VZCZCXYZ0003
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0051/01 0290004
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 290004Z JAN 10
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8083
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000051 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL UNSC
SUBJECT: TURKEY CHAIRS ITS FIRST UN SECURITY COUNCIL 
COUNTER-TERRORISM COMMITTEE (CTC) MEETING 
 
¶1.  (U)   SUMMARY:  Turkish Permrep Ertugrul Apakan chaired 
his first UN Security Council CTC meeting January 21.  The 
agenda included the CTC's work program for the next six 
months and a thematic discussion on implementation and 
assessment of Security Council resolution 1624 (2005).  As 
there are some outstanding issues to resolve with respect to 
the work program, the Chair plans to host informal meetings 
the week of January 25th.  The CTC agreed that the 
Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) will create a 
separate section on its website that will focus on states' 
implementation and assessment of resolution 1624 and would 
invite member states to share comments with the CTC on their 
best practices for implementing resolution 1624.  Experts 
from the 1540 (nonproliferation) committee attended as did 
Jean Paul Laborde, director of the UN's Counter-Terrorism 
Implementation Task Force (CTITF).  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶2.  (U)  The chair outlined his ideas on the future work of 
the CTC and focused on new procedures for handling 
preliminary implementation assessments (PIAs).  He proposed 
three options (outlined below) and asked for members' 
reactions.  OPTION 1:  The CTC would stop discussing PIAs at 
the committee level and adopt them after they are considered 
and approved by the subcommittees.  If a member of the 
Committee breaks silence procedure, the PIAs will be 
discussed and adopted by the Committee.  OPTION 2:  The CTC 
would stop discussing PIAs in both the committee and 
subcommittees and use silence procedure to adopt them at both 
levels.  A break of the silence procedure would require a 
discussion at the respective level (committee or 
subcommittees).  OPTION 3:  The PIAs would become solely an 
internal document of CTED and would not be considered or 
approved by the committee or subcommittees. 
 
¶3. (U)  Mexico said that it could support option 2 as a 
middle of the road approach.  France said that it preferred 
option 3 but would support option 2.  Austria said it liked 
option 1 so that the committee could retain more control over 
the process, but could move towards option 2 if necessary. 
The UK liked option 3 the best as there are risks the 
committee could be exposed to in politically approving 
documents under option 2 that it hasn't read.  In the end 
though, the UK said it would support option 2 to achieve 
consensus.   China said that it supported option 1 but could 
migrate to option 2.   Russia agreed that streamlining the 
PIA process is necessary but said that moving to option 3 is 
a bit premature and at most would support option 2.  Japan 
said that it would support option 2 as it would make the 
committee's work more efficient.  USUN said that option 3 was 
preferable but could support option 2 to facilitate agreement 
with other members of the committee. 
 
¶4. (U)  The Chair also said he felt strongly that the CTC 
should streamline the work it does on approving country 
reports and that it should increase its dialogue with member 
states.  He proposed a continuation of thematic discussions 
within the committee and said that he supported the idea of 
the Committee/Counter Terrorism Executive Directorate (CTED) 
organizing a sixth special meeting.  In order to increase the 
visibility of the CTC outside New York, the Chair said that 
he would consider the possibility of CTC members joining CTED 
on some of CTED's country assessment visits. Along the same 
lines, he said that he planned, as the Chair, to visit some 
international and regional organizations.  Reactions were in 
general supportive, although the UK asked whether a sixth 
special meeting was necessary and suggested that the issue 
needed to be discussed in more detail by the committee. 
USUN, France, and Japan agreed with the UK.  Russia said it 
thought the CTC had agreed to the notion of a sixth special 
meeting already, but nevertheless was open to discussing 
options. 
 
¶5.  (U)  CTED said that 102 states have reported to the 
committee on implementation of resolution 1624 as of January, 
¶2010.  Regarding resolution 1624's "call for states to adopt 
such measures as may be necessary and appropriate and in 
accordance with their obligations under international law to 
prevent incitement to commit a terrorist act or acts", CTED 
suggested the CTC look for the following:  legislation 
expressly targeting incitement to commit terrorist acts;  or 
other legislation with similar effect (general offense of 
incitement; accessory offenses such as aiding and abetting, 
conspiracy, and  facilitation.   CTED suggested that the CTC 
continue to encourage member states to report, and that CTED 
develop a database of good practices, facilitate technical 
assistance and conduct wider outreach activities.  Russia and 
the UK conveyed their support for CTED's ideas and said they 
were committed to states' implementation of resolution 1624. 
USUN also supported CTED's initiatives and explained that the 
Department of State has established a Countering Violent 
Extremism (CVE) unit that focuses on counter-radicalization 
and de-radicalization.  USUN also conveyed that we are eager 
 
 
to engage multilaterally on CVE issues and that in November 
2009, the CVE unit hosted a multilateral workshop on CVE 
issues and will continue to do so periodically, including 
some with a regional focus. 
RICE