VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0432/01 0661811
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 071811Z MAR 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 8200

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000432 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DOJ FOR OIA - BURROWS, CTS - KASTER AND DOD FOR OSD/GC - 
BURGER AND LOURIE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PTER UNGA
SUBJECT: AD HOC COMMITTEE CONTINUES STALEMATE ON 
COMPREHENSIVE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM (CCIT) 
 
¶1.    (U) Summary.  The Ad Hoc Committee (AHC), established 
by General Assembly resolution 51/210 of 17 December 1996, 
met at UN Headquarters February 27-March 3, 2006 to continue 
negotiations on the CCIT.  Deep-seated differences over key 
text between member States of the Organization of the Islamic 
Conference (OIC) and most other delegations precluded any 
progress on the long-stalled negotiations.  The AHC also gave 
further consideration to the Egyptian proposal for a 
high-level conference or special session of the UN General 
Assembly (UNGA) to formulate a joint organized response to 
terrorism.  Delegations expressed divergent views along the 
lines laid out during the Sixth Committee Working Group 
discussions in October 2005.  The AHC adopted its final 
report on March 3 with a recommendation.  End summary. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
Draft Comprehensive Convention 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶2.    (U) There was no general debate on the draft CCIT. 
Rather, discussions took place in the form of bilateral 
contacts between delegations and with the chairman (Perera ) 
Sri Lanka).  In his meeting with the U.S. delegation, Perera 
said the Bureau has talked with many delegations that want to 
make progress on the text.  Most delegations have indicated 
support for adding a preamble paragraph on 
self-determination, along the lines proposed in October 2005 
(copy faxed to IO/UNP).  Some delegations (presumably 
including hard-core OIC members Egypt, Syria, Pakistan and 
Jordan) have said that changes in the preamble would be 
agreeable, so long as there are also changes in operative 
Article 18 (military exclusion) of the coordinator,s text. 
 
¶3.    (U) To date, no delegation has offered specific 
language, but one idea would be to add a new paragraph (5) to 
Article 18 that would exclude from the scope of the 
convention acts committed during an international armed 
conflict that are governed by international humanitarian law 
(IHL) and are not unlawful under that law.  (Comment: This 
idea is a variation of the Liechtenstein proposal submitted 
in October 2005 (copy faxed to IO/UNP), but would exclude 
only acts committed during an international armed conflict. 
This would mean that acts committed by non-State actors 
during a non-international armed conflict would be governed 
by the CCIT.  End comment.)  The chairman stressed that he 
has discouraged delegations from re-opening paragraphs (2) 
("armed forces") and (3) ("military forces of a State") in 
the coordinator,s text.  Perera said, at this time, he does 
not envision putting forward such a proposal on behalf of the 
chair, and it would be up to national delegations to make any 
such proposal.  Some delegations interested in this idea have 
made clear that they regard the Palestinian-Israeli conflict 
as an "international armed conflict," so that acts committed 
during that conflict would benefit from the exclusion that 
would be provided by a new paragraph (5). 
 
¶4.    (U) The U.S. delegation reaffirmed its support for the 
coordinator,s text, including Article 18, and indicated it 
is prepared to continue to work on the draft convention and 
would carefully review any new written proposals. 
 
¶5.    (U) U.S. delegation met separately with the Austrian 
delegation, which has assumed the European Union (EU) 
Presidency from the United Kingdom (UK).  The Austrians 
affirmed EU support for the coordinator,s text for Article 
18, and asked whether there are any new ideas for resolving 
the stalemate.  They acknowledged the Liechtenstein proposal 
has not achieved consensus as a solution.  The Austrians 
floated a number of ideas, e.g., a new paragraph (5) (some 
variation of the Liechtenstein proposal) in Article 18, new 
preambular language (along the lines proposed by Egypt for 
the Nuclear Terrorism Convention that was withdrawn as part 
of the final agreement on that convention), or a new 
definition of "armed forces" in Article 1 of the CCIT. 
(Comment: The Austrian questions appeared to reflect 
continuing unease among some EU countries over the continuing 
stalemate, and the perceived need to come up with new 
proposals. End comment.)  The U.S. delegation reaffirmed its 
support for the coordinator,s text for Article 18, noting 
the precedents contained in other recent international 
counter terrorism instruments.  The U.S. delegation again 
indicated its willingness to review any new proposal, 
provided it is consistent with U.S. substantive interests. 
 
¶6.    (U) In a separate meeting, UK delegation confirmed that 
there is continuing unrest among some EU countries, but so 
far the UK and France have persuaded their EU colleagues to 
hold the line.  In an effort to forestall unhelpful proposals 
from others in the EU, UK delegation has asked London for 
approval to pursue a new proposal that would add a new 
 
 
definition of "armed forces" in Article 1, based on language 
drawn from Article 43(1) of Geneva Protocol I.  If London 
approves, UK delegation undertook to vet specific language 
with the U.S. before going forward. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
Egyptian Proposal for a High-Level Conference 
--------------------------------------------- ------------- 
 
¶7.    (U) The AHC also gave further consideration to the 
Egyptian proposal to convene a high-level conference or 
special session of the UNGA to formulate a joint organized 
response of the international community to terrorism in all 
its forms and manifestations.  This item previously was 
discussed at length during the Sixth Committee Working Group 
meetings in October 2005.  Again delegations lined up mostly 
as expected, with Egypt supported by OIC countries, North 
Korea, Sierra Leone, Cuba and Venezuela.  The U.S. and 
like-minded delegations (Australia, Austria on behalf of the 
EU and associated States, Chile, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, New 
Zealand, Peru, Russia, South Korea, Switzerland and Ukraine) 
argued that consideration of such a conference should be 
deferred until work has been completed on the CCIT. 
Departing from prior positions, Bolivia, Colombia and Ecuador 
endorsed the Egyptian proposal, although the latter two 
hedged their statements by saying efforts should also 
continue to conclude the CCIT.  Several delegations that 
spoke in favor of convening such a conference said it could 
produce an internationally agreed "definition" of terrorism 
that, in their view, should be distinguished from the 
peoples, struggle against foreign occupation and 
self-determination.  They also see the conference as a forum 
for discussion of the "root causes" of terrorism.  Egyptian 
Perm Rep Abdelaziz expressed "satisfaction" with the 
discussion, noting that all seemed to support the idea in 
principle, although there are differences over timing and 
priorities. 
 
-------------- 
Comments 
-------------- 
 
¶8.    (U) The CCIT negotiations remain at impasse over 
deep-seated political issues that divide the OIC member 
States from most of the other delegations.  The key issues 
are (1) the OIC demand to exclude national liberation 
movements from the scope of the convention, and (2) the OIC 
proposal to limit the availability of the military exclusion 
to activities that are in conformity with international law. 
(Under the latter proposal, any violation of international 
law by State military forces would automatically be equated 
with an act of terrorism.)  Despite numerous efforts over the 
past four years, delegations have been unable to find a 
solution to this stalemate.  In the coming months, Department 
and other agencies may wish to consider ways to shift the 
spotlight from the stalled CCIT negotiations onto other more 
promising approaches for UN action to combat terrorism. 
BOLTON