VZCZCXYZ0014
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHDG #0734/01 1331635
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 121635Z MAY 08
FM AMEMBASSY SANTO DOMINGO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 0703
INFO RUMISTA/CDR USSOUTHCOM MIAMI FL PRIORITY

UNCLAS SANTO DOMINGO 000734 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR WHA/CAR TRYAN, CWARD; DRL: INR; H 
SOUTHCOM ALSO FOR POLAD 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM DR
SUBJECT: DOMINICAN REPUBLIC REQUESTS RELIEF FROM LEAHY 
DELAYS 
 
¶1. Summary.  Embassy notes with understanding the tremendous 
volume of Leahy vetting requests that must be processed by 
the Department -- Embassy itself has submitted 66 requests 
for over 460 individuals so far in FY 08, and submitted 82 
requests for 635 individuals and 1 military unit in FY 07 -- 
and Embassy thanks its desk officers for expediting requests 
to the extent possible, but Embassy must nevertheless note 
that marked delays in the processing of its Leahy vetting 
requests are jeopardizing USG work designed to protect the 
homeland through fostering the rule of law, promoting human 
rights, preventing terrorist activity, and combating 
narcotics trafficking in the Dominican Republic. 
Accordingly, Embassy proposes that steps be taken to speed 
processing of Leahy vetting requests from the Dominican 
Republic.  End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
Rank-order and poor staffing damage programming 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶2. From conversations with Department officials, Embassy 
understands both DRL and INR processing of requests to be 
based on a prioritized country-ranking and that the Dominican 
Republic falls significantly toward the bottom of both 
bureaus' lists; this is despite the fact that Embassy is the 
third highest recipient of IMET funding in the Americas, 
following only El Salvador and Colombia.  Embassy 
understands, moreover, that INR processing (at least for the 
Dominican Republic) is largely done by a single part-time 
employee who works but 2 days per week.  Embassy's placement 
in the rank-order for processing, combined with what Embassy 
views as severely inadequate Department staffing, has 
significant consequences. 
 
¶3. Embassy has been told that every attempt will be made to 
process requests within 10 working days of receipt, but has 
noted repeated delays of several months in processing -- but 
one example is the roughly 120 working day gap between the 
submission of our request in 2007 SANTO DOMINGO 863 (April 
17, 2007) and the Department's response in STATE 144409 
(October 15, 2007).  In other examples the gaps are equal or 
nearly as significant:  roughly 120 working days between the 
submission of 2007 SANTO DOMINGO 986 and the Department's 
response in 2007 STATE 147432; roughly 50 working days 
between the submission of 2007 SANTO DOMINGO 2422 and the 
response in STATE 1684, etc.  In a recent trend, and likely 
in an effort to speed response, Embassy has begun receiving 
back channel notification of vetting approvals, but, as the 
60 working day response time for SANTO DOMINGO 130 (sent 
January 8, 2008) suggests, this is not a perfect solution. 
Moreover, partner agencies such as SOCSOUTH require front 
channel confirmation of clearance. 
 
¶4. While these excessive delays, admittedly, occur 
infrequently, and while desk officers and both DRL and INR 
have often responded positively to Embassy's last minute 
entreaties, the fact that these gaps do occur, and the fact 
that the typical gap is now roughly 20 working days (still 
outside the Department's own guidelines), provides ample 
evidence of the larger problem the Embassy faces. 
 
¶5. In terms of real world impact, delays have caused the 
Embassy more than just inconvenience:  delays have prevented 
the training of key individuals with time-sensitive 
schedules, have put the Embassy's Military Advisory and 
Assistance Group at risk for thousands of dollars in 
penalties when students were unable to travel for U.S.-based 
military training, and, in the case of SOCSOUTH, have forced 
the cancellation of critical 1206-funded training needed to 
protect the homeland and U.S. citizens resident and visiting 
from the threat of terrorist attack. 
 
--------- 
Proposals 
--------- 
 
¶6. Embassy recognizes that many countries are critical to the 
security of the United States and of its citizens abroad, but 
suggests that, given the 1 million annual U.S. visitors to 
the Dominican Republic, the 100,000 U.S. citizens resident, 
the small geographic distance between the Dominican Republic 
and the United States (80 miles across the Mona Passage), the 
criticality of the Dominican Republic to the U.S. Southern 
Command's plan to secure the southern approaches to the 
continental United States (recognizing the Dominican Republic 
to be a functional "third border"), and the increasing flow 
of illegal narcotics through Hispaniola to the United States 
(over 100 metric tons annually), that the Dominican Republic 
 
is such a country. 
 
¶7. Embassy requests that the Dominican Republic be considered 
a high-priority country for all Bureaus involved in Leahy 
vetting processing and that Embassy's submissions be 
expedited. 
 
¶8. Embassy further suggests that, despite the grave budget 
situation facing the Department, it is of critical importance 
to increase staffing dedicated to the processing of Leahy 
vetting. 
 
¶9. Considering that vetting to date has not discovered 
significant human rights violators among Embassy's proposed 
individuals, as well as the marked improvement in the human 
rights situation in the country over the past several years, 
Embassy further suggests that the Department may wish to 
consider the Dominican Republic for the next tranche of 
"fast-track" countries. 
 
¶10. Embassy welcomes Department's response to this problem 
and any proposed solution. 
FANNIN