Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 64621 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 07PHNOMPENH654, CAMBODIAN RESPONSE TO CITES DEMARCHE

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #07PHNOMPENH654.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
07PHNOMPENH654 2007-05-10 09:35 2011-07-11 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED Embassy Phnom Penh
VZCZCXYZ0001
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHPF #0654 1300935
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 100935Z MAY 07
FM AMEMBASSY PHNOM PENH
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8409
INFO RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 0157
RUEHUP/AMEMBASSY BUDAPEST 0002
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0412
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 0289
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 3158
UNCLAS PHNOM PENH 000654 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/MLS, OES/ETC--ROWENA WATSON, AND 
OES/OMC--AMANDA JOHNSON-MILLER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: SENV KSCA ETRD CB
SUBJECT: CAMBODIAN RESPONSE TO CITES DEMARCHE 
 
REF: STATE 57912 
 
1.  On May 3, Poleconoff met with Mr. Suon Phalla of the 
National CITES Authority to discuss reftel demarche.  He 
revealed that the UN Food and Agriculture Organization had 
queried the Cambodian government (RGC) about all of the 
marine proposals under consideration, but the MFA responded 
that it had no comments--a response he interpreted as meaning 
the RGC had no objection.  He urged Poleconoff to speak 
directly with Mr. Ing Try, Deputy Director General of the 
Department of Fisheries at the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Forestry, and Fisheries, to clarify the RGC position about 
the proposals.  Suon Phalla agreed to relay reftel points 
about the bobcat proposal to Uk Sokhonn, Director of the 
CITES Management Authority, who was out of the country and 
unable to meet with embassy staff.  Suon Phalla also asked 
for US support for a Cambodian proposal to move a southeast 
Asian primate, slow loris, from Appendix I to Appendix II. 
On May 9, Suon Phalla informed Poleconoff that, under 
pressure from Japan, the Southeast Asian Fisheries 
Development Center (SEAFDEC) will lobby the ASEAN countries 
to oppose the two shark proposals listed in reftel. 
 
2.  On May 10, Poleconoff delivered reftel demarche points 
about marine species to Ing Try.  He agreed with USG concerns 
over the fate of sawfish, and noted that sawfish were once 
prevalent in Cambodia but have now declined substantially. 
He concurred that sawfish should be listed on Appendix I or 
II, but said that his staff was still researching the issue 
to determine which appendix they thought was more a 
appropriate listing for the species.  Ing Try stated that 
Cambodia would vote in favor of the pink and red coral 
proposals.  Ing Try noted that his staff is still researching 
the issue of the spiny dogfish and porbeagle proposals and 
seemed unaware of the SEAFDEC decision. 
MUSSOMELI