VZCZCXRO8727
PP RUEHIK RUEHPOD RUEHYG
DE RUEHBS #0819/01 1661107
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 151107Z JUN 09
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHNR/AMEMBASSY NAIROBI PRIORITY
RUEHPL/AMEMBASSY PORT LOUIS PRIORITY
RUEAWJA/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RUEHSW/USDAO BERN SZ PRIORITY
RUENAAA/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHBS/USDAO BRUSSELS BE PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/HQ USAFRICOM STUTTGART GE PRIORITY
RUEHCP/USDAO COPENHAGEN DA PRIORITY
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUEHLI/USDAO LISBON PO PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHLO/USDAO LONDON UK PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHMD/USDAO MADRID SP PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHNR/USDAO NAIROBI PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/CNO WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHNC/USDAO NICOSIA PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHNY/USDAO OSLO NO PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE PRIORITY
RUEHOT/USDAO OTTAWA CA PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHFR/USDAO PARIS FR PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY
RUEHPG/USDAO PRAGUE EZ PRIORITY
RUZBCAA/NAVCENT INTEL MANAMA BA PRIORITY
RUEHRO/USDAO ROME IT PRIORITY
RUEHSM/USDAO STOCKHOLM SW PRIORITY
RUEHTC/USDAO THE HAGUE NL PRIORITY
RUEHTH/USDAO ATHENS GR PRIORITY
RUEHRL/USDAO BERLIN GE PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 000819 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
PASS TO NAVCENT POLAD 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: MOPS MARR PREL EWWT XW XF EUN
SUBJECT: COUNCIL SECRETARIAT DISCUSSES PIRACY PROSECUTION 
OPTIONS 
 
REF: A. SECSTATE 58579 
     ¶B. USEU BRUSSELS 702 
     ¶C. USEU BRUSSELS 692 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary:  On June 12, Poloffs delivered REF A 
points and nonpaper on U.S. opposition to an international 
piracy court to Didier Lenoir, Head of the EU Council 
Secretariat's Operations and Exercises Unit. Lenoir confirmed 
that EU Member States are divided on the question of an 
international piracy court. The Council Secretariat, however, 
is concerned about the sustainability of the current legal 
arrangement with Kenya and probable future arrangement with 
the Seychelles. Lenoir proposed two alternatives to an 
ICC-style international court: a locally-run, 
internationally-supported regional piracy tribunal, or an 
international community commitment to substantial, long-term 
financial and structural support for states prosecuting 
pirates.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  On June 12, Poloffs delivered REF A points and 
nonpaper on U.S. opposition to an international piracy court 
to Didier Lenoir, Head of the EU Council Secretariat's 
Operations and Exercises Unit. European Commission contacts 
tell us the Commission does not have oversight of this issue, 
but USEU will raise the issue with Commission officials as 
appropriate. 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  Lenoir confirmed that EU Member States are divided 
on the question of an international piracy court. Lenoir said 
EU Ambassadors had discussed the issue once, but the meeting 
was limited to announcements of known positions rather than a 
substantive exchange. 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  The Council Secretariat, on the other hand, is 
concerned about the sustainability of current legal 
arrangements. The Secretariat wants to ensure continuity 
between military operations and legal arrangements, because 
the EU cannot afford to have ships taken out of operations 
for extended periods while holding captured pirates. For that 
reason, the EU finalized an agreement with Kenya in March and 
is coming close to signing a similar agreement with the 
Seychelles. (Note: Lenoir acknowledged that the recent 
decision by the EU to extend the EU operation's area of 
responsibility to the Seychelles, reported REF B, was part of 
the deal in getting the Seychelles to sign an agreement. End 
note.) In addition to these measures, Lenoir supported the 
idea of victim states prosecuting pirates, but noted that a 
lack of political will makes victim state prosecution 
impossible in many cases. He cited examples with Greece and 
Germany, both of which recently demurred when asked to accept 
pirate suspects. Noting that some NGOs are already 
 
BRUSSELS 00000819  002 OF 002 
 
 
criticizing the EU for failing to ensure captured pirates are 
treated well by Kenyan law enforcement authorities, Lenoir is 
concerned that pirates prosecuted in certain victim states 
would be subject to human rights violations. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  In the short term, Lenoir said that the EU can 
rely on Kenya and the Seychelles for piracy prosecutions. 
However, he assessed that the Kenyan court systems will be 
beyond capacity in three to four months, with the Seychelles 
soon to follow. The international community must find a 
long-term solution, he contended. Lenoir agreed that an 
ICC-like international tribunal would not be cost effective, 
but suggested two alternatives. The first is to establish a 
regional tribunal dedicated to piracy prosecutions. The 
tribunal would be locally-run but supported by the 
international community. Alternatively, Lenoir said the 
international community could commit to a substantial, 
long-term program of support to states prosecuting pirates. 
In this case, he said the EU would have to go beyond its 
current 1.75 million euro commitment to Kenya (REF C). 
International aid would have to include structural support, 
including building prisons and other facilities. Lenoir 
reiterated that these were not EU-wide proposals, but noted 
that those overseeing the EU naval operations doubt the 
sustainability of the current arrangement. 
 
MURRAY 
.