political issue that would not be solved by this working group and suggested that the "border" be referred to as the "legal crossing points" hence forth. Sohail Khan, the Director General for the Americas desk at the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, objected, saying that Pakistan would reject anything that diluted Pakistan's international borders. He complained that the Dubai process, through its discussions of borders, was complicating other bilateral (Pakistan-Afghanistan) processes, including discussions on transit trade. The Chair called a break, at which time the two delegations met together and then returned to the room, with no apparent resolution on the issue but with an agreement to move forward. BORDER LIAISON OFFICES -------------- ¶9. (SBU) The next day opened with the Pakistanis expressing concern that the Dubai Process needs to work within the context of the Triangular Initiatives. The Canadians, echoed ISLAMABAD 00001823 003 OF 003 by UNODC, said the process is complimentary and in no way intended to supplant or work independently of the Triangular Initiative. (Note. The Triangular Initiative is an agreement between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, under the auspices of UNODC, to cooperate and coordinate on counternarcotics (CN) efforts and operations. End note.) ¶10. (SBU) UNODC then briefed the concept of the Border Liaison Offices (BLO),which included laying out an approach to establish a pilot project. BLOs are intended to provide a venue for cross-border cooperation and coordination. The Pakistan delegation immediately expressed concern that this concept would overlap with the Border Coordination Centers (BCCs) already in place along the border. The Canadians explained that the BCCs are military-to-military whereby the military would likely approve the concept of coordination on the civilian side to deal with issues beyond their purview, e.g. law enforcement. The Afghans noted that they had identified individuals for the BLOs and are ready to start. Although the Pakistanis had not made it to that point, they did agree to the concept. DRUG DEMAND AND REDUCTION -------------- ¶11. (SBU) Both the Afghan and Pakistani delegations highlighted their current issues in the demand and reduction process and reviewed their programs, noting great support from State INL. The Pakistani delegation insisted that the only reason that Pakistan had a drug problem was because of Afghanistan and its lack of control of the border. Following the presentations, the Canadians developed a joint action item for the delegations: both sides will present what they are doing with in the realm of counternarcotics while UNODC will do a baseline survey of problems and needs assessment for CN. COMMENT -------------- ¶12. (SBU) All in all, this conference was a good opportunity to have the Pakistanis and Afghans talking despite the unwavering Pakistani stance that their issues and challenges in managing border activities could all be traced back to Afghanistan. The USG, along with the Canadians, will continue to push for these kinds of dialogues with the hope that tangible results will take place in the near future. FEIERSTEIN