Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09STATE104391
2009-10-07 14:46:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

STATEMENT FOR SIXTH COMMITTEE ON UN

Tags:  PREL PTER CT UNSC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0004
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #4391 2801506
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 071446Z OCT 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 0000
UNCLAS STATE 104391 

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PTER CT UNSC
SUBJECT: STATEMENT FOR SIXTH COMMITTEE ON UN
COUNTERTERRORISM ISSUES

REF: A. USUN 840

B. STATE 62265

C. STATE 103127

UNCLAS STATE 104391

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PTER CT UNSC
SUBJECT: STATEMENT FOR SIXTH COMMITTEE ON UN
COUNTERTERRORISM ISSUES

REF: A. USUN 840

B. STATE 62265

C. STATE 103127


1. This is an action request. Please see paragraph 3.


2. SUMMARY: The Sixth Committee will address the CCIT on
October 6, 7 and 23. Negotiations on the CCIT have foundered
for nine years on two issues: (1) the scope of an exemption
for military activities and (2) exemption of national
liberation movements. USG redlines are that military
activities must be exempted using standard language from
previous antiterrorism conventions, and that violent acts of
national liberation movements must not be exempted. By
contrast, the OIC wants to exempt military activities only if
they are in compliance with international law and wants
national liberation movements (with the Palestinians
particularly in mind) exempted by the Convention. The United
States continues to support a Comprehensive Convention on
International Terrorism that would strengthen this existing
legal regime and reinforce the critical principle that no
cause or grievance justifies terrorism in any form. However,
we firmly believe that any successful resolution to the
outstanding CCIT issues must be predicated on a shared and
clear understanding that a comprehensive convention on
terrorism cannot provide a pretext for terrorist groups to
claim their criminal acts are excluded from the scope of the
CCIT in the name of national liberation, resistance to
foreign occupation, or any other justification or motivation.
Furthermore, it should not reach state military action,
which is subject to other international legal regimes.


3. ACTION REQUEST: In discussions commencing October 6 on
CCIT negotiations, USUN may wish to draw on points from the
following draft statement.

BEGIN STATEMENT

The United States reiterates both our firm condemnation of
terrorism in all its forms and manifestations as well as our
commitment to the common fight to end terrorism. All acts of
terrorism - by whomever committed - are criminal, inhumane
and unjustifiable, regardless of motivation, especially when
they indiscriminately target and injure civilians. An
unwavering and united effort by the international community
is required if we are to succeed in preventing these heinous
acts. In this respect, we recognize the United Nations,
central role in coordinating the efforts by member states in

countering terrorism and bolstering the ability of states to
prevent terrorist acts. We express our firm support for
these UN efforts.
Through the UN system, 16 international legal instruments
have been completed. These instruments provide a thorough
legal framework for cooperation among states directed toward
prevention of terrorist acts and ensuring the prosecution and
punishment of offenders, wherever found. We note the ongoing
efforts to further enhance this legal framework and promote
full and effective implementation of the provisions of these
instruments. We believe the four latest counter-terrorism
instruments adopted in 2005 - the Nuclear Terrorism
Convention, the Amendment to the Convention on the Protection
of Physical Nuclear Material, and the two Suppression of
Unlawful Acts Protocols - are valuable additions to our
collective efforts to combat terrorism. (We are seeking
domestic legislation so that we can become party to and fully
implement these newest instruments.) We also note the
recent meetings of the Legal Committee of the International
Civil Aviation Organization to consider updates to the two
civil aviation security Conventions - the 1970 Hague
Convention and the 1971 Montreal Convention. We believe this
international legal framework for countering terrorism must
continue to be supported and developed, with states joining,
implementing, and -- where needed -- refining these existing
instruments.
The United States continues to support a Comprehensive
Convention on International Terrorism that would strengthen
this existing legal regime and reinforce the critical
principle that no cause or grievance justifies terrorism in
any form. We firmly believe that any successful resolution
to the outstanding CCIT issues must be predicated on a shared
and clear understanding of two fundamental principles:
-- First, a comprehensive convention on terrorism cannot
provide a pretext for terrorist groups to claim their
criminal acts are excluded from the scope of the CCIT in the
name of national liberation, resistance to foreign
occupation, or any other justification or motivation.
-- Second, as with other recent counterterrorism instruments,
a comprehensive convention should not reach state military
action, which is subject to other international legal
regimes.
We continue to believe that the Coordinator's 2002 text best
reflects these fundamental principles by incorporating text
which 162 states have accepted in the Terrorist Bombings
Convention. The text found in the Bombings Convention, as
well as four other recent counterterrorism instruments, was
itself the subject of careful compromise. We are not
persuaded that there are deficiencies with this text that
need to be remedied. While we appreciate the efforts of
those who have attempted to offer proposals to finalize the
CCIT text, to date those proposals have not been supported by
those who object to the Coordinator,s 2002 text. We stand
prepared to carefully consider any new proposal that is
consistent with the fundamental principles we have outlined,
and encourage other states to do likewise.

END STATEMENT


4. (U) Department further requests USUN draw from the
following points, if needed, should the case of Luis Posada
Carriles be raised (likely by the Governments of Cuba and/or
Venezuela) , following negotiations in the Sixth Committee on
CCIT. (Background Note: The Governments of Cuba and
Venezuela claim that Posada, a Cuban exile, was allegedly
involved in the bombing of a Cubana airliner, which had
departed Caracas before its destruction in mid-air in 1976.
Posada is also alleged to have been involved in bombings of
tourist facilities in 1997 in Havana, Cuba, and in a plot
against Fidel Castro during the Ibero-American Summit in
Panama in 2000. Posada was taken into custody May 17, 2005,
by the Department of Homeland Security for entering the
United States without inspection.)

BEGIN REMARKS:

- Contrary to the statements you have heard, the United
States has taken a number of actions with respect to Luis
Posada-Carriles ("Posada").

- In taking these steps, the United States has acted
consistent with international law as well as our domestic
legal framework that provides for due process and various
constitutional safeguards.
- These safeguards provide that an individual cannot be
brought for trial or extradited unless sufficient evidence
has been established with respect to the charges; in the
United States, this standard is described as "probable cause."

- Let me give you a brief overview of steps the United States
has taken with respect to Posada within this legal framework:

- Posada entered the United States illegally in early 2005.

- Posada was detained by immigration authorities in the
United States on May 17, 2005, and he was, in accordance with
U.S. law, placed in removal proceedings.

- The immigration judge who handled the removal proceedings
ordered that Posada be removed from the United States on
September 27, 2005.

- This order remains in effect. The United States has been
seeking ways to implement it consistent with the terms of the
order and U.S. obligations under the Convention Against
Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment.

- Specifically, at the time the immigration judge ordered
Posada removed, the immigration judge also determined that
Posada could not be removed to either Cuba or Venezuela as it
was more likely than not that he would be tortured if he were
so transferred. As a matter of U.S. immigration law, the
United States is not in a position to remove Posada to either
country. (For use if appropriate)

- Moreover, the United States sought and obtained a criminal
indictment in U.S. federal court charging Posada with
violations of our immigration laws. On April 8, 2009, new
criminal charges were brought against Posada in that case,
accusing him of lying about his involvement in certain
terrorist bombings in Havana, Cuba. The case is currently
scheduled for trial early next year.

- In the meantime, Posada remains subject to the order of
removal issued by the immigration judge and is without legal
status in the United States.

- He is also subject to an Order of Supervision from the
Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE),which imposes certain restrictions on
Posada, including reporting and monitoring requirements.

- In sum, the United States continues to be engaged in an
ongoing series of actions, consistent with our legal
requirements and due process, with respect to Posada.

END REMARKS
CLINTON