ERITREA SANCTIONS: UGANDA PUSHES P3 FOR IMMEDIATE

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 000874

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/01/2019
TAGS: UNP PTER PNAT ETRD MARR USUN AU SU ER SO
UG
SUBJECT: ERITREA SANCTIONS: UGANDA PUSHES P3 FOR IMMEDIATE
COUNCIL ACTION

Classified By: USUN AMBASSADOR SUSAN RICE FOR REASONS 1.4(b) and (d)


1. (SBU) Guidance request - see para 11.


2. (C) SUMMARY. The P-3 and Uganda met to discuss
possible sanctions on Eritrea. France agreed Council action
is necessary; UK also agreed on the
need to act, but starting with existing mechanisms, such as
the
Somalia sanctions regime (UNSCR 1844). In a subsequent
meeting with the P-3, Uganda voiced strong support for an
Eritrean sanctions regime that addresses both Eritrea's
transgressions in Somalia and Djibouti. Uganda also urged
swift Council action to adopt such measures in October and
expressed confidence that an Eritrean sanctions resolution
would pass the Council. USUN requests Washington
assistance in assembling unclassified information that can
be passed to the P-3 and Uganda regarding arms flows
through Eritrea and options to target, through a UNSCR, an
Eritrea-levied tax on remittances. END SUMMARY.


3. (C) During a UK hosted P-3 meeting on Eritrea sanctions
on
September 30, Ambassador DiCarlo reiterated U.S. interest in
considering sanctions on Eritrea should Eritrea not change
its behavior
immediately. She stated that sanctions will only be saleable
in the Council if it is an African-led initiative.


4. (C) France Deputy Perm Rep (DPR) de Reviere agreed
that Council action is necessary to address the
Eritrea/Djibouti border issue, but remains concerned over
the French hostage held in Somalia. Despite this, he said,
France would not block Council action and would support
Uganda's lead.


5. (C) UK DPR Parham agreed that the existing Somalia
sanctions regime (UNSCR 1844) is insufficient to deal with
the current range of Eritrea's destabilizing actions. He
said the UK's "starting point" is to use existing
mechanisms, build pressure incrementally by designating the
Eritrean leaders and possibly expanding the scope of 1844.
Parham also agreed with the U.S. on the "scale of the
problem" and the "need for action." He acknowledged that
short of a political statement by the Council following
designation of Eritrean officials, measures taken under 1844
cannot hold the Government of Eritrea accountable writ
large (such as through an arms embargo). In response to
Ambassador DiCarlo's question about the nature of the UK's
hesitation, he said that the UK is concerned about, "what
is saleable in the Security Council," and amount of
political capital the UK is willing to expend. The UK DPR
also suggested to Ambassador DiCarlo that the P-3 should
begin using 1844 to its fullest, even if a separate Eritrea
sanctions regime is established. Ambassador DiCarlo
reminded the UK and France and that the U.S. is waiting for
reactions to U.S. proposed designations under 1844 and
urged them to work expeditiously to designate prior to
the Council's scheduled review of 1844 in November.


6. (C) Ugandan Perm Rep Rugunda then joined the P-3
meeting
and emphasized the need for a new sanctions regime for
Eritrea.
He stated that Uganda will only support a resolution that
encompasses
Eritrea's transgressions in both Somalia and Djibouti.
Rugunda reported that Uganda has met with all Council
members on this issue and found consensus that the Council
should take action. According to Rugunda, China is
cautious about an Eritrea sanctions regime but is not
unsupportive. China requested that the Ugandans share
elements
of a draft resolution for Beijing's feedback. According to
Rugunda, Russia is also cautious but agrees that the
Council must act. Russia expressed concern over Uganda's
support for a port blockade on Eritrea, stating that the UN
lacks forces to implement such a measure. Rugunda told the
P-3 that Libya will not oppose measures despite its
reticence over sanctions on African countries. He
explained that the African Union (AU),under Libya's leader
ship, officially endorsed Eritrea sanctions. Therefore, he
asserted, it would be difficult for Libya to contradict the
AU policy in the Council. According to
Rugunda, Libya will "likely" support measures or may

USUN NEW Y 00000874 002 OF 002


abstain, but will not block a resolution.


7. (C) When asked by the UK about using 1844 instead
of a new regime, Rugunda answered that he did not believe
using existing measures sends a strong enough message.
However, Rugunda stated that Uganda is not "dogmatic" over
the mechanism and is willing to discuss the idea of
expanding the scope of 1844 as long as the outcome
holds Eritrea accountable and sends a clear message to the
region that spoilers will not be tolerated. Rugunda
expressed concern that Somalia is becoming a safe
haven for terror groups.


8. Regarding Djibouti, Rugunda called Eritrea's
defiance of the Council and non-compliance with UNSCR 1862
"embarrassing" and a threat to the Council's
"moral authority." Parham asked Rugunda how the Council
will respond to Eritrea's likely criticism that the Council
is acting with hypocrisy by punishing Eritrea for troops in
Djibouti while not speaking out against Ethiopia's presence
in Eritrea. Rugunda answered that Eritrea has
"distinguished itself" as a leader in destabilizing the
region and the Council is not obligated to deal with all
border disputes at all times.


9. (SBU) Rugunda listed some sanctions measures
Uganda supports against Eritrea: measures holding Eritrean
leaders and entities responsible for funding or acting as a
conduit for funding foreign fighters; an arms import and
export embargo (noting that Eritrea does not produce its
own arms but acts as a conduit for arms flow to neighboring
countries); measures curbing fundraising for Eritrea in
other parts of the world; blockades that target key
Eritrean and Somali ports that facilitate entry of arms and
foreign fighters into Somalia; curtailment of the 2%
remittance Eritrea uses, in part, to raise funds for armed
insurgent groups; and other targeted measures. Rugunda
told the P-3 that Uganda will not endorse measures that
hurt the Eritrean people. Uganda wants "effective
measures" that will target specific government entities and
not "kill institutions."


10. (SBU) The group agreed to reconvene in one week
following consultations on the expert level to discuss
options for Council action. Finally, the group agreed to
take a closer look at an arms embargo
to identify the major suppliers of arms and how arms and cash
assistance can be cut off.

--------------
Action Request
--------------


11. (SBU) USUN requests Department assistance in
providing data releasable to the P-3 and Uganda detailing:
1) arms suppliers and the flow of funds and arms to Eritrea;
and 2) options on targeting the 2% remittance tax through a
UNSCR.
Additional, pertinent information is also welcomed.
RICE