TURKEY CHAIRS ITS FIRST UN SECURITY COUNCIL

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000051

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL UNSC
SUBJECT: TURKEY CHAIRS ITS FIRST UN SECURITY COUNCIL
COUNTER-TERRORISM COMMITTEE (CTC) MEETING


1. (U) SUMMARY: Turkish Permrep Ertugrul Apakan chaired
his first UN Security Council CTC meeting January 21. The
agenda included the CTC's work program for the next six
months and a thematic discussion on implementation and
assessment of Security Council resolution 1624 (2005). As
there are some outstanding issues to resolve with respect to
the work program, the Chair plans to host informal meetings
the week of January 25th. The CTC agreed that the
Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) will create a
separate section on its website that will focus on states'
implementation and assessment of resolution 1624 and would
invite member states to share comments with the CTC on their
best practices for implementing resolution 1624. Experts
from the 1540 (nonproliferation) committee attended as did
Jean Paul Laborde, director of the UN's Counter-Terrorism
Implementation Task Force (CTITF). END SUMMARY.


2. (U) The chair outlined his ideas on the future work of
the CTC and focused on new procedures for handling
preliminary implementation assessments (PIAs). He proposed
three options (outlined below) and asked for members'
reactions. OPTION 1: The CTC would stop discussing PIAs at
the committee level and adopt them after they are considered
and approved by the subcommittees. If a member of the
Committee breaks silence procedure, the PIAs will be
discussed and adopted by the Committee. OPTION 2: The CTC
would stop discussing PIAs in both the committee and
subcommittees and use silence procedure to adopt them at both
levels. A break of the silence procedure would require a
discussion at the respective level (committee or
subcommittees). OPTION 3: The PIAs would become solely an
internal document of CTED and would not be considered or
approved by the committee or subcommittees.


3. (U) Mexico said that it could support option 2 as a
middle of the road approach. France said that it preferred
option 3 but would support option 2. Austria said it liked
option 1 so that the committee could retain more control over
the process, but could move towards option 2 if necessary.
The UK liked option 3 the best as there are risks the
committee could be exposed to in politically approving
documents under option 2 that it hasn't read. In the end
though, the UK said it would support option 2 to achieve
consensus. China said that it supported option 1 but could
migrate to option 2. Russia agreed that streamlining the
PIA process is necessary but said that moving to option 3 is
a bit premature and at most would support option 2. Japan
said that it would support option 2 as it would make the
committee's work more efficient. USUN said that option 3 was
preferable but could support option 2 to facilitate agreement
with other members of the committee.


4. (U) The Chair also said he felt strongly that the CTC
should streamline the work it does on approving country
reports and that it should increase its dialogue with member
states. He proposed a continuation of thematic discussions
within the committee and said that he supported the idea of
the Committee/Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED)
organizing a sixth special meeting. In order to increase the
visibility of the CTC outside New York, the Chair said that
he would consider the possibility of CTC members joining CTED
on some of CTED's country assessment visits. Along the same
lines, he said that he planned, as the Chair, to visit some
international and regional organizations. Reactions were in
general supportive, although the UK asked whether a sixth
special meeting was necessary and suggested that the issue
needed to be discussed in more detail by the committee.
USUN, France, and Japan agreed with the UK. Russia said it
thought the CTC had agreed to the notion of a sixth special
meeting already, but nevertheless was open to discussing
options.


5. (U) CTED said that 102 states have reported to the
committee on implementation of resolution 1624 as of January,

2010. Regarding resolution 1624's "call for states to adopt
such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in
accordance with their obligations under international law to
prevent incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts", CTED
suggested the CTC look for the following: legislation
expressly targeting incitement to commit terrorist acts; or
other legislation with similar effect (general offense of
incitement; accessory offenses such as aiding and abetting,
conspiracy, and facilitation. CTED suggested that the CTC
continue to encourage member states to report, and that CTED
develop a database of good practices, facilitate technical
assistance and conduct wider outreach activities. Russia and
the UK conveyed their support for CTED's ideas and said they
were committed to states' implementation of resolution 1624.
USUN also supported CTED's initiatives and explained that the
Department of State has established a Countering Violent
Extremism (CVE) unit that focuses on counter-radicalization
and de-radicalization. USUN also conveyed that we are eager


to engage multilaterally on CVE issues and that in November
2009, the CVE unit hosted a multilateral workshop on CVE
issues and will continue to do so periodically, including
some with a regional focus.
RICE