(C) RWANDAN MISSION UNCOOPERATIVE ON FDLR NAME

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000148 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/17/2019 TAGS: UNSC POLS SUBJECT: (C) RWANDAN MISSION UNCOOPERATIVE ON FDLR NAME SUBMISSIONS TO DRC SANCTIONS COMMITTEE REF: A. STATE 000731 ¶B. KIGALI 000025 ¶C. STATE 003354 ¶D. KIGALI 000054 Classified By: Ambassador Susan Rice for reasons 1.4 (b,d) 1 (C) SUMMARY: USUN requested Rwanda to amend its original proposal for the designation of members of the FDLR rebel group for UN targeted sanctions to include U.S.-provided information in four official statements of case. The Rwandan mission on 11 February rejected this suggestion, claimed no guidance from Kigali and made clear that the mission did not intend to take any further action regarding these submissions. USUN proposes that we not try to have another round of engagement with the Rwandans, but rather move forward immediately in the DRC Sanctions Committee by collaborating with the UK, France, Belgium on the statements of case. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) USUN discussed with the Rwandan UN mission next steps for designating members of the FDLR rebel group in the UN Security Council's Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) Sanctions Committee (Ref A). USUN requested that Rwanda amend its original designation request to include U.S.-provided information in the statements of case. USUN explained why including this information was necessary to ensure the Committee could move forward quickly on the basis of accurate information. (NOTE: Rwanda originally submitted 19 names of individuals associated to the FDLR to the DRC Committee for targeted sanctions (Reftels B,C). The United States, United Kingdom, France, and Belgium placed a hold on the request believing that the evidentiary information was incomplete. These four countries have since assembled adequate information to justify designation, but on only four of the original nineteen names. The Rwandan mission has complained that the Sanctions Committee has not moved faster on its original proposal. END NOTE). ¶2. (C) On February 11, Alfred Nderabasa from the Rwandan mission told USUN that Rwanda had no intention of resubmitting the names. Nderebasa explained that Rwanda had already submitted its original proposal in spring 2008 and no further action was required on Rwanda's part. He noted that Rwandans were &at the mercy of the U.S., since the U.S. was the only state that had a problem with their prior submission, so (they) are waiting for instructions from the U.S.." When asked if the Rwandan Mission had received guidance from Kigali regarding possibly resubmitting the four names, Ndereabasa said, "no, we already submitted the names. Nothing has changed with the submissions. Can you imagine the Rwandans going back after submitting 19 names and now saying that we only have four? That makes no sense." (NOTE: Per Ref D, Embassy Kigali confirmed with their counterparts in Capital that the Rwandan Mission in New York had been instructed to resubmit the names. The Rwandan Mission in New York apparently has not received those instructions or has decided not to follow them. END NOTE) ¶3. (C) USUN proposes that instead of engaging in yet another round with the Rwandans, the U.S./UK/France/Belgium instead move ahead on the basis of our own original proposal, which would include the most accurate information in the four statement of cases. The UK, France, and Belgium appear amenable to moving forward on the name submissions. We note that both the Rwandans and our European colleagues are deeply frustrated with how long it has taken to move forward on these high-priority designations, especially considering the fast pace of developments in the DRC. Because additional delays or procedural maneuvers will undermine U.S. credibility and make it more difficult for us to work on future designations in the DRC, we recommend moving forward rapidly. Rice