VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0383/01 1400735
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 200735Z MAY 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8433
INFO RUCNMEU/EU INTEREST COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 3032
RHEHNSC/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L GENEVA 000383 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/20/2019 
TAGS: PHUM PREF PREL KDRG PGOV PTER MOPS KAWK KISL
SUBJECT: GUANTANAMO: SPECIAL ENVOY FRIED AND UNHCR ON NEXT 
STEPS FOR RESETTLING DETAINEES 
 
REF: GENEVA 263 
 
Classified By: Peter Mulrean, RMA Counselor, Reasons 1.4 b and d 
 
Summary 
-------- 
 
¶1. (U)Special Envoy for Guantanamo Closure Fried and Acting 
PRM A/S Witten, accompanied by S/GC Williams, Mission RMA 
Counselor and Legal Adviser, met on May 18th with UNHCR,s 
Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, Erika Feller, and 
her staff to discuss USG progress towards GTMO closure and to 
explore options for UNHCR assistance in support of the USG,s 
GTMO detainee resettlement efforts. 
¶2. (U) Fried and Feller had a useful exchange regarding 
possible forms of UNHCR support for detainee resettlement. 
Feller stressed that UNHCR wants to be supportive and is 
prepared to consider various levels of engagement and 
assistance. She outlined three main options: 1) a letter from 
UNHCR to the USG expressing general support for USG 
resettlement efforts (note: UNHCR has already produced an 
initial draft for USG reaction) which the U.S. could share 
with other governments; 2) UNHCR "good offices" in support of 
USG efforts to transfer specific individuals or groups of 
individuals; 3)a process toward potential formal UNHCR 
referral of some detainees for resettlement as refugees. 
Following a discussion of possible hurdles (most notably 
sharing information on detainees) and downside risks, Fried 
and Witten expressed interest in further exploration of the 
first two options, especially "good offices." USG officials 
undertook to get back to UNHCR on several points, including 
follow-up thinking about how specifically UNHCR could use its 
good offices and what information about detainees could be 
shared.  End summary. 
 
Overview of USG Resettlement Efforts and Challenges 
--------------------------------------------- ------ 
 
3.(SBU)  Fried provided a brief summary of the January 22 
Executive Orders and Task Force work proceeding under them. 
Wih respect to USG efforts to close GTMO, Fried said 
candidly that the USG doesn,t know how many of te remaining 
240 detainees will require resettlement, given the need in 
every case, to assure the sfety of the individual being 
transferred (i.e., umane treatment concerns) and the safety 
of the orld community (i.e., security concerns). 
 
¶4. (C Fried noted that in discussions with EU counterparts 
the Swedes have said they will only consider accepting 
detainees if tey have been referred as refugees by UNHCR. To 
date no other EU counterpart has specified such a condition. 
Feller noted that Sweden had also recently approached UNHCR 
and that Finland had also expressed interest in a UNHCR role 
in retransfers, although the extent of desired involvement is 
unclear. 
 
Feller Outlines Assistance Options 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (C) Feller said that she saw options ranging from 
"minimalist" to "maximalist." (reftel) Specifically, in the 
minimalist approach, UNHCR would write a letter to the USG 
expressing support for the decision to close GTMO and for the 
overall effort to find resettlement solutions where possible. 
Such a letter (which UNHCR has already offered a first draft 
of for USG consideration) could be shred with other 
governments and help create a "conducive environment" for 
European and other countries to favorably consider accepting 
detainees. The maximalist approach meanwhile, would involve 
formal referrals for resettlement of some detainees as 
refugees. In the referral process,UNHCR  determines whether 
individuals meet its rfugee definition and whether they areexcludable from protection for reasons that could include, 
inter alia, serious reasons for considering that the 
individual has committed serious non-political crimes or war 
crimes. Feller noted that UNHCR retained some discretion in 
exclusion decisions based on an assessment of proportional 
harms, i.e., if exclusion would expose an individual to great 
danger associated with repatriation to his country, UNHCR 
might be able to forgo exclusion. Witten asked whether 
prolonged "limbo" might factor into the assessment of 
exclusion. Feller said she wasn,t sure, as there was no 
precedent for that. Finally, Feller said the middle 
assistance option would be something in between the first 
two, namely some form of "good offices" intervention short of 
formal referrals. 
 
Pros and Cons of Options Discussed 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (C) Fried and his staff said they looked positively on the 
draft letter that UNHCR had provided and expected to provide 
concrete feedback on that very soon. In principle, a letter 
would be welcome.  With respect to the maximalist option of 
referrals, both Fried and Witten expressed concern that the 
process could result in individuals being determined 
"excludable" from protection, which could in turn make any 
transfer much more difficult. In addition, Witten noted that 
if one country, such as Sweden, was able to say that it was 
taking only those identified by UNHCR based on a merits 
assessment for protection as refugees, others might suddenly 
find themselves in a less flexible position.  Finally, Feller 
noted that referrals would require in-depth case information 
and review.  Fried noted that the information governments are 
receiving about case files is substantially the same as what 
he and other U.S. decision-makers see in making 
determinations, and he would need to look further into what 
information could be provided to UNHCR, as a multilateral 
entity. 
 
Way Forward 
----------- 
 
¶7. (C) Given downside risks and potential hurdles with 
respect to the maximalist option, a combination of the letter 
and good offices approach might be most workable. Fried 
explained that he would meet with EU officials in Brussels 
the next day and could explore further what approaches might 
be best. If Sweden insists on formal referrals, it might be 
setting too high a bar to meet. 
 
¶8. (C) Fried promised to look further into what the USG would 
envision with respect to good offices, and also what 
information sharing would be possible to support such a role. 
Finally, Fried also promised to get back to UNHCR on the case 
of Mohammad Barre, a Somali whom UNHCR designated as a 
refugee before he was detained on GTMO. UNHCR would like to 
know his eligibility for transfer to Somalia. Williams 
explained that his case was going through the process of 
review, and Fried noted that he expected such reviews to 
conclude before the summer break, and would get back to UNHCR 
on Barre's case. 
STORELLA