1267 COMMITTEE LAUNCHES WORK ON MAJOR NEW TASKS

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000185 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/24/2019 TAGS: ETTC PREL EFIN KTFN PTER UNSC SUBJECT: 1267 COMMITTEE LAUNCHES WORK ON MAJOR NEW TASKS Classified By: Amb. Susan Rice, for reasons 1.4 (B) AND (D) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: The Security Council's 1267 Committee (al-Qaeda/Taliban Sanctions) has recently begun two workload-intensive tasks mandated in resolution 1822 (2008) to address deficiencies in the fairness and clarity of the Committee's procedures. The first task directed the Committee to complete a comprehensive review of the over 500 names on the Committee's Consolidated List by June 30, 2010. The second task requires the Committee to develop and post on its website "narrative summaries" of the reasons underpinning each listing. After nearly six months negotiating modalities for implementing these tasks, the Committee distributed in December the first batch of names for the comprehensive review and has now approved fifteen narrative summaries for release on the website. ¶2. (C) USUN sees challenges ahead, including the risk that the Committee will: 1) fall behind in the workload, 2) argue over the content of narrative summaries, and 3) be reluctant to de-list names that no longer meet the criteria for listing. Nevertheless, full and timely implementation of these two tasks is essential to rebutting the critics -- and the courts -- that have pointed out deficiencies in the fairness of the 1267 sanctions regime. END SUMMARY. ¶3. (C) The Security Council's 1267 Committee (al-Qaeda/Taliban Sanctions) has begun work on major tasks mandated in Security Council resolution 1822 (2008) to improve the credibility, legitimacy and fairness of the 1267 sanctions regime. (NOTE: The 1267 Committee maintains a "Consolidated List" of over 500 individuals and entities it has determined are associated with al-Qaeda or the Taliban; these individuals and entities are subject to an asset freeze, travel ban and arms embargo. END NOTE). Adopted in June 2008, resolution 1822 included new obligations and enhanced procedures in response to mounting criticism -- and litigation -- alleging that the 1267 regime, and targeted sanctions in general, did not have listing or delisting procedures that were sufficiently fair and clear. ¶4. (C) Resolution 1822 introduced two new requirements that will enhance fairness and transparency but will also consume significant time and resources. First, the resolution mandated that the Committee conduct a review of all the names on the Consolidated List by June 30, 2010, in order to ensure the list is "as updated and accurate as possible and to confirm that listing remains appropriate." Second, the resolution mandated that the Committee "make accessible on the Committee's website narrative summaries for reasons for listing" of all entries on the Consolidated List. The comprehensive review was intended to ensure the Committee did not allow names to languish on the Consolidated List without reviewing them with an eye to validating (or not) their ongoing designation. An important goal of this review is to clean up some of the early (pre-2006) listings that were made before certain safeguards were introduced, such as requiring designating states to provide the Committee with "statements of case" outlining the reasons supporting the listing request. The requirement to produce narrative summaries was intended to address the concern that designees were not being notified adequately of the reasons why they were added to the Consolidated List. ¶5. (C) A disproportionate share of this workload will fall to the United States and the handful of other states that have proposed the bulk of the names on the Consolidated List, as these states will be asked to provide opinions on the ongoing appropriateness of designations and to provide -- if available -- additional declassified information for inclusion in the narrative summaries. The United States, as the designator or co-designator for over half the names on the list, will shoulder most of the effort. THE COMMITTEE FINALLY GETS TO WORK -------------- ¶6. (C) After 1822 was adopted in June, the 1267 Committee spent nearly six months negotiating the modalities to implement these two tasks. Those Committee members responsible for the most designations worked hard to preserve flexibility in organizing their workload. Committee members also debated the appropriate scope and content of the narrative summaries, with the United States and European countries favoring summaries that were more expansive and included information dating from both before and after a name was designated, while Russia preferred a much narrower scope. After intense mediation by the outgoing Belgian chair of the 1267 Committee, the Committee reached final agreement on all outstanding issues on December 9, 2008. ¶7. (C) With these modalities determined, the chair of the Committee distributed on December 18 the first batch of fifty-two names for the comprehensive review. Per agreed procedure, the chair requested the states who had designated these names provide to the Committee within three months (by March 19) updated information about each designation and an opinion of whether the listing remains appropriate. The chair will circulate these replies to all members of the Committee, who will then have an additional month (until April 19) to express an opinion. As a final step, the chair will put the name on the agenda of the Committee for a final decision of whether to retain the reviewed name on the Consolidated List. ¶8. (C) In order to meet the June 2010 deadline, the Committee will review subsequent batches of approximately 100 names every three months. The new chair (Austria) of the Committee has already assembled a list of 105 names to be reviewed in the second batch, with responses due by May 2009. Over the entire course of the review, the United States will be asked to provide an opinion on approximately 275 names for which we are the designating or co-designating state; other major designating states are the UK (112 names),Russia (112),France (72),Italy (79) and Germany (32). ¶9. (C) The 1267 Monitoring Team -- a UN team of experts that was tasked in resolution 1822 to draft, in coordination with designating states, the narrative summaries -- began sharing its first draft summaries in December. Per agreed procedure, the Monitoring Team first asks designating states to review these drafts and provide additional information for inclusion (e.g., declassified intelligence). After designating states are comfortable with the draft, then the Monitoring Team sends the draft to the Committee for final approval. As of February 24, the Committee has approved fifteen narrative summaries for publication to the Committee's website, including a number of priority summaries the European Union had requested in connection to ongoing litigation. These narrative summaries are being translated into all official UN languages and will likely be posted on the Committee's website soon. CHALLENGES AHEAD -------------- ¶10. (C) Although still in the early phase of these tasks, USUN sees these challenges ahead: -- FALLING BEHIND: There are worrying signs that the Monitoring Team will not be able to keep pace with the workload, especially if designating states miss deadlines to provide timely input on draft narrative summaries. In this regard, the U.S. track record is uneven. As of February 23, the Monitoring Team had asked the United States to comment on 51 draft narrative summaries for U.S. designations, with input requested by various rolling deadlines. The United States has since provided input on 14 of these summaries, but missed deadlines on 21 summaries and owes input on the remaining 16 summaries by February 28. As other Committee members gradually learn that the United States has missed these deadlines, USUN is concerned that the United States may be blamed if the schedule slips much further. (NOTE: To help keep track of outstanding requests for U.S. input, USUN will distribute regularly a chart showing upcoming deadlines. END NOTE). -- CONTROVERSIES OVER CONTENT: After months of Committee wrangling over the scope of information included in narrative summaries, there have been few substantive arguments within the Committee at this early stage over their actual content. This is partially due to the Monitoring Team's effort to avoid "provocative" language (e.g., "jihadi," or "Muslim extremist") that might inspire some Committee members to block approval. The Monitoring Team has advised the United States to scrub our input carefully to avoid language that gives others an excuse to stall. For example, the Monitoring Team advises against mentioning bad deeds that are not directly connected to an individual's association with al-Qaeda or the Taliban (e.g., ties to non-designated groups like Hamas). -- RELUCTANCE TO DELIST: Committee members, including the United States, may be reluctant to remove any names from the Consolidated List during the comprehensive review. Keeping a name on the list may be seen as the "safe" option, which avoids the risk of delisting an individual who might still pose a threat. Nevertheless, a willingness to de-list weak designations will show that the Committee is serious about clearing away the inappropriate designations that have tarnished the legitimacy of the regime. The success of the comprehensive review will not be measured in delisting statistics, but rather a qualitative judgment of whether this review results in a more accurate, up-to-date and better justified Consolidated List. In the long-term interest of the regime, USUN encourages Washington to consider removing names for which evidence is either weak or outdated. ¶11. (C) COMMENT: Full implementation of resolution 1822 will demonstrate to the critics -- and the courts -- that the Security Council is serious about addressing deficiencies in the fairness and clarity of its procedures for applying targeted sanctions. Resolution 1822's requirements for regular review and narrative summaries is becoming standard practice for other sanctions regimes, as was seen in the new Somalia targeted sanctions regime (resolution 1844) in which the Council replicated entire paragraphs of resolution 1822. U.S. commitment to 1822's full implementation -- as evidenced by providing timely input to draft narrative summaries, sharing well-considered opinions during the comprehensive review and agreeing to de-list names that are no longer appropriate -- is essential to the long-term survival of the 1267 sanctions regime. END COMMENT. Rice