VZCZCXRO4275
OO RUEHBZ RUEHDU RUEHGI RUEHJO RUEHMA RUEHMR RUEHPA RUEHRN RUEHTRO
DE RUCNDT #1165/01 3470049
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 120049Z DEC 08
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5511
INFO RUEHZO/AFRICAN UNION COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUENAAA/SECNAV WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/OSD WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5/UNMA// IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5/DDPMAW// IMMEDIATE
RHMFIUU/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL IMMEDIATE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USUN NEW YORK 001165 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PHUM PHSA EWWT KCRM UNSC SO XA XW
SUBJECT: USUN: COUNCIL RESPONSE TO SOMALIA PIRACY RESOLUTION 
 
REF: STATE 129528 
 
¶1. (U) This is an urgent action request.  Please see 
paragraph 7. 
 
¶2. (U) SUMMARY: In response to reftel instructions, USUN 
circulated our draft resolution on Somalia piracy to the P3 
on the evening of December 9 and to the broader Council on 
December 10.  Initial expert-level consultations were held on 
December 11.  While no delegation was able to receive full 
instructions from capital on one day's notice, the meeting 
yielded significant concern over the broad authorities that 
the draft would give states to use force in the territory of 
Somalia.  More detailed textual negotiation is expected at 
the next experts meeting at 10:00am on Friday, December 12. 
End Summary. 
 
¶3. (U) During expert-level consultations on Thursday, 
December 11, the U.S. draft resolution on Somalia piracy 
received initial positive comments from France, the UK, 
China, Belgium, Croatia and Italy, while Vietnam, Panama, 
Costa Rica and Burkina Faso said that they were willing to 
engage constructively on the basis of our draft.  Indonesia 
and South Africa indicated that they had reservations about 
the U.S. draft. 
 
The core issue: force against pirates on land 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) All delegations other than Libya and Italy raised 
concerns over the wording of operative paragraph (OP) 4, 
which allows states and regional organizations cooperating 
with the Somali government to use all necessary means in 
Somali territory and airspace against those suspected of 
piracy and armed robbery at sea.  Delegations voiced concern 
over the broad authorities proposed by the U.S. and 
questioned what operations were contemplated that would 
necessitate such far-reaching provisions for the use of 
force.  China worried that under the U.S. draft, third 
countries could be allowed to base troops in Somalia.  Russia 
recalled that the authorizations contained in resolutions 
1816 and 1846 were governed by the law of the sea but noted 
that the authority to use force in the current U.S. draft had 
no reference to any such international legal instrument. 
France, the UK, Russia and Burkina Faso asked for 
clarification of the word "ashore" in the U.S. text, noting 
that this did not necessarily limit the use of force to 
littoral areas. 
 
¶5. (U) Delegations also voiced concern over the stated intent 
of the resolution to "interdict" suspected pirates, noting 
that determining jurisdiction over suspected pirates of 
Somali nationality detained in Somalia would be more 
complicated than if they were detained at sea and asking what 
legal framework would govern such actions.  South Africa and 
Indonesia said that actions against pirates on land could 
have the unintended consequence of exacerbating political 
instability in Somalia. 
 
Other issues: 
------------- 
 
¶6. (U) In addition to the core concerns referenced above, 
delegations also raised concerns over: 
 
- Coordination of anti-piracy efforts: China, backed by Libya 
and Vietnam proposed language to promote UN coordination of 
anti-piracy efforts; 
 
- Shipriders: France, Belgium, South Africa and the UK asked 
what legal framework would govern the resolution's Chapter 7 
request that states deploy shipriders aboard vessels engaged 
in anti-piracy efforts; 
 
- Ransoms: France and Russia objected to language on ransom 
payment in OP3 and OP6; 
 
- Investigations: France and Panama objected to the 
requirement in OP10 that states make their citizens available 
for "forensic investigation at the first port of call," 
noting that if their nationals were rescued from pirates, 
their first priority would be to bring them home. 
 
Comment and action request: 
 
USUN NEW Y 00001165  002 OF 002 
 
 
--------------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) As currently worded, OP4 of reftel draft resolution 
is too broad to garner support even from our European allies. 
 In order to secure necessary authorities in time for the 
Secretary's ministerial meeting on piracy on December 16, we 
urgently need to know what types of specific actions are 
contemplated against suspected pirates on land.  This 
information will help us to craft specific language in order 
to respond to our needs as well as the concerns of others on 
the Council.  Should such operations include possible 
detention of suspected pirates, we anticipate the need for 
language that will address jurisdiction. 
 
In addition, we urgently request Department input on 
applicable international law which could govern actions 
covered by our authorization.  Citing such principles within 
our authorization paragraph (as in the precedent of 
resolutions 1816 and 1846) will help allay concerns that the 
authorization is overly broad. 
 
Khalilzad