VZCZCXYZ0010
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0550/01 1751912
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 231912Z JUN 08
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4474

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000550 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PTER UN
SUBJECT: GENERAL ASSEMBLY COUNTER-TERRORISM 
STRATEGY-FACILITATOR CONVENES CONSULTATIONS 
 
 
¶1.  Summary.  Informal consultations on the General 
Assembly's Counter-terrorism Strategy follow-up focused on 
plans for the September review.  Delegations struck a 
positive tone and comments were generally constructive.  The 
current trend is toward a resolution reaffirming the 
Strategy.  Some delegations are pushing to establish a 
General Assembly Working Group or other mechanism to monitor 
implementation and direct Secretariat efforts.  The 
establishment of a small Task Force Co-ordination Office 
within the Secretariat also continues to be an issue two 
years after the resolution mandated it. End Summary. 
 
¶2.  On June 13, 2008 Ambassador Gert Rosenthal, Permanent 
Representative of Guatemala, in his capacity as facilitator 
of the review process of the United Nations Global 
Counter-Terrorism Strategy, held an informal meeting open to 
all Member States and Observers.  Delegates engaged in a 
preliminary exchange of views on the expected outcome of the 
September 4 meeting convened by the President of the General 
Assembly, in compliance with Resolution 60/288.  Rosenthal 
identified four issue areas of particular 
relevance for discussion: 
 
a.  Whether delegations felt that the four substantive 
pillars of the Strategy merited further discussion or were 
susceptible to a broad reaffirmation? 
 
b.  What additional steps would be required to improve 
implementation and to give the Strategy further impetus? 
 
c.  What institutional issues require further clarification 
which including:the role of the Task Force, its budgetary 
implications, the manner in which it interacts with the 
General Assembly, and what further steps are required to 
marshal all the resources at the disposal of the United 
Nations to implement the Strategy? 
 
d.  What type of outcome document should be adopted at the 
September 4 meeting? 
 
With regard to the assessment of progress since 2006, the 
main item mandated for the 2008 meeting, the facilitator said 
that he had been informed by the Secretariat that the 
note/report of the Secretary-General concerning what has been 
accomplished since the adoption of the Strategy would be 
available by the second half of July. 
 
¶3.  Comments, views and concerns were presented by the 
following delegations:  Pakistan, who spoke of behalf of the 
OIC and also on behalf of its own delegation; Slovenia on 
behalf of the EU, Egypt, Canada on behalf of CANZ, Qatar, 
Japan, Panama, Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein, Cuba, 
Mexico, Indonesia, Israel, Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom, 
Colombia, Islamic Republic of Iran, Turkey, United States, 
Peru and Syrian Arab Republic. 
 
Most delegations said that their comments were preliminary 
and that more concrete views would be forthcoming after the 
report of the Secretary General was issued.  There was a 
clear pattern in the interventions.  Virtually all speakers 
recognized the singular achievement that the 2006 Strategy 
represented, and the majority favored a general 
reaffirmation, rather than a new debate on the contents. 
Concern was expressed, however, on two matters:  the first 
was the importance of adopting further steps to implement the 
Strategy at the national, regional and global level; the 
second was the institutional aspects.  On the latter, there 
were differing points of view on how to make the 
Secretariat's work more transparent and accountable, as well 
as how to enhance interaction between the General Assembly 
and the Counter-terrorism Task Force. 
 
¶4.  Delegations indicated they were looking forward to 
receiving the Secretary General's report.  Some said that 
future review processes would be necessary.  Many commented 
about the "institutionalization" of the Task Force. 
Different ideas on mechanisms to meet more frequently to 
share information and provide guidance were mentioned.  Some 
stressed the need to implement the Strategy in an integrated, 
comprehensive and more balanced manner.  In the view of some 
delegations (Cuba, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Qatar, Saudi 
Arabia, Syria) additional aspects of the Strategy required 
more attention such as root causes, development, cooperation, 
information sharing and capacity-building. 
 
¶5.  On the expected outcome, there was broad support for a 
resolution, although some delegations found it too early to 
decide on such a matter.  For those who supported the idea of 
a resolution, there was a trend toward a short, substantive 
and focused document reaffirming the Strategyand enhancing 
the Strategy to allow an effective and full 
implementation.THey also noted the need to clarify the 
interaction of the Task Force with Members States and 
 
 
resource requirements. 
 
With regard to the resource requirements of the Task Force, 
several delegations stressed the importance of resolving this 
matter before the September 4 meeting.  The EU and U.S. said 
that this should be achieved in accordance with GA Resolution 
60/288 which stipulated "existing resources".  In addition, 
comments were made concerning the need for more support and 
cooperation with the Security Council counter-terrorism 
bodies. 
 
Some views on the format of the meeting of September 4 were 
also presented, indicating the wish to have an interactive 
debate on the steps needed  by Member States to implement the 
Strategy including best practices. 
Khalilzad