This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L BRASILIA 001748 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/13/2013 
TAGS: MARR PREL BR KICC POL MIL
SUBJECT: BRAZIL: PURSUIT OF ARTICLE 98 AGREEMENT 
 
REF: (A) STATE 145167 (B) BRASILIA 1291 
 
Classified By: DepPolCouns Lawrence Cohen, reasons: 1.4 (b & d) 
 
¶1.  (U)  In separate meetings, poloff delivered ref A points 
outlining continued USG interest in concluding an Article 98 
agreement with Brazil to Ministry of Foreign Relations (MRE) 
U.S.-Canada Division Chief Paulo Alvarenga and to MRE United 
Nations Division Chief Carlos Duarte. Both Alvarenga and 
Duarte had participated in the May U.S.-Brazil Pol-Mil 
bilaterals (ref B) and were familiar with the Article 98 
issue. Alvarenga deferred comment to Duarte, whose office has 
the lead on Article 98. 
 
¶2. (C) Referring to the Article 98 discussions during the May 
bilaterals, Duarte reiterated Brazil's strong support for the 
ICC -- a position reflected, he said, in domestic public 
opinion.  Because of this depth of commitment, Brazil would 
not undermine its "ICC membership obligations."  However, 
Brazil's own loyalty to the ICC, Duarte felt, did not 
preclude the possibility that a mutually-acceptable 
alternative to an Article 98 agreement could be found. 
Repeating a long-standing GOB position, Duarte commented that 
neither he nor his superiors could conceive of any occasion 
where Brazil would subject U.S. citizens on Brazilian soil to 
ICC jurisdiction.  He added that there was a perception in 
Brazil of excessive USG militancy towards the ICC, although 
USG concerns that led to this position were clearly 
understood by the GOB. He said he hoped the United States, in 
the future, would be less confrontational towards the Court. 
 
¶4.  (C)  Brazil, he emphasized, remained eager to work out a 
solution.  He suggested the USG consider submission of 
another proposal with a modified text referring exclusively 
to U.S. military and official personnel rather than American 
citizens.  Poloff responded that, with ninety Article 98 
agreements already signed with various nations the USG 
probably would not consider much alteration of the standard 
Article 98 agreement text. Poloff added that senior USG 
policymakers remained keenly focused on this issue and would 
not be reluctant to raise it in meetings with their Brazilian 
counterparts. 
 
¶5.  (C)  Comment:  Brazil's commitment to the ICC is genuine 
and robust, but MRE officials do not want conflict with us 
over the Article 98 issue -- they understand clearly our 
specific national concerns and also worry about a U.S. 
withdrawal over time from international peacekeeping because 
of those concerns. Duarte's comments above suggest the GOB 
wants to leave the door open to some sort of compromise, and 
GOB assurances that under no imaginable scenario would 
American citizens be extradited from Brazil to the ICC appear 
sincere.  The question then emerges as to what form a 
compromise might take -- options might include a specific 
bilateral agreement that accomplishes our goals but does so 
outside the standard Article 98 format, or inserting 
non-extradition language into a broader DCA or SOFA document 
were Brazil to demonstrate openess to negotiating such 
bilateral agreements.  Such options would not be easy, quick 
or certain to succeed, but they may merit further 
consideration. 
 
Duddy