VZCZCXYZ0014
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHAM #9005/01 3541538
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 201538Z DEC 06
FM AMEMBASSY AMMAN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6262
INFO RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0015

UNCLAS AMMAN 009005 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL KCOR KCRM JO
SUBJECT: FIRST CONFERENCE OF THE STATES PARTIES TO THE UN 
CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION: DECEMBER 10-14 
 
 
Summary 
------- 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY: USDEL to the 1st Conference of the States 
Parties (COSP) to the UN Convention against Corruption 
(UNCAC) ) held December 10-14 at the Dead Sea in Jordan ) 
garnered support for several decisions that will serve as a 
strong foundation for effective implementation of UNCAC. 
Despite opposition from a number of countries, including many 
European Union members, USDEL persuaded delegates to approve 
immediate action to begin gathering information on how 
countries are implementing UNCAC.  The parties also agreed on 
the necessity of creating a mechanism for reviewing 
implementation of UNCAC, and will use a USG-developed 
self-assessment checklist as the model for soliciting and 
gathering such information over the next year.  An expert 
working group will develop recommendations regarding a 
longer-term process for a review mechanism, and will present 
its ideas to the COSP's second session to be held in 
Indonesia in late 2007.  The COSP created two additional 
experts' working groups on important topics of asset recovery 
and technical assistance.  These working groups will be 
financed from within existing UNODC resources and 
extra-budgetary resources.  USDEL facilitated agreement on 
supporting activities, including a donor workshop in 2007 and 
expert seminars on asset recovery.   Other formal COSP 
decisions included: an appeal for States to expedite 
compliance with the mandatory criminalization provisions, 
integral steps to address bribery of international 
organization officials (co-sponsored by USDEL), the 
introduction of case study examination of prevention as an 
activity of the next COSP, and adoption of the provisional 
agenda for the 2nd session focused on expert sessions on key 
issues. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) The COSP was heavily attended by non-governmental 
organizations, the private sector, national anti-corruption 
authorities and parliamentarians.  The UN Office on Drugs and 
Crime (UNODC) held separate side-events for each of these 
groups in order to facilitate dialogue and generate further 
support for UNCAC, and in which USDEL also participated. 
Despite an initially heated and contentious first few days 
thanks to provocative actions on the part of the European 
Union, USDEL took a leading role in facilitating consensus on 
decisions and on issues such as bribery of public 
international officials.   END SUMMARY. 
 
USDEL 
----- 
 
¶3.  (U) Acting INL DAS Elizabeth Verville served as head of 
USDEL, which consisted of the following representatives: 
John Brandolino (INL) Benjamin Longlet (DOJ), Peter Ainsworth 
(DOJ), Elizabeth Hart (USAID), Howard Solomon (UNVIE), 
Virginia Prugh (L/LEI), Guinnevere Roberts (IO/T), Christine 
Cline (INL/PC) and Jack Doutrich (Embassy Amman). 
 
A Historic Opportunity 
---------------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) The first session of the Conference of States Parties 
(COSP) to the UN Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) 
convened at the Dead Sea in Jordan from December 10-14, 
almost one year following the entry into force of UNCAC. 
Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit of Jordan welcomed delegates, 
and urged them to take advantage of this historic opportunity 
to promote implementation of the first truly global 
anticorruption treaty.  Close to 100 parties and signatories 
of UNCAC were represented at this first meeting.  Note: The 
USG became a party to UNCAC on November 29, 2006. End note. 
Many delegations opened the session by providing an overview 
of national anti-corruption efforts to implement the treaty. 
During USDEL's intervention, Acting INL DAS Verville 
emphasized that anticorruption efforts are a foreign policy 
priority evidenced by the President's Kleptocracy Initiative, 
which seeks to deny safe haven to illicit assets and enhance 
the global capacity to return stolen assets.  Verville urged 
the COSP to identify asset recovery as one of the substantive 
priorities for initial attention, along with the 
criminalization of core conduct, mechanisms to facilitate 
international cooperation, and key preventive measures, such 
as transparent and effective public procurement and financial 
management systems and access to public information. 
 
Review Mechanisms 
----------------- 
 
¶5.  (U) The first agenda item for the COSP afforded 
delegations the opportunity to consider ways and means of 
achieving COSP objectives, most notably to review 
implementation of UNCAC, as outlined in Article 63 of the 
 
Convention.  With regard to an implementation review 
mechanism, USDEL advocated a step-by-step process that would 
first and immediately focus on gathering information from 
parties and signatories so as to identify needs for technical 
assistance and gaps in implementation.  USDEL introduced a 
self-assessment checklist, which would assist countries in 
determining whether or not they were in compliance with UNCAC 
priority provisions, and serve as a basis for gathering 
information on implementation.  The COSP approved use of a 
self-assessment checklist as a tool to facilitate information 
gathering, and agreed to use the US draft as a model for such 
a checklist, to be finalized by the Secretariat in 
consultation with States Parties.  The UNODC Secretariat was 
requested to finalize the checklist within eight weeks and 
distribute it to States parties and signatories. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) USDEL's staged approach to reviewing implementation 
was initially opposed strongly by several European Union 
members, most notably the United Kingdom, and non-EU 
delegations such as Egypt and Pakistan.  The latter advocated 
a "go slow" approach.  In lieu of support for a quick start 
on review, the European Union preferred to postpone 
information gathering entirely for at least one year, and 
instead to establish a permanent standing review body, the 
function of which would not be considered until a working 
group could be convened next fall.  The USG and many 
attending civil society members strongly opposed this 
postponement of meaningful action, and also the creation of a 
subsidiary body before its terms of reference were discussed 
and agreed.  After informal deliberations, States Parties 
agreed to initiate immediate information gathering, using a 
self-assessment checklist model developed by the USG.  The 
COSP also created an interim intergovernmental expert working 
group to meet during the intersessional period and the second 
session of the COSP, within existing resources, in order to 
generate recommendations to the second session on 
establishing some type of longer-term mechanism or body to 
review UNCAC implementation that would supplement and not 
duplicate existing regional mechanisms. 
 
Asset Recovery 
-------------- 
 
¶7.  (U) In accordance with USDEL priorities, delegates 
unanimously endorsed asset recovery as a priority topic for 
COSP's attention.  Several countries, including Nigeria, 
France and Netherlands, put forward concrete proposals to 
create intergovernmental experts' bodies that would provide 
intersessional attention to this area.  Netherlands proposed 
the creation of a voluntary Asset Recovery Fund to be 
administered by a 5-person advisory board.  This proposal did 
not generate support.  USDEL highlighted the need to promote 
implementation of UNCAC's unique asset recovery chapter, to 
focus on strengthening international and respective domestic 
frameworks for facilitating asset recovery cases.  USDEL 
ensured that the working group on asset recovery was charged, 
among other things, to work with UNODC and provide 
opportunities for anti-corruption experts and authorities who 
work on asset recovery cases to exchange views and identify 
tools for facilitating international cooperation in this area. 
 
Technical Assistance 
-------------------- 
 
¶8.  (U) Similar to the Conference of the Parties for the UN 
Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, the COSP 
established a separate working group to assist the COSP in 
promoting technical assistance.  The working group, within 
existing resources, will review needs for technical 
assistance by examining the information provided by States 
Parties and signatories through the U.S.-drafted 
self-assessment checklist, as well as through other means. 
The group will also seek to identify technical assistance 
priorities for both donor and recipient states, and attempt 
to survey ongoing assistance projects conducted on a 
bilateral and multilateral basis.  UNODC and the working 
group will also attempt to encourage international donors to 
fund technical assistance specifically related to 
implementing UNCAC, and to integrate UNCAC within donor 
anticorruption assistance strategies.  To this end, the COSP 
requested UNODC to organize an international donor workshop, 
funded by extra-budgetary resources; Norway indicated that it 
hopes to fund this workshop along with others. 
 
Other Decisions Taken 
--------------------- 
 
¶9.  (U) The COSP adopted nine decisions out of a total of 20 
proposals and non-papers submitted to the Secretariat.  In 
addition to decisions mentioned above, delegates approved the 
following: an appeal for States parties to expedite 
 
compliance with UNCAC's mandatory criminalization provisions; 
a request for the Secretariat to organize an open-ended 
dialogue on bribery of public international organization 
officials; and the introduction of case study examination of 
prevention at the next COSP.  USDEL and others successfully 
opposed a French proposal to create a new UNODC legal 
advisory program that was duplicative of an existing UNODC 
program. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) USDEL, in conjunction with Norway and France, 
introduced a draft decision that sought to make headway in 
criminalizing bribery of officials of international 
organizations.  Several countries, most notably Russia and 
Egypt, did not want to highlight efforts to address bribery 
of international organization officials and the related 
impediment caused by the privileges and immunities of such 
officials, arguing that these are a necessary part of efforts 
to address bribery of domestic officials.  USDEL and many 
delegations urged adoption of the text, arguing that it would 
send the wrong signal if the COSP failed to impose the same 
restrictions on its national officials as international 
officials.  The COSP ultimately agreed to encourage countries 
to criminalize bribery of international organization 
officials and to convene an open-ended dialogue on this 
subject at the COSP's second session. 
 
Second COSP in 2007 
------------------- 
 
¶11.  (U) Delegates approved the provisional agenda for the 
second session, and at the urging of USDEL and others, 
specifically added expert discussion sessions on implementing 
the prevention and criminalization chapters of UNCAC, as well 
as asset recovery.  The COSP also endorsed Indonesia's 
invitation to serve as the host for the second session, to be 
held either in Jakarta or Bali in late 2007. 
 
UNODC-Hosted Side Events 
------------------------ 
 
¶12.  (U) Parallel to the COSP, UNODC held a forum for civil 
society and the private sector.  Forty-five non-governmental 
groups attended as observers, led in particular by 
Transparency International and its national chapters, as well 
as dozens of intergovernmental organizations.  Other major 
groups included Global Witness, Oxfam, Christian Aid, and a 
significant number of local anticorruption groups from the 
developed and developing world.  Private sector groups 
represented included the International Chamber of Commerce, 
the United Nations Global Compact, and Statoil (Norway).  The 
side meeting included traditional workshop-style panels on 
NGO and private sector anticorruption initiatives, as well as 
sessions to finalize a statement of the Coalition of Civil 
Society Friends of the UNCAC.  The coalition statement 
highlighted civil society groups' strong support for a 
monitoring mechanism that would include a survey of 
implementation by all states parties, pilot monitoring 
activities, and inclusion of civil society in the design and 
implementation of any survey and/or pilot monitoring 
mechanism.  Other key issues for civil society included 
access to information, protecting whistleblowers, and 
commitment by donors of earmarked funds for technical 
assistance. 
 
¶13.  (U) During the Forum for Anti-Corruption Authorities 
sponsored by the newly-formed International Association of 
Anti-Corruption Authorities, participants at this side event 
spoke mainly about the composition and achievements of their 
respective bodies, some devoted to prevention, some to law 
enforcement, and some focused on both interests. 
 
¶14.  (U) Discussion in the Forum for Parliamentarians, 
sponsored by the Global Organization of Parliamentarians 
against Corruption, centered on two topics: campaign finance 
reform, and the ability of legislative bodies to police 
themselves.  European and Arab state representatives 
advocated for States parties to impose severe caps on 
campaign contributions and political party spending.  USDEL 
and others emphasized the Convention's call for transparency 
in election financing, and the need for States parties to 
retain the ability to balance for themselves freedoms of 
expression with the need for election regulation.  Discussion 
on the second topic centered on the practicality and legality 
of measures that give legislative bodies the ability to 
impose sanctions on their own members, with many in the 
audience expressing skepticism that a system of peer review 
could ever be effective. 
 
¶15.  (U) UNODC hosted a meeting of bilateral and multilateral 
development agencies, presenting several proposals for 
coordinating and dedicating assistance to UNCAC 
 
implementation through UNODC, including the establishment of 
a "Group of Sherpas for the clean management of development 
aid."  USAID, the World Bank, the UK Department for 
International Development and several other bilateral donors 
produced assurances that anticorruption is a central part of 
their poverty reduction and development agendas.  Ongoing 
efforts through the OECD Development Assistance Committee and 
other coordinating mechanisms were also cited, all resulting 
in the conclusion that a formal group to pursue this issue 
was not required.  A second proposal that the UNODC-convened 
International Group on Anticorruption Coordination (IGAC) 
should evolve from a forum for exchange of information and 
best practices into a network for partnership was also put 
forward, but given the lack of information on what this 
transformation would consist of, the attendees did not 
comment. 
 
¶16.  (SBU) COMMENT:  After almost a year of consultations 
with various informal multilateral fora, including the 
"Friends of the UNCAC" group, expectations were that the 
first COSP would bring together countries both from the 
developing and developed world with common commitments to 
help bring the Convention to life.  Initially, however, the 
EU presented a draft decision that included an endorsement of 
a subsidiary body that would monitor compliance of the UNCAC, 
which was a point of contention during negotiations and 
during the year of "Friends" consultations.  Thanks to this 
proposal, a North-South divide emerged, as well as 
significant differences between the EU and Japan, Australia, 
and the United States on how to achieve successful 
implementation.  Only after several days of sometimes heated 
deliberations did consensus on a number of issues begin to 
emerge.  The United States played an important role in 
brokering agreements and bridging divides to achieve 
consensus on a staged approach to review implementation that 
included a working group to consider terms of reference 
before creating a subsidiary body, and an immediate start to 
gathering information on the implementation.  This improved 
atmosphere also facilitated cooperation on key decisions, 
including on technical assistance and asset recovery.  USDEL 
intends to begin a process early in the new year to chart 
next steps in moving our agenda forward.  END COMMENT. 
 
 
Visit Amman's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/amman/ 
RUBINSTEIN