1267: UK SOUNDS ALARM ON TARDY REVIEW OF AL QAEDA

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 000063 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2029 TAGS: ETTC PREL EFIN PTER KTFN UNSC SUBJECT: 1267: UK SOUNDS ALARM ON TARDY REVIEW OF AL QAEDA / TALIBAN LIST Classified By: Amb. Alejandro Wolff for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: UK Deputy Perm Rep Parham expressed concern to Amb. Wolff about the 1267 Committee's disappointingly slow progress on its one-time review of all names on the Al Qaeda / Taliban sanctions list. Parham expressed frustration that the 1267 Committee still had 400 out of 488 names left to review before the June 30, 2010, deadline set forth in resolution 1822. He conveyed his hope that the US and UK, as the two leading designators, could provide opinions on their names as quickly as possible and consider ways to accelerate the Committee's review procedures. He asserted that missing the deadline would hurt the 1267 regime's credibility. Amb. Wolff reiterated our commitment to completing the 1822 review in a timely manner, but said the Committee must begin to consider seriously some contingency options, given the possibility that the Committee will be unable to complete its review by the deadline. Deputy Perm Rep Parham and Wolff also discussed the importance of selecting an Ombudsperson in a ti mely manner, per resolution 1904. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) UK Deputy Perm Rep Parham requested a meeting with Amb. Wolff to discuss the 1267 Committee's disappointingly slow review of all names on the Al Qaeda / Taliban sanctions list. (NOTE: Per resolution 1822, the 1267 Committee has been directed to complete a comprehensive review of the nearly-500 names on the Committee's Consolidated List by June 30, 2010. Many states -- including the UK and United States -- have not fully answered requests from the Committee for information and opinions about the appropriateness of certain listings. See reftel for additional details. As of February 1, the Committee still needed to complete its consideration of 400 out of 488 names. END NOTE) Missing the deadline, he asserted, would hurt the 1267 regime's credibility. To underscore this point, Parham noted that judges in a recent UK Supreme Court decision had taken the opportunity to criticize the regime's lack of "due process." ¶3. (C) Parham expressed London's determination to finish the 1822 review in a timely manner. London, he said, had redoubled its efforts to respond to Committee requests for opinions on the 112 names for which the UK is a designating state or state of residence/nationality. Parham said that the UK would provide all such information no later than March 1, the date by which the Council requested in UNSCR 1904 that states respond. Parham explained that, in order to even out the workload, the UK had been sharing with the Committee its opinions on listings as soon as the UK's review of a name was completed. The United States, he observed, had instead been sharing its responses in large "batches." Parham suggested ways the Committee could accelerate its review of the remaining names, including streamlined Committee discussions and more frequent meetings. ¶4. (C) Amb. Wolff agreed with Deputy Perm Rep Parham about the importance of meeting deadlines, particularly in light of recent challenges to the perceived fairness and legitimacy of the 1267 regime. Wolff expressed our commitment to completing the 1822 review in a timely manner and assured Parham that the United States was redoubling its efforts to review its listings, but added that a major reason for the U.S. tardiness was to allow time for consultation with states that might be affected by the positions we take. Wolff said the Committee must begin to consider seriously some contingency options, given the possibility that -- even if it does nothing else in the coming months -- the Committee will be unable to complete its review by the June 30, 2010 deadline. (COMMENT: The only way to meet the June 30, 2010 deadline is if the Committee reviews 400 listings in four months, or 33 listings per its regularly-scheduled weekly Committee meeting. END COMMENT) ¶5. (C) Parham also asked Wolff about the timetable and process for the appointment of an Ombudsperson, as was envisioned in UNSCR 1904. Parham and Wolff acknowledged that Council members have only engaged in informal discussions to locate qualified candidates for the position. Wolff noted that Austrian Perm Rep Mayr-Harting, the 1267 Committee's chair, had a strong preference for a European candidate, whereas Costa Rican Perm Rep Jorge Urbina recently expressed an interest in the job. USUN noted that the French may also have a serious candidate. Parham speculated that maybe a UK Special Counsel -- a specially-cleared lawyer who advocates USUN NEW Y 00000063 002 OF 002 on behalf of terrorism suspects in UK courts -- might have sufficient credibility, provided that a P-5 candidate would be acceptable to others. Both Parham and Wolff agreed to raise this issue in their capitals and begin searching for candidates as expeditiously as possible. ¶6. (C) COMMENT: USUN agrees that missing the June 30 deadline -- now a likely eventuality -- will hurt the already-compromised credibility of the 1267 regime. To accelerate the pace of the review and to avoid having the U.S. blamed for the missed deadline, USUN proposes that we: -- release to the Committee U.S. opinions on listings on a rolling and piecemeal basis (and encourage other states to do the same),rather than waiting until entire tranches are complete; -- work to shorten, in certain circumstances, the 30-day period that Committee members now have to review responses received from states about the appropriateness of listings; -- streamline Committee meetings, so as to eliminate redundant reports during the Committee's review and to consider related listings together in groups; -- permit the chair of the 1267 Committee to allow deputies, such as his legal adviser, to chair some of the Committee meetings, so that the Committee can hold meetings in the chair's absence; -- redouble our efforts -- and accelerate, if needed, necessary bilateral consultations -- to finalize and submit to the Committee our overdue responses. END COMMENT. RICE