US embassy cable - 04COLOMBO1173

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001173 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS, IO, IO/T, INL/C/CJ 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/14/2014 
TAGS: SNAR, AORC, PREL, CE, External Relations 
SUBJECT: IN THE ABSENCE OF US ATTENDANCE, COLOMBO PLAN 
MEMBERS APPROVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN TEHRAN 
 
REF: A. COLOMBO-SA/INS 07-14-04 FAX 
     B. COLOMBO 940 AND PREVIOUS 
 
Classified By: Ambassador Jeffrey J. Lunstead. Reasons 1.5(b,d) 
 
1.  (U) This is an Action Request -- Please see Para 7. 
 
2.  (SBU) COLOMBO PLAN ADOPTS AMENDMENT:  Mission received 
the minutes (Ref A) from the Colombo Plan's 39th Consultative 
Committee Meeting (CCM) which was held June 15-16, 2004 in 
Tehran (the U.S. did not attend because of the venue), in 
which the organization notes that the proposed amendment, 
discussed at the November 18, 2003 Special Session in 
Colombo, was approved.  The single sentence says, "The 
Consultative Committee adopted the proposed amendment to the 
Constitution of the Colombo Plan."  While there is no further 
description of the amendment, the sentence refers to the 
proposal to restrict training opportunities to member states 
more than four years in arrears, until a partial payment of 
back dues is made.  The Colombo Plan Secretary-General 
Kittipan Kanjanapipatkul confirmed to the Ambassador on July 
13 that this much-discussed, U.S.-opposed amendment had been 
adopted during the CCM in Tehran. 
 
3.  (C) During their July 13 conversation, the Ambassador 
expressed to the Secretary-General his surprise and 
disappointment that the amendment had been approved.  The 
Ambassador specifically recalled to Kanjanapipatkul their 
June 8 discussion (Ref B), in which he clearly stated that 
the USG did not support the amendment and it would be against 
U.S. wishes for the CCM to approve the amendment and only 
note United States opposition.  "Where is the consensus (the 
hallmark of Colombo Plan decisions) in that?" the Ambassador 
asked.  The Secretary-General responded that the Colombo Plan 
Secretariat had only an advisory capacity and that the member 
 
SIPDIS 
states made decisions.  As hosts, the Iranians chaired the 
meeting, Kanjanapipatkul said. 
 
4.  (C) Further, the Secretary-General renewed his comment 
that the member states had in fact already approved the 
amendment during the 38th CCM in July 2001 in Colombo, which 
included USG participation.  As requested by the 38th CCM, 
the member states now were only deciding how to lessen the 
severity of the penalty.  (The proposed amendment was then 
changed from complete payment of arrears to partial payment.) 
 The Ambassador replied that this was not a convincing 
argument for the reasoning behind the 39th CCM's adoption of 
the amendment in Tehran.  The Secretary-General added that 
the situation regarding non-payment of dues was becoming 
critical.  Bangladesh had just notified the Plan that it 
would no longer pay its dues -- but it still expected to be 
able to participate in Plan programs! 
 
5.  (C) In a July 14 call to poloff, the Secretary-General's 
Executive Assistant Yasmin Raheem provided additional 
background on the June 15-16 CCM.  Raheem said that the 
Secretariat had provided detailed information to the CCM 
 
SIPDIS 
regarding the history of the proposed amendment.  In 
addition, the Colombo Plan President had noted to the CCM 
participants that one of the member countries opposed the 
proposed amendment.  Separately, Raheem added that the 
Secretary-General was considering convening a working group 
 
SIPDIS 
within the Council to further discuss the amendment, but 
intended to evaluate such a possibility with the President 
first. 
 
6.  (C) USG OPTIONS:  We see three possible options to take 
in response to the amendment adoption in Tehran.  One option 
is to push the Secretary-General to convene a working group 
and reopen discussions on the amendment.  Another option 
would be for the United States to consider withdrawing from 
the Colombo Plan and/or cease funding the organization's 
activities, such as those related to the organization's Drug 
Awareness Program (DAP).  A third option would be for the USG 
to make a statement at the July 21 Council meeting to be held 
in Colombo that the CCM's actions are a violation of 
precedent, did not occur in the spirit of "reaching agreement 
by consensus" (according to its constitution) and set no 
precedent for the United States in the multi-lateral context. 
 
7.  (C) ACTION REQUEST:  Before the July 21 Council meeting, 
Mission requests Department guidance on any course of action 
to take in the Council regarding the adoption of the 
amendment.  Mission suggests that a statement before the 
Council, as alluded to in the third option above, would be 
the best approach.  While a working group on the subject 
might seem most favorable, none of the other 25 member states 
have wavered from their support for the amendment. 
Therefore, it is unlikely that further discussion on the 
amendment will elicit support for alternative proposals to 
enforce payment of annual dues.  The least desirable option 
would be to withdraw from the organization or reduce USG 
funding of DAP activities, given the strong track record of 
success in this area.  END ACTION REQUEST. 
 
8.  (U) Minimize considered. 
LUNSTEAD