(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