ACTION REQUEST: IDENTIFYING OPTIONS FOR RESPONDING

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 000685 SIPDIS DEPT FOR AF, IO, PM, USUN/W E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/13/2019 TAGS: PREL PGOV PTER PHUM MARR MOPS KPKO UNSC SO ER SUBJECT: ACTION REQUEST: IDENTIFYING OPTIONS FOR RESPONDING TO ERITREAN ACTIONS IN SOMALIA AND DJIBOUTI REF: USUN 679 Classified By: Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo, for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (U) This is an action request, please see paragraph 5 below. ¶2. (SBU) Following the Security Council's debate on Somalia July 9, Council members are now considering whether to move forward on the question of sanctioning Eritrea for undermining the Djibouti Peace Process. The Council adopted a Presidential Statement on Thursday that expresses intent to "consider expeditiously" action against parties working to undermine peace and reconciliation in Somalia, while taking note of the African Union's recent communiqu issued at the Summit in Sirte calling on the Security Council to impose sanctions on Eritrea for providing support to armed groups engaged in destabilizing activities in Somalia. ¶3. (C) At the PR and DPR level, France and the UK have stated their desire to consider seriously imposing sanctions on Eritrea for its actions in Somalia and stressed their desire to forge a common position with the US. The Mission attended expert-level consultations with France and the United Kingdom July 10 to discuss possible ways of moving forward on sanctions if we decide to pursue this option. Also discussed was our response to a Djibouti-drafted resolution circulated to the P3 on July 9 that proposes sanctioning Eritrea for the illegal occupation of Djibouti and its refusal to accept mediation efforts. Neither France nor the UK was supportive of the Djibouti-drafted resolution as a stand-alone document, believing that Djibouti must be addressed in conjunction with Somalia. Based on our discussions, we identified two possible courses of action on sanctions, one incremental, the other immediate and comprehensive: Option One, Incremental Approach: This approach would use the existing UNSCR 1844 framework (the November 2008 document that established a targeted sanctions on those who undermined stability in Somalia, violated the Somalia arms embargo or impeded the delivery of humanitarian assistance) to sanction Eritrean individuals and entities for their activities in Somalia. The Committee received the Monitoring Group's first tranche of possible names for designation last week and we expect the second tranche shortly. The first tranche includes only names and entities specific to Somalia, including al-Shabaab and the Somali Islamic Front. (NOTE: The Monitoring Group will circulate the expected Eritrean names despite Eritrea's July 13 decision to cancel the group's planned visit to the country. END NOTE.). This approach would not allow us to sanction individuals or entities for their actions in Djibouti, but we could address Djibouti's grievances through a political statement. Option Two, Comprehensive Approach: Craft a new sanctions resolution that would levy sanctions on the Eritrean government for actions in both Somalia and Djibouti. This approach would maintain the existing Somalia Sanctions Committee, while creating a SC-imposed framework of sanctioning the Eritrean government directly for transgressions in both Somalia and Djibouti. ¶4. Pointing to the African Union Peace and Security Council's (AUPSC) communiqu, the UK expressed a strong desire to move forward with sanctions on Eritrea for actions in Somalia, either via UNSCR 1844 or a new sanctions resolution, stating that, "the door on negotiations with Eritrea is now closed." France agreed with the two possible routes for sanctions, although pressed for inclusion of language on Djibouti. France and the United Kingdom would like to forge a consolidated position with us that we can then present to both Uganda, as current President of the Security Council, as well as separately to the Djibouti Permanent Representative. ¶4. (C) Although the P3 has not formally approached other members of the Security Council with the two options, recent informal conversations have shed light on possible positions. Uganda favors basing new sanctions on the names that will be submitted to the Somalia Sanctions Committee by the Monitoring Group and believes that other African Council members would not be in favor of a new sanctions regime related to the Djibouti border dispute. Russia is also expected to support the designation of Eritrean individuals and entities by the Committee, whereas China is expected to be less supportive of these designations, yet unlikely to USUN NEW Y 00000685 002 OF 002 block action. ¶5. (SBU) Action Request: USUN requests instructions from the Department on the U.S. position, calling attention to the options described in paragraph two and noting the AUPSC's call for the SC to impose new sanctions. RICE