VZCZCXRO2477
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHBC RUEHBZ RUEHCHI RUEHCN RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDE
RUEHDF RUEHDT RUEHDU RUEHFL RUEHGI RUEHHM RUEHIK RUEHJO RUEHJS RUEHKUK
RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHLH RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHMA RUEHMR RUEHPA RUEHPOD RUEHPW
RUEHRN RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHTRO RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUCNDT #0880/01 2902333
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 172333Z OCT 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2811
INFO RUCNAFG/AFGHANISTAN COLLECTIVE
RUEHXK/ARAB ISRAELI COLLECTIVE
RUEHEE/ARAB LEAGUE COLLECTIVE
RUEHZS/ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS
RUCNDSC/DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE COLLECTIVE
RUEHZK/ECOWAS COLLECTIVE
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHXX/GENEVA IO MISSIONS COLLECTIVE
RUEHXL/INDIAN OCEAN COLLECTIVE
RUCNISL/ISLAMIC COLLECTIVE
RUCNMGH/MAGHREB COLLECTIVE
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE
RUCNSAD/SADCC COLLECTIVE
RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI 0065
RUEHUB/USINT HAVANA 0209

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 USUN NEW YORK 000880 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PTER UNGA
SUBJECT: UNGA/C6: POSITIVE REACTION TO U.S. COUNTER 
TERRORISM STATEMENT 
 
REF: A. 06 USUN NEW YORK 2221 
     ¶B. 05 USUN NEW YORK 2424 
 
¶1. SUMMARY: Seventy-four delegations addressed the Sixth 
Committee during the debate on counterterrorism on October 10 
- 11.  As in previous years, delegations strongly condemned 
acts of terrorism, called for measures to promote tolerance 
and eliminate the root causes of terrorism and rejected 
attempts to link terrorism with any religion, culture, or 
race.  Reactions to the U.S. statement were positive; EU and 
CANZ delegations took particular interest in our support for 
the Global Counterterrorism Strategy.  Some delegations 
continued to advocate for the inclusion of concepts such as 
State terrorism and the right to self-determination in a 
universal definition of terrorism.  As expected, Cuba, 
Venezuela and Trinidad and Tobago criticized the U.S. 
handling of the Luis Posada-Carriles case.  As to the work 
program of the Sixth Committee, speakers urged all 
delegations to reinvigorate their negotiating efforts and 
agree on the draft Comprehensive Convention on International 
Terrorism as soon as possible.  END SUMMARY 
 
¶2. During the October 10 - 11 Sixth Committee debate on 
counter terrorism (item 108), seventy-three countries, plus 
Interpol, addressed the Sixth Committee.  The following 
delegations delivered statements: 
 
October 10: Vietnam, the Dominican Republic (on behalf of the 
Rio Group), Australia (on behalf of CANZ), Benin (on behalf 
of the Africa Group), Portugal (on behalf of the EU), 
Trinidad and Tobago (on behalf of CARICOM), Cuba (on behalf 
of NAM), Tajikistan, Pakistan, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, 
Russia, Egypt, Thailand, Kuwait, Iceland, Burma (Myanmar), 
Turkey, Oman, Bahrain, Libya, Colombia, Zambia, and the 
Republic of Korea. 
 
October 11: Guatemala, Bangladesh, Tunisia, the Democratic 
Republic of Congo, Malaysia, Sudan, Algeria, Maldives, 
Tanzania, Singapore, Morocco, Ukraine, Ghana, Sri Lanka, 
Syria, Belarus, Nigeria, El Salvador, Burkina Faso, 
Madagascar, Indonesia, Qatar, Botswana, Cambodia, Cuba, 
India, China, Cameroon, Mexico, Mongolia, Venezuela, Moldova, 
Iran, Mozambique, Sierra Leonne, Jordan, United Arab 
Emirates, United States, Kenya, Yemen, Japan, Iraq, South 
Africa, Israel, Uganda, Angola, the Philippines, Afghanistan, 
Palau, Niger, Interpol and Cuba in a right of reply to the 
United States. 
 
¶3. John Sandage, Chief of the I/O Counterterrorism and 
Sanctions Policy Office, delivered the U.S. statement.  The 
full text of the statement is contained in para 7.  The UK, 
Portugal, Spain, Canada, Australia and Italy reacted 
positively to the U.S. statement, expressing appreciation for 
the demeanor of the U.S. speaker and the innovative ideas 
contained in his remarks.  The delegates were pleased to hear 
support in our statement for the efforts of both the Security 
Council and the General Assembly in implementing the Global 
Counterterrorism Strategy. 
 
--------------------------------- 
Common Themes on Counterterrorism 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶4. The overall substance of the debate differed little from 
previous years (reftels).  All delegations condemned 
terrorism and recognized the global scope of the problem. 
Australia on behalf of CANZ delivered a particularly strong 
statement, asking delegates to set the global standard that 
terrorism can never be justified. The Australian 
representative warned that while terror networks have been 
disrupted, there is no room for complacency.  Australia 
emphasized its deep concern about the resurgance of Al Qaida 
in the Pakistan/Afghanistan border area and the emergence of 
"Al Qaida franchises" in Africa and the Middle East.  As to 
prevention, some delegations made appeals to address the root 
causes of terrorism by eradicating poverty, inequality and by 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000880  002 OF 004 
 
 
promoting tolerance through interfaith and intercultural 
dialogue.  On this point, delegates emphasized their 
rejection of any attempt to link terrorism with any religion, 
race, culture, or ethnic origin.  Many countries also used 
the debate to discuss their national and regional 
counterterrorism efforts.  Turning to the work of the Sixth 
Committee, delegates called for conclusion of negotiations on 
the draft Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism 
(CCIT) as soon as possible. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
Self-Determination and State Terrorism 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶5. Several states, representing the Non-Aligned Movement, 
Organization of Islamic Conferences, and the Africa Group, 
continued to press for the inclusion of concepts such as the 
right to self-determination and State terrorism in the CCIT. 
Among the statements delivered, eighteen countries referred 
to  the right of self-determination and seven countries spoke 
specifically about State terrorism.  Libya and Syria raised 
the need to address the activities of armed forces in the 
CCIT.  Taking aim at Israel, the United Arab Emirates 
condemned the "state terrorism carried out by the Israelis in 
the occupied territories."  Syria put its own issues ahead of 
the Palestinians to characterize Israel's "illegal 
settlements" in the Golan Heights as an example of 
"systematic state terrorism." 
 
------------ 
U.S. Critics 
------------ 
 
¶6.  Cuba, Venezuela and Trinidad-Tobago reserved part of 
their statements to criticize the U.S. over the release of 
Luis Posada Carriles, a Venezuelan citizen suspected of 
bombing a Cuban airliner in 1976.  Cuba accused President 
Bush of double-standards and tolerating terrorism against 
Cubans while harboring a known terrorist.  Venezuela called 
on the U.S. to respond to its request for Posada's 
extradition.  The U.S. presented the points in para 8 to 
clarify U.S. actions with respect to Posada.  Cuba exercised 
a right-of-reply to emphasize that the U.S. had charged 
Posada with immigration violations, not for crimes related to 
terrorism or his alleged attempts to assassinate Fidel 
Castro. 
 
¶7. Text of U.S. Statement: 
 
BEGIN TEXT: 
 
Statement by John B. Sandage 
Chief, Counterterrorism and Sanctions Policy 
Bureau of International Organization Affairs 
United States Department of State 
 
Mr. Chairman, and fellow delegates, thank you for the 
opportunity to speak on this important question. 
 
Global terrorism remains one of our greatest collective 
challenges.  It affects the way we live our lives, raise our 
families, travel to other nations, carry out business.  No 
geographic region is immune.  No individual can feel totally 
safe from this modern day plague.  The vast majority of the 
victims of terrorism have been innocent civilians.  In 2006, 
the majority of victims were followers of the Islamic faith. 
Last year, attacks on children were up more than 80 percent, 
with more than 1,800 children killed or injured in terrorist 
attacks. The terrorists also targeted the workers essential 
to civilized society. They targeted police. They targeted 
government leaders. They targeted teachers. They targeted 
journalists.  And they targeted diplomats. 
 
The international community is working together to confront 
these extremists because they threaten the right of people 
everywhere to live in peaceful, just, secure neighborhoods 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000880  003 OF 004 
 
 
and societies.  Joined together, through the UN, we have 
collectively said "enough."  The unanimous adoption of the 
Global Counterterrorism Strategy is a testament to that 
collective will.  And it is one the United States welcomes. 
The United States remains strongly committed to supporting 
the efforts both of the General Assembly, and the Security 
Council, toward this end. 
 
We must measure counterterrorism success in the broadest 
perspective. While capturing and bringing to justice key 
terrorist actors is fundamental in combating terrorism, these 
actions do not eliminate the threat.  We can destroy 
terrorist leadership, disrupt terrorist networks, and 
eliminate terrorist safe havens, but unless we start eroding 
terrorist recruitment and the expansion of terrorist groups' 
global reach, we won't be successful in eliminating 
terrorism.  We must thus employ all the tools of statecraft 
to establish long-term measures to marginalize terrorists. We 
must also seek to build trusted networks of governments, 
private citizens and organizations, multilateral 
institutions, and business groups that will work 
collaboratively to defeat the threat from violent extremism 
and its radical ideology. Such networks, over time, help wean 
at-risk populations away from subversive manipulation by 
terrorists, and they create mechanisms to address people's 
needs and grievances, thus marginalizing the terrorists. 
 
The US strategy to defeat terrorists is structured at 
multiple levels:  a global campaign to counter violent 
extremism and disrupt terrorist networks; a series of 
regional collaborative efforts to deny terrorists safe 
havens; numerous bilateral security and development 
assistance programs that are designed to build liberal 
institutions, support law enforcement and the rule of law, to 
address political and economic injustice and to develop 
military and security capacity. 
 
But we, the global community, need to do better at 
galvanizing public opinion to reject violence as an 
unacceptable means of expressing any type of grievance. 
These grievances may include geo-political issues, lack of 
economic opportunity, ethnic conflict, governance issues, 
corruption and political injustice.  Violence can never be an 
acceptable way to express or address these grievances. 
Effectively countering violent extremism means creating 
pathways for alienated groups to redress their legitimate 
grievances without joining the terrorist network. 
 
Toward this end, I am pleased to be able to share with you 
that the United States has pledged to the Counterterrorism 
Strategy Implementation Task Force a voluntary contribution 
of nearly one-half million dollars to support programs to 
address the issue of radicalization and extremism, and to 
protect vulnerable infrastructure.  We call on those Member 
States in a position to do so to respond to the Task Force's 
call for contributions.   We believe that the Task Force, 
under the leadership of Assistant Secretary-General Robert 
Orr, and with the active involvement of the entire UN 
Secretariat, is doing laudable work. 
 
SIPDIS 
 
We as Members must match that effort.  We must continue to 
work closely together in building and supporting effective 
multilateral mechanisms for combating terrorism, including 
the long-pending Comprehensive Convention on International 
Terrorism.  We must ensure the full and effective 
implementation of the Strategy.  And we must continue to 
cooperate with the Security Council's three counterterrorism 
committees, to ensure that our obligations under the Charter 
are fully implemented, and that those Member States having 
the will, but not the capacity to fulfill these obligations, 
get the help they need to do so. 
 
We look forward to hearing the views of others and, we hope, 
reports of great progress in our collective effort.  I thank 
you for your attention to my remarks. 
 
 
USUN NEW Y 00000880  004 OF 004 
 
 
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to offer a few factual 
clarifications on the case of Luis Posada. The United States 
has taken a number of legal actions with respect to Mr. 
Posada. 
 
In taking these steps the United States has acted consistent 
with international law as well as our domestic legal 
framework that provides for due process and various 
constitutional safeguards. 
 
As with all democracies around the world that follow the rule 
of law, as opposed to other systems of governance, these 
safeguards provide that an individual cannot be brought for 
trial or extradited unless sufficient evidence has been 
established that he committed the offense charged.  In the 
United States, this standard is described as "probable cause." 
 
Let me give you a brief overview of steps the United States 
has taken with respect to Posada within this legal framework: 
 
Posada entered the United States illegally in early 2005. 
 
Posada was detained by immigration authorities in the United 
States on May 17, 2005, and he was, in accordance with U.S. 
law, placed in removal proceedings. 
 
The immigration judge who handled the removal proceedings 
ordered that Posada be removed from the United States on 
September 27, 2005. 
 
This order remains in effect.  The United States has been 
seeking ways to implement it consistent with the terms of the 
order and U.S. regulations that implement the obligations of 
the United States under the Convention Against Torture and 
Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. 
 
Moreover, the United States sought and obtained a criminal 
indictment charging Posada with violations of our immigration 
laws.  The U.S. district court handling that case recently 
dismissed the indictment.  As is well known, our judges are 
wholly independent of the Executive Branch.  They enjoy 
tenure for life, and are fiercely independent.  This federal 
judge, sitting not in Florida but in Texas, reached her 
decision according to her reading of the law.  In our system, 
as in all those that respect the rule of law, a decision by 
the courts must be obeyed unless and until it is overturned 
by a higher court.  The United States filed a notice 
appealing the district court's decision dismissing the case 
on June 5, 2007, but that appeal has not yet been decided. 
 
Posada also remains under investigation for past activities. 
 
In the meantime, Posada remains subject to the order of 
removal issued by the immigration judge and is without legal 
status in the United States. 
 
He is also subject to an Order of Supervision from the 
Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE), which imposes certain restrictions on 
Posada, including reporting and monitoring requirements. 
 
In sum, the United States continues to be engaged in an 
ongoing series of actions, consistent with our legal 
requirements, due process, and the rule of law with respect 
to Posada. 
 
END TEXT. 
 
¶8.  I/O Counterterrorism and Sanctions Policy Office Chief 
John Sandage cleared this message. 
KHALILZAD