MEETING WITH NEW TURKISH COUNTER TERRORISM

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000022

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PTER ETTC KTFN UNSC
SUBJECT: MEETING WITH NEW TURKISH COUNTER TERRORISM
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN

REF: A. STATE 03589

B. STATE 03940


1. SUMMARY: Turkey, the new chairman of the UN Security
Council Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) hosted an informal
meeting at its mission on January 14, 2010, to outline its
main objectives for its 2010 chairmanship and to exchange
views with other committee members on the way forward. These
priorities are: to get the CTC to spend less time on
technical and procedural and more on substantive issues; to
increase the visibility of the CTC work both in and outside
of New York; to stimulate more dialogue between the committee
and UN member states; and to make the CTC more transparent.
Turkey then enumerated a number of proposals in each of these
areas for the CTC to consider. There was widespread support
among committee members for the proposed new approach,
although there are some different views on the specific
Turkish ideas which will need to be sorted out in the next
few weeks. Drawing on REFTEL, USDEL emphasized that it
shared Turkey objectives and was interested in working with
committee members to make its work more relevant to national
counterterrorism efforts, more strategic in its approach, and
less focused on what the UK and France referred to as the
unnecessary Micro-management Of CTED's work. Delegations
generally welcomed the US proposals and praised the quality
of CTED's work, noting the dramatic improvements that have
been made under the leadership of current Executive Director,
Mike Smith. There was consensus that the time was right to
transform the relationship between the committee and CTED.
(Comment: Although the initial reaction to USDEL points was
positive, continued close cooperation among the P3 and with
the chair, increased dialogue with the Russians and Chinese,
and more outreach to the elected members will be critical to
realizing our policy objectives in the committee. End
Comment) END SUMMARY


More substance and less process


1. Committee members agree that the CTC procedures require
streamlining so that the CTED can spend more time working
directly with countries in capitals and less time servicing
and reporting proforma exercises to the committee. For
example, there was consensus that the existing procedures for
CTC review/approval of the CTED Preliminary implementation
Assessments (PIAs),requests for travel, and reports on the
status of the preparation of CTED visits need revision. The
chair, for example, proposed having the committee adopt the
PIAs through silence procedure, following consideration by
the relevant sub-committee. Given that most of the work on
the PIAs is already done by the sub-committees (and not the
committee),many CTC members (including the P3) favored a
more far-reaching change: the PIAs would still be circulated
to all committee members for review, but a sub-committee
should only meet to review a specific PIA when either a
committee member or the CTED requests one. Joining with the
US, the UK and France question the value-added by the current
process for approving the PIAs, given the document's
technical nature and the fact that committee members are
diplomats rather than CT experts. Russia remained largely
silent throughout the meeting. However, most committee
members (including Austria, Brazil, China, and Mexico),
either during or on the margins of the meeting, agreed that
efforts should be made to depoliticize (to the extent
possible) this process by keeping the PIAs as largely
internal CTED working documents. The general view was that
this will make them more useful tools for dialoguing with
member states. (Note: Speaking privately to USDEL after the
meeting, Turkey said it agreed with our position on this and
will work to persuade others, although no delegation spoke
out against the P3 position at the meeting. End note.)


2. There was consensus surrounding both the need for the CTC
to have more substantive discussions, either thematic or
regionally-focused, and for them to conclude with concrete
CTC recommendations for action by the committee, CTED, and/or
UN member states. It was also agreed that the level of input
and interest from CTC capitals in the work of the committee
will need to increase in order for this to happen These
meetings could be devoted to highlighting and
addressing some of the concrete challenges countries are
facing in implementing UNSCR 1373 and some of the best
practices that have been developed to overcome them.


3. Delegations also welcomed the US proposal to have the
analysis and recommendations in the Global Implementation
Survey serve as a springboard for such discussions both in
the committee and for CTED ongoing engagement with regional
organizations. The US idea for using the CTC as a platform
to bring together member state practitioners and experts in a
relevant area to share practical experiences, challenges, and
best practices was also well received. (Note: USDEL spoke
off-line to Mike Smith about the idea of organizing such a


meeting involving national prosecutors with experience in
trying high-profile terrorism cases in national courts.
Smith thinks such an initiative would be useful, particularly
insofar as it could be a first step to building an informal
network of CT prosecutors from around the world. End Note).


Raising awareness and increasing transparency/visibility of
the work of the CTC, and broadening support for
implementation of UNSCR 1373


4. Delegations voiced their support for these goals and put
forward a number of different proposals aimed at realizing
them. For example, among other things, the chair proposed a)
more visits by the CTC chair to international conferences.
(Note: Rather than simply having the CTC chair participate in
more international conferences (where the value-added of such
participation is questionable),USDEL proposed having the
chair (or his designee) travel to specific countries or a
region to deliver a political message from the CTC where
implementation problems due to lack of political will have
been identified. End Note); b) including one committee member
on CTED assessment visits (with the consent of the country
being visited) (Note: A number of delegations, including
USDEL, UK, and France, questioned the efficacy of such a
proposal that would mix the political (CTC) with the
technical (CTED) and thus might hinder the dialogue between
CTED and the national experts. End Note); c) more frequent
briefings of the wider UN membership by the chair/Mike Smith
(Note: There was broad support for the US proposal for the
CTC to follow the precedent set by the 1540 Committee and
hold a meeting open to the wider membership and regional
organizations to review global efforts to implement UNSCR
1373 over the past eight-plus years. End Note); d) improving
the quality of the CTED website to make it more user
friendly; and e) more CTED-led thematic presentations to the
wider membership.


5. With respect to this last proposal, the point was made by
a number of countries (e.g., UK, France, Austria, Mexico, and
the US) that CTED thematic briefings should, whenever
possible, a) include the other relevant CTITF entities and b)
be open to the wider membership. It was suggested that
although there might be occasions when the CTC chair may need
to call a meeting of the CTC to discuss specific concrete
follow up to a thematic discussion, concerted efforts should
be made to expose the wider membership to these thematic
presentations given the global nature of UNSCR 1373 and the
importance of having CTED extend its reach beyond the 15
members of the CTC.

The CTC Work Program


6. Rather than simply adopting the usual CTC work program
for the coming six months, a number of committee members
including China, France, the UK, and the US, suggested that
the new document reflect in general terms the new strategic,
more substantive direction that the committees appears to
want to head based on the January 14 meeting. Rather than
being too detailed, the sense was that the document should
provide the committee with the necessary flexibility to
organize a variety of substantive, concrete initiatives and
to respond as needed to a particular terrorist incident or
threat.


7. In the context of adopting the work program for the first
half of 2010, Turkey reminded committee members that they
will need to decide whether and where to organize the 6th
Special CTC Meeting for International, Regional, and
Sub-Regional Organizations. The US, joined by France and the
UK, questioned whether these sorts of meetings add value and
voiced support for more regional and subregional CTED
initiatives aimed at national-level practitioners and
experts. Although Russia has traditionally been the main
proponent of convening the 6th Special Meeting, it remained
silent during this discussion. Turkey intends to raise this
issue for discussion at an upcoming meeting of the committee.

1566 Working Group


8. As chair of the CTC, Turkey has also assumed the
chairmanship of the working group established pursuant to
UNSCR 1566, which was adopted following the terrorist attacks
in Beslan, Russia (September 2004). (Note: The working group
was charged with looking into the possibility of a)
developing a UN terrorist list that extended beyond just
Al-Qaida and the Taliban and b) establishing a UN fund to
provide compensation to victims of terrorism. Unable to reach
consensus on either of these sensitive issues, the working
group has not met for three years. End Note.) Turkey
informed the CTC members that it intends to organize a
meeting of the 1566 Working Group to receive a briefing from
the CTITF working group on victims of terrorism, with a view


to seeing whether there is anything useful that the 1566
Working Group might be able to contribute going forward.
Without taking a position on the issue, USDEL commented that
the 1566 Working Group was established prior to the creation
of the CTITF and predates the CTITF's impressive work on
victims issues. Therefore, delegations should consider
whether there would be any value added in having the 1566
Working Group take up these issues again.
RICE