VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0077/01 0311632
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 311632Z JAN 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1236
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000077 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
FOR IO/PSC:JSANDAGE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PTER UNSC
SUBJECT: UNSCR 1373:  NEW CTC CHAIRMAN SEEKS U.S. INPUT 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
 
¶1.  (SBU) BEGIN SUMMARY:  At a January 29 meeting with newly 
appointed Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) Chairman, 
Panamanian PermRep Ricardo Arias, Ambassador Wolff and 
Ambassador Sanders offered U.S. views on the CTC's work and 
expressed support for Arias's leadership.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Amb. Arias and his Security Council 
counterterrorism team requested a meeting to discuss plans 
for the CTC during his two-year term as its Chairman.  Amb. 
Wolff expressed hopes that the CTC would build on its 
accomplishments and achieve better results in 2007, through a 
concrete, action-oriented effort to help states improve their 
implementation of resolution 1373.  The CTC's uneasy 
relationship with the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate 
(CTED) had prevented it from achieving its full potential, he 
said.  Despite the past shaky relationship between the CTED 
and the CTC, Wolff expressed confidence that CTED Executive 
Director Javier Ruperez and his team would foster a positive 
working relationship with Arias.  Wolff then underscored that 
based on their mandates, the CTC is to provide guidance and 
supervision to CTED and not the other way around. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Amb. Wolff also emphasized the need for the CTC and 
CTED to move from requesting and reviewing reports toward 
focusing on action-oriented work that will assist states in 
their implementation of 1373.  Wolff identified a need for 
increased coordination with the Secretariat.  He indicated 
that the work of the Secretariat's Counterterrorism Task 
Force, the CTC, and CTED must be aligned, particularly in 
view of efforts to implement the General Assembly's CT 
Strategy. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Arias responded by inquiring about the U.S. 
relationship with CTED.  Wolff said CTED had been responsive 
to U.S. concerns and cooperation is good.  He noted that 
while CTED had some initial growing pains, due in part to the 
difficulties of putting together its staff, CTED now had 
staff members in place and is ready to begin working 
effectively and producing results.  The recommendations in 
the comprehensive report the CTC prepared for the Council's 
second comprehensive review of CTED last December provide a 
good roadmap for the CTC and CTED's work in 2007, and this 
year will be a crucial one for the CTC and CTED because 
CTED's initial mandate will expire on December 31, 2007. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Arias also inquired about reporting requests and 
CTC meetings.  USUN said that there has been excessive 
emphasis on reports and papers.  Instead of papers, it would 
be helpful for CTED to brief CTC members on matters of 
importance.  The 15-member committee currently meets once a 
week, and Arias asked whether that may be too often.  Wolff 
noted no objection to reducing the frequency of the meetings 
to meet work requirements. Our focus would remain on results, 
not process. 
 
¶6.  (SBU) Arias also sought views on what the CTC should 
focus on in its meetings.  USUN replied that CTED's country 
visits are a valuable tool and the oral briefings CTED 
provides when it returns from those visits are useful for the 
CTC.  It was also noted that CTC meetings would be more 
efficient if members have more time to review and digest the 
proposals CTED circulates.  Because CTED often only gave CTC 
members two days before meetings to review documents, members 
were not always prepared for the discussion. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Arias also asked about changing the countries that 
the CTC's three sub-committees consider to mirror more 
closely CTED's configuration into three clusters that cover 
different geographical regions.  USUN noted that early in 
2006, CTED had proposed changing the states considered by the 
sub-committees to align their work with CTED's, but that the 
CTC did not reach agreement.  The UK and France, for example, 
had expressed concern that the restructuring could politicize 
the CTC's discussions because, rather than reviewing states 
from all different regions, the sub-committees would only 
consider states from the same region and thus might take a 
narrower perspective.  Wolff asserted that the U.S. would be 
open to supporting such a restructuring if that would enhance 
CTC's effectiveness. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Arias also sought U.S. views on coordination among 
the CTC, the 1267 Committee, and the 1540 Committee, 
particularly with respect to information sharing and visits 
to states.  He remarked that some states still perceive a 
CTED visit as punitive.  He suggested that this perception 
must be changed since CTED visits states to help them with 
their implementation of resolution 1373.  Generally, Arias 
said the CTC should focus its energies on working to help 
states with the will but not the capacity to implement 
 
resolution 1373.  Wolff stressed that, even though the 
committees have different mandates, enhancing cooperation 
among the three bodies will help avoid duplication, ease the 
burden on states, and create positive synergies. 
WOLFF