VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0900/01 2952301
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 222301Z OCT 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 2852

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000900 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: UNGA UNGA
SUBJECT: UNGA/C-6:DEBATE ON CRIMINAL ACCOUNTABILITY OF UN 
OFFICIALS AND EXPERTS ON MISSION 
 
REF: USUN 790 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: During the October 15 Sixth Committee 
debate on criminal accountability of UN officials and experts 
on mission, delegates discussed short and long-term measures 
available to address criminal accountability, what categories 
of UN personnel should be included in a system of criminal 
accountability and whether the system should be limited to 
all crimes committed by UN personnel, or to a limited scope 
of serious offenses.  While Portugal (on behalf of the EU), 
Australia (on behalf of CANZ) and Switzerland expressed 
support for the negotiation of a convention, most Member 
States thought it was premature to consider such action 
without first determining whether the problem is significant 
enough.  Oddly, the UN Secretariat continues to push for the 
elaboration of a convention despite the weak support for such 
action expressed by the majority of Member States.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. (U) During the October 15 debate on criminal 
accountability of UN officials and experts on mission 
twenty-four member states addressed the Sixth Committee. 
Delegations that delivered statements were: Australia (on 
behalf of CANZ), Portugal (on behalf of the EU), Cuba (on 
behalf of NAM), Switzerland, Egypt, Guatemala, China, India, 
Indonesia, Tunisia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, 
Thailand, El Salvador, Uruguay, Ecuador, South Africa, 
Mexico, Malaysia, Morocco, the United States, Venezuela, 
Algeria, the Russian Federation and Kenya. 
 
¶3. (U) The main themes of the debate included, short and 
long-term measures available to address the criminal 
accountability of UN personnel on mission, what categories of 
UN personnel should be included in a system of criminal 
accountability, and whether such a system should pertain to 
all crimes committed by UN staff, or to a limited scope of 
serious offenses.  In their remarks, many delegates expressed 
broad support for a zero tolerance policy toward criminal 
acts committed by UN personnel, particularly crimes involving 
sexual abuse and exploitation.  However, this support was 
tempered by the view that more time was needed to examine the 
true scope and substance of the problem before talks on 
concrete measures could begin. 
 
¶4. (U) Chapter seven of the SYG report on criminal 
accountability of United Nations officials and experts on 
mission (A/62/329) lists short and long-term recommendations 
for addressing the issue of criminal jurisdiction and the 
role of Member States, which the Secretariat first circulated 
during an informal briefing in September (reftel).  To 
address what the Secretariat calls a "jurisdictional gap," 
the SYG report suggests Member States implement short-term 
solutions, such as extending existing domestic jurisdiction 
to cover their nationals seconded to UN missions, with a view 
to adopting a convention on criminal accountability in the 
long-term.  Portugal (on behalf of the EU), Australia (on 
behalf of CANZ) and Switzerland supported the Secretariat's 
recommendation for a convention.  Australia noted that a 
convention would better enable Member States to assert and 
exercise jurisdiction and facilitate mutual legal assistance 
in criminal matters.  However, many delegations argued that 
there was not enough information to determine whether gaps in 
the current system of criminal accountability exist.  For 
this reason, Egypt emphasized the importance of concluding a 
comprehensive study on all elements concerning criminal 
accountability before discussing the need for a convention. 
 
 
¶5. (U) For many delegations, basic questions concerning the 
scope of accountability and which criminal activities would 
be covered under a new criminal accountability framework were 
unclear.  Australia stated  that the system of accountability 
should extend beyond the scope of peacekeeping missions and 
apply to "all UN personnel who are in the area of a UN 
operation irrespective of their Department, Office, 
Programme, Fund or Specialized Agency."  Switzerland argued 
the scope of criminal accountability should include the 
military personnel of national contingents, since experience 
has shown that they are most likely "to be involved in the 
commission of crimes in the context of peacekeeping 
operations."  On the other hand, Egypt, Tunisia, Russia and 
several other delegations expressed reservations about 
extending the scope of accountability to military and police 
officials seconded to UN missions; arguing that criminal 
accountability should apply only to civilian experts and 
officials, since police and military officials seconded to UN 
missions would be covered under the military laws of the 
Sending State. 
 
¶6. (U) As to the scope of crimes, most delegations said that 
the system should not be limited to sexual exploitation, but 
include other serious crimes against property and persons. 
 
 
However, delegations differed on how to establish what 
constitutes a "serious" crime.  Some delegations asked for 
statistics on crimes committed by UN personnel from which a 
list of serious crimes could be compiled.  Other delegates 
preferred to refer to the severity of punishments defined in 
the host country law to determine whether a particular act 
qualified as a "serious crime." 
 
¶7. (SBU) COMMENT:  The Secretariat Note (A/62/329) has framed 
the debate and Working Group deliberations in a way that 
assumes the logical result of the Committee's discussions 
will be the negotiation of a draft convention.  The 
Secretariat's persistent support for a convention, despite 
 
SIPDIS 
the fact that many Member States express weak support for 
such action, seems to have stimulated discussion of this 
option.  END COMMENT. 
KHALILZAD