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