US embassy cable - 03COLOMBO1545

C O N F I D E N T I A L COLOMBO 001545 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS, S/CT, EB/ESC/TFS, IO/PHO; NSC 
FOR E. MILLARD 
 
E.O. 12958:     DECL: 09-05-13 
TAGS: PTER, PREL, CE, XD, EFIN PGOV, UN 
SUBJECT:  Terrorism Finance:  Amid Indo-Pakistani 
tensions, SAARC meets in Colombo to draft protocol 
 
Refs:  (A) FBIS Reston Va DTG 010252Z Sep 03 
-      (B) Kathmandu 1318 
-      (C) Colombo 1116 
 
(U) Classified by James F. Entwistle, Deputy Chief of 
Mission.  Reasons 1.5 (b,d). 
 
1.  (C) SUMMARY:  South Asian Association for Regional 
Cooperation (SAARC) legal experts met August 27-29 in 
Colombo to discuss regional implementation of UN 
provisions related to terrorism financing.  Rohan 
Perera, the Sri Lankan MFA's chief legal adviser, told 
us that progress was made on a draft protocol, but that 
there had been Indo-Pakistani disagreement on key 
points.  Perera said the uncompleted draft would next be 
submitted to ministers for discussion.  END SUMMARY. 
 
2.  (C) SAARC MEETING:  Senior legal officials of SAARC 
countries met August 27-29 in Colombo to discuss 
regional implementation of UNSCR 1373 (2001) and other 
UN provisions related to terrorism financing.  Rohan 
Perera, the chief legal adviser of the Sri Lankan 
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told polchief on 
September 3 that the meeting had made some progress 
toward drafting an additional protocol to the SAARC 
Regional Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism of 
1987 that would implement the UN provisions.  The draft, 
based on a loose Sri Lankan suggested text, was about 
"90 percent" finished, according to Perera, with many 
core provisions agreed to.  Perera said the Bangladeshi 
and Nepali delegations had been particularly helpful in 
helping draft various aspects of the protocol. 
 
3.  (C) INDO-PAKISTANI TENSIONS:  Perera made clear that 
there had been serious differences between the Indian 
and Pakistani delegations regarding several aspects of 
the draft.  The key disagreement was over how to refer 
to terrorism in the preamble, with the GoP delegation 
pressing for some sort of recognition of the legitimacy 
of "national liberation struggles," which the Indian 
side could not agree to.  There were also disagreements 
between the two sides over the exact scope of a draft 
list of terrorism offenses.  Those elements of the draft 
that were not agreed to, including in the preamble, were 
left blank. 
 
4.  (C) Perera said there clearly had been significant 
tension between the two delegations.  Such bilateral 
tensions involving India and Pakistan were common in 
SAARC fora, he noted, but the bomb blasts in Mumbai on 
August 25 had seemed to provide an extra "unwelcome" 
aspect to the August meeting.  While the atmosphere was 
not the most conducive to completing the task at hand, 
Perera stressed that the meeting had not been rancorous 
or polemical. 
 
5.  (C) NEXT STEPS:  In light of the Indo-Pakistani 
divisions, Perera said there was no way that the working 
level could make more progress on the draft.  Thus, he 
considered the working committee's mandate finished 
until another one was established.  He noted that this 
meant that ministers would have to review the draft 
protocol issue next.  He thought this might be 
"unfortunate" inasmuch as political considerations could 
continue to block further progress on the draft 
protocol.  At this point, Perera said he was not sure 
that the draft would be completed for signature by 
principals at the planned Islamabad SAARC Summit in 
January 2004 as originally envisaged.  Bangladesh, he 
said, had made some noises about a ministerial-level 
meeting to discuss terrorism-related issues that would 
perhaps take place before Islamabad.  This might be an 
opportunity to discuss the draft protocol further. 
 
6.  (U) Minimize considered. 
 
LUNSTEAD