VZCZCXRO5953
PP RUEHLH RUEHPW
DE RUEHIL #1823/01 2180542
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 060542Z AUG 09 ZDK
FM AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 4220
INFO RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL 0730
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1073
RUEHNE/AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI 5333
RUEHKP/AMCONSUL KARACHI 2095
RUEHLH/AMCONSUL LAHORE 7700
RUEHPW/AMCONSUL PESHAWAR 6678
RHMFIUU/FBI WASHINGTON DC
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RUMICEA/USCENTCOM INTEL CEN MACDILL AFB FL
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 ISLAMABAD 001823 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PINR PK PREF PREL PTER
SUBJECT: DUBAI PROCESS CONFERENCE: AF/PAK CONVERSATIONS ON 
MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE AND COUNTERNARCOTICS 
 
ISLAMABAD 00001823  001.5 OF 003 
 
 
¶1. (SBU)  The Canadian Embassy hosted the most recent round 
of Dubai Process talks between Afghan and Pakistani 
officials from July 23-24 in Pakistan.  Two of the five Dubai 
Process issues were covered: Movement of People and 
Counternarcotics.  The next session, currently slated for 
October in Kabul, will cover Law Enforcement and Customs. 
 
MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE 
----------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU)  The Afghan delegation opened the first day by 
saying they wanted a biometrics system at three crossing 
points:  Torkham (between Khyber Agency in the Federally 
Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and Nangahar Province), 
Ghulam Khan (between North Waziristan in the FATA and Khost 
Province), and Chaman (between Balochistan and Kandahar 
Province).  At first, the system would be voluntary; later 
either a biometrics-enhanced identification card or a 
passport would be required to cross the border.  They 
specifically highlighted the need for commercial drivers to 
have such ID cards and noted that the trucks themselves could 
also potentially be tracked in the future.  The Combined 
Security Transition Command - Afghanistan (CSTC-A) is working 
with the Afghan Ministry of Interior (MOI) in developing a 
secure ID card, which includes biometrics data, but the 
Afghan delegation requested additional assistance from the 
International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the Border 
Management Task Force (BMTF).  They noted that Rehman Malik, 
the Pakistan Interior Minister, had offered assistance from 
the Pakistani National Database and Registration Authority 
(NADRA) on this front in Kabul several days earlier.  The 
NADRA representative said they were eager to assist and 
stated that they should have Afghanistan's right of first 
refusal.  (Note. The program for the following days included 
a visit to NADRA and a demonstration of its systems. End 
note.) 
 
¶3. (SBU) Both the Canadian Chairman and the Pakistani 
delegation pointed out that the technology is only a small 
part of the solution.  The operating environment has to be 
right or the system will pay no dividends.  Security, honesty 
of officials manning the crossing points, and general 
acceptance by the population are all required for a 
biometrics system to add value.  In addition, the concept was 
complicated by the existence of agreements in some tribal 
areas where local residents are specifically excluded from 
ID/immigration requirements and can/do cross at will.  (Note. 
For example, at Torkham, about 30,000 to 35,000 people cross 
every day, and only 1 percent of those crossing are required 
to pass through the Personal Identification Secure Comparison 
and Evaluation System (PISCES). End note.)  The Pakistani 
delegation repeatedly raised the issue of the Chaman Gate 
where, about two years ago, a biometrics system including the 
necessary infrastructure was installed but in a matter of 
days the hopes to implement the plan were destroyed by Afghan 
citizens because the local population did not accept its use. 
 Instituting a new system takes time, noted the NADRA 
representative, and people have to be convinced of the 
advantages for its use. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) At the beginning of these discussions, the two 
sides agreed to implement a pilot plan by January 2010.  BMTF 
discussed with the Canadian Chairman a suggestion that the 
delegations develop a thorough plan by January 2010, thus 
preventing the delegations setting themselves up for failure. 
 The massive logistical requirements and political 
cooperation that are needed to implement the pilot project 
will require much more time.  By the end of the first day, 
the two sides had agreed to develop a detailed plan by 
January 2010 to launch a biometrics pilot project at Torkham 
in the future, with a focus on documenting commercial truck 
drivers.  A number of speakers, including the International 
Organization for Migration (IOM), expressed caution that 
there were several steps that had to be taken first, 
including an overview of the various systems currently in 
use, what would be needed to make them compatible, and the 
multiple parameters that needed to be set (including access 
to the information gathered on both sides). 
 
¶5. (SBU) There was also a discussion initially about whether 
 
ISLAMABAD 00001823  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
the pilot project should take place at Chaman or at 
Torkham.  The Pakistanis believe that the Torkham gate is 
physically restrictive and fear that by initiating a pilot 
project there, logjams would occur and upset the population, 
creating opposition to the system.  Therefore, the Pakistan 
delegation argued for the pilot program to take place at 
Chaman given that there is more space where accommodations 
could be made.  The Afghan delegation objected to Chaman 
because of the concern that the negative public perception 
that had existed two years ago when the project was first 
attempted continued to exist and that they could not provide 
the necessary security for the program on their side of the 
border.  In the end, the two delegations agreed upon Torkham. 
 
¶6. (SBU) After the pilot project was agreed to, the Canadian 
Chairman suggested that a study on biometrics implementation 
for the AF/PAK border would help educate GIRoA and the Afghan 
Delegation on the subject.  The study would also be designed 
to help facilitate the planning for a pilot project.  This 
study could also shed light on the vast complexities that 
will require consideration when drafting the plan to 
implement a biometrics system.  The Canadian Delegation 
offered to fund the study with IOM acting as the implementing 
partner.  The Afghan Delegation accepted the offer and 
discussions on when the study could be completed began.  IOM 
requested a completion date of March 2010, but both 
delegations and the Canadian Chairman were pushing for a date 
no later than December 2009.  IOM express their reservations 
due to Ramadan and other holidays that would affect the work. 
 No date was officially decided, but March 2010 was assumed 
to be the latest date of completion. 
 
MOU ON MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE 
------------------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) The Canadians reminded the delegations that they had 
committed to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 
the Movement of People.  The IOM representative (who was 
attending as an observer as were the United Nations Office of 
the High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the United 
Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), the United 
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) and the USG) 
discussed several issues, including development of a permit 
regime (visas, work permits, etc.), the security environment 
at the crossing points (enforcement of immigration laws), 
special attention needed for migrant workers and the need for 
a phase-in schedule.  By the end of the day, the delegations 
agreed that IOM would undertake to both pull together 
elements of an overall draft MOU and survey existing 
biometrics systems, identify ways to make them interoperable 
and propose an action plan.  The Canadians agreed to fund 
this preparatory work. 
 
"BORDER" ISSUES CONTINUE TO BE SENSITIVE 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) The two delegations discussed the use of the term 
"border."  The Afghan delegation objected to the Canadian 
Chairman's references to the "border" and proposed that the 
meeting discuss the "north and south sides of the Durand 
Line."  The Chair noted this was a political issue that would 
not be solved by this working group and suggested that the 
"border" be referred to as the "legal crossing points" hence 
forth. Sohail Khan, the Director General for the Americas 
desk at the Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, objected, 
saying that Pakistan would reject anything that diluted 
Pakistan's international borders.  He complained that the 
Dubai process, through its discussions of borders, was 
complicating other bilateral (Pakistan-Afghanistan) 
processes, including discussions on transit trade.  The Chair 
called a break, at which time the two delegations met 
together and then returned to the room, with no apparent 
resolution on the issue but with an agreement to move forward. 
 
BORDER LIAISON OFFICES 
---------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) The next day opened with the Pakistanis expressing 
concern that the Dubai Process needs to work within the 
context of the Triangular Initiatives.  The Canadians, echoed 
 
ISLAMABAD 00001823  003 OF 003 
 
 
by UNODC, said the process is complimentary and in no way 
intended to supplant or work independently of the Triangular 
Initiative. (Note. The Triangular Initiative is an agreement 
between Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, under the auspices 
of UNODC, to cooperate and coordinate on counternarcotics 
(CN) efforts and operations. End note.) 
 
¶10. (SBU) UNODC then briefed the concept of the Border 
Liaison Offices (BLO), which included laying out an approach 
to establish a pilot project.  BLOs are intended to provide a 
venue for cross-border cooperation and coordination.  The 
Pakistan delegation immediately expressed concern that this 
concept would overlap with the Border Coordination Centers 
(BCCs) already in place along the border.  The Canadians 
explained that the BCCs are military-to-military whereby the 
military would likely approve the concept of coordination on 
the civilian side to deal with issues beyond their purview, 
e.g. law enforcement.  The Afghans noted that they had 
identified individuals for the BLOs and are ready to start. 
Although the Pakistanis had not made it to that point, they 
did agree to the concept. 
 
DRUG DEMAND AND REDUCTION 
------------------------- 
 
¶11. (SBU)  Both the Afghan and Pakistani delegations 
highlighted their current issues in the demand and reduction 
process and reviewed their programs, noting great support 
from State INL.  The Pakistani delegation insisted that the 
only reason that Pakistan had a drug problem was because of 
Afghanistan and its lack of control of the border.  Following 
the presentations, the Canadians developed a joint action 
item for the delegations: both sides will present what they 
are doing with in the realm of counternarcotics while UNODC 
will do a baseline survey of problems and needs assessment 
for CN. 
 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶12. (SBU)  All in all, this conference was a good opportunity 
to have the Pakistanis and Afghans talking despite the 
unwavering Pakistani stance that their issues and challenges 
in managing border activities could all be traced back to 
Afghanistan.  The USG, along with the Canadians, will 
continue to push for these kinds of dialogues with the hope 
that tangible results will take place in the near future. 
FEIERSTEIN