VZCZCXYZ0005
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0022/01 0191411
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 191411Z JAN 10
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 8010

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000022 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PTER ETTC KTFN UNSC
SUBJECT: MEETING WITH NEW TURKISH COUNTER TERRORISM 
COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN 
 
REF: A. STATE 03589 
     ¶B. STATE 03940 
 
¶1. SUMMARY:  Turkey, the new chairman of the UN Security 
Council Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) hosted an informal 
meeting at its mission on January 14, 2010, to outline its 
main objectives for its 2010 chairmanship and to exchange 
views with other committee members on the way forward. These 
priorities are: to get the CTC to spend less time on 
technical and procedural and more on substantive issues; to 
increase the visibility of the CTC work both in and outside 
of New York; to stimulate more dialogue between the committee 
and UN member states; and to make the CTC more transparent. 
Turkey then enumerated a number of proposals in each of these 
areas for the CTC to consider. There was widespread support 
among committee members for the proposed new approach, 
although there are some different views on the specific 
Turkish ideas which will need to be sorted out in the next 
few weeks. Drawing on REFTEL,  USDEL emphasized that it 
shared Turkey objectives and was interested in working with 
committee members to make its work more relevant to national 
counterterrorism efforts, more strategic in its approach, and 
less focused on what the UK and France referred to as the 
unnecessary Micro-management Of CTED's work. Delegations 
generally welcomed the US proposals and praised the quality 
of CTED's work, noting the dramatic improvements that have 
been made under the leadership of current Executive Director, 
Mike Smith.  There was consensus that the time was right to 
transform the relationship between the committee and CTED. 
(Comment: Although the initial reaction to USDEL points was 
positive, continued close cooperation among the P3 and with 
the chair, increased dialogue with the Russians and Chinese, 
and more outreach to the elected members will be critical to 
realizing our policy objectives in the committee. End 
Comment) END SUMMARY 
 
 
More substance and less process 
 
¶1. Committee members agree that the CTC procedures require 
streamlining so that the CTED can spend more time working 
directly with countries in capitals and less time servicing 
and reporting proforma exercises to the committee. For 
example, there was consensus that the existing procedures for 
CTC review/approval of the CTED Preliminary  implementation 
Assessments (PIAs), requests for travel, and reports on the 
status of the preparation of CTED visits need revision. The 
chair, for example, proposed having the committee adopt the 
PIAs through silence procedure, following consideration by 
the relevant sub-committee. Given that most of the work on 
the PIAs is already done by the sub-committees (and not the 
committee), many CTC members (including the P3) favored a 
more far-reaching change:  the PIAs would still be circulated 
to all committee members for review, but a sub-committee 
should only meet to review a specific PIA when either a 
committee member or the CTED requests one.  Joining with the 
US, the UK and France question the value-added by the current 
process for approving the PIAs, given the document's 
technical nature and the fact that committee members are 
diplomats rather than CT experts.  Russia remained largely 
silent throughout the meeting. However, most committee 
members (including Austria, Brazil, China, and Mexico), 
either during or on the margins of the meeting, agreed that 
efforts should be made to depoliticize (to the extent 
possible) this process by keeping the PIAs as largely 
internal CTED working documents. The general view was that 
this will make them more useful tools for dialoguing with 
member states. (Note: Speaking privately to USDEL after the 
meeting, Turkey said it agreed with our position on this and 
will work to persuade others, although no delegation spoke 
out against the P3 position at the meeting. End note.) 
 
¶2. There was consensus surrounding both the need for the CTC 
to have more substantive discussions, either thematic or 
regionally-focused, and for them to conclude with concrete 
CTC recommendations for action by the committee, CTED, and/or 
UN member states.  It was also agreed that the level of input 
and interest from CTC capitals in the work of the committee 
will need to increase in order for this to happen   These 
meetings could be devoted to highlighting and 
addressing some of the concrete challenges countries are 
facing in implementing UNSCR 1373 and some of the best 
practices that have been developed to overcome them. 
 
¶3. Delegations also welcomed the US proposal to have the 
analysis and recommendations in the Global Implementation 
Survey serve as a springboard for such discussions both in 
the committee and for CTED ongoing engagement with regional 
organizations.  The US idea for using the CTC as a platform 
to bring together member state practitioners and experts in a 
relevant area to share practical experiences, challenges, and 
best practices was also well received.  (Note: USDEL spoke 
off-line to Mike Smith about the idea of organizing such a 
 
 
meeting involving national prosecutors with experience in 
trying high-profile terrorism cases in national courts. 
Smith thinks such an initiative would be useful, particularly 
insofar as it could be a first step to building an informal 
network of CT prosecutors from around the world. End Note). 
 
 
Raising awareness and increasing transparency/visibility of 
the work of the CTC, and broadening support for 
implementation of UNSCR 1373 
 
¶4. Delegations voiced their support for these goals and put 
forward a number of different proposals aimed at realizing 
them. For example, among other things, the chair proposed a) 
more visits by the CTC chair to international conferences. 
(Note: Rather than simply having the CTC chair participate in 
more international conferences (where the value-added of such 
participation is questionable), USDEL proposed having the 
chair (or his designee) travel to specific countries or a 
region to deliver a political message from the CTC where 
implementation problems due to lack of political will have 
been identified. End Note); b) including one committee member 
on CTED assessment visits (with the consent of the country 
being visited) (Note: A number of delegations, including 
USDEL, UK, and France, questioned the efficacy of such a 
proposal that would mix the political (CTC) with the 
technical (CTED) and thus might hinder the dialogue between 
CTED and the national experts. End Note); c) more frequent 
briefings of the wider UN membership by the chair/Mike Smith 
(Note: There was broad support for the US proposal for the 
CTC to follow the precedent set by the 1540 Committee and 
hold a meeting open to the wider membership and regional 
organizations to review global efforts to implement UNSCR 
1373 over the past eight-plus years. End Note); d) improving 
the quality of the CTED website to make it more user 
friendly; and e) more CTED-led thematic presentations to the 
wider membership. 
 
¶5. With respect to this last proposal, the point was made by 
a number of countries (e.g., UK, France, Austria, Mexico, and 
the US) that CTED thematic briefings should, whenever 
possible, a) include the other relevant CTITF entities and b) 
be open to the wider membership. It was suggested that 
although there might be occasions when the CTC chair may need 
to call a meeting of the CTC to discuss specific concrete 
follow up to a thematic discussion, concerted efforts should 
be made to expose the wider membership to these thematic 
presentations given the global nature of UNSCR 1373 and the 
importance of having CTED extend its reach beyond the 15 
members of the CTC. 
 
The CTC Work Program 
 
¶6.  Rather than simply adopting the usual CTC work program 
for the coming six months, a number of committee members 
including China, France, the UK, and the US, suggested that 
the new document reflect in general terms the new strategic, 
more substantive direction that the committees appears to 
want to head based on the January 14 meeting.  Rather than 
being too detailed, the sense was that the document should 
provide the committee with the necessary flexibility to 
organize a variety of substantive, concrete initiatives and 
to respond as needed to a particular terrorist incident or 
threat. 
 
¶7. In the context of adopting the work program for the first 
half of 2010, Turkey reminded committee members that they 
will need to decide whether and where to organize the 6th 
Special CTC Meeting for International, Regional, and 
Sub-Regional Organizations. The US, joined by France and the 
UK, questioned whether these sorts of meetings add value and 
voiced support for more regional and subregional CTED 
initiatives aimed at national-level practitioners and 
experts. Although Russia has traditionally been the main 
proponent of convening the 6th Special Meeting, it remained 
silent during this discussion. Turkey intends to raise this 
issue for discussion at an upcoming meeting of the committee. 
 
1566 Working Group 
 
¶8. As chair of the CTC, Turkey has also assumed the 
chairmanship of the working group established pursuant to 
UNSCR 1566, which was adopted following the terrorist attacks 
in Beslan, Russia (September 2004).  (Note: The working group 
was charged with looking into the possibility of a) 
developing a UN terrorist list that extended beyond just 
Al-Qaida and the Taliban and b) establishing a UN fund to 
provide compensation to victims of terrorism. Unable to reach 
consensus on either of these sensitive issues, the working 
group has not met for three years. End Note.)  Turkey 
informed the CTC members that it intends to organize a 
meeting of the 1566 Working Group to receive a briefing from 
the CTITF working group on victims of terrorism, with a view 
 
 
to seeing whether there is anything useful that the 1566 
Working Group might be able to contribute going forward. 
Without taking a position on the issue, USDEL commented that 
the 1566 Working Group was established prior to the creation 
of the CTITF and predates the CTITF's impressive work on 
victims issues. Therefore, delegations should consider 
whether there would be any value added in having the 1566 
Working Group take up these issues again. 
RICE