

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287
Articles
Brazil
Sri Lanka
United Kingdom
Sweden
00. Editorial
United States
Latin America
Egypt
Jordan
Yemen
Thailand
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
2011/05/13
2011/05/14
2011/05/15
2011/05/16
2011/05/17
2011/05/18
2011/05/19
2011/05/20
2011/05/21
2011/05/22
2011/05/23
2011/05/24
2011/05/25
2011/05/26
2011/05/27
2011/05/28
2011/05/29
2011/05/30
2011/05/31
2011/06/01
2011/06/02
2011/06/03
2011/06/04
2011/06/05
2011/06/06
2011/06/07
2011/06/08
2011/06/09
2011/06/10
2011/06/11
2011/06/12
2011/06/13
2011/06/14
2011/06/15
2011/06/16
2011/06/17
2011/06/18
2011/06/19
2011/06/20
2011/06/21
2011/06/22
2011/06/23
2011/06/24
2011/06/25
2011/06/26
2011/06/27
2011/06/28
2011/06/29
2011/06/30
2011/07/01
2011/07/02
2011/07/04
2011/07/05
2011/07/06
2011/07/07
2011/07/08
2011/07/10
2011/07/11
2011/07/12
2011/07/13
2011/07/14
2011/07/15
2011/07/16
2011/07/17
2011/07/18
2011/07/19
2011/07/20
2011/07/21
2011/07/22
2011/07/23
2011/07/25
2011/07/27
2011/07/28
2011/07/29
2011/07/31
2011/08/01
2011/08/02
2011/08/03
2011/08/05
2011/08/06
2011/08/07
2011/08/08
2011/08/09
2011/08/10
2011/08/11
2011/08/12
2011/08/13
2011/08/15
2011/08/16
2011/08/17
2011/08/18
2011/08/19
2011/08/21
2011/08/22
2011/08/23
2011/08/24
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Antananarivo
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Alexandria
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embasy Bonn
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Brazzaville
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangui
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Belfast
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Cotonou
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chiang Mai
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Chengdu
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
DIR FSINFATC
Consulate Dusseldorf
Consulate Durban
Consulate Dubai
Consulate Dhahran
Embassy Guatemala
Embassy Grenada
Embassy Georgetown
Embassy Gaborone
Consulate Guayaquil
Consulate Guangzhou
Consulate Guadalajara
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Hong Kong
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kolonia
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Krakow
Consulate Kolkata
Consulate Karachi
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Lusaka
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Lome
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy Libreville
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Leipzig
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Mission Geneva
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Mogadishu
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maseru
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Merida
Consulate Melbourne
Consulate Matamoros
Consulate Marseille
Embassy Nouakchott
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Nuevo Laredo
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Consulate Nagoya
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Praia
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Moresby
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Podgorica
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Hillah
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Surabaya
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy Tirana
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
Consulate Thessaloniki
USUN New York
USMISSION USTR GENEVA
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Mission CD Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
UN Rome
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vientiane
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AMGT
ASEC
AEMR
AR
APECO
AU
AORC
ADANA
AJ
AF
AFIN
AMED
AS
AM
ABLD
AFFAIRS
AMB
APER
ACOA
AND
AA
AE
AADP
AID
AO
AL
AG
AORD
ADM
AINF
AINT
ASEAN
AORG
ABT
APEC
AY
ASUP
ARF
AGOA
AVIAN
ATRN
ANET
AGIT
ASECVE
ABUD
AODE
ALOW
ADB
AN
ADPM
ASPA
ARABL
AFSN
AZ
AC
AIAG
AFSI
ASCE
ASIG
ACABQ
ADIP
AFGHANISTAN
AROC
ADCO
ACOTA
ANARCHISTS
AMEDCASCKFLO
AK
ARABBL
ASCH
ANTITERRORISM
AGRICULTURE
AOCR
ARR
ASSEMBLY
AORCYM
AFPK
ACKM
AGMT
AEC
APRC
AIN
AFPREL
ASFC
ASECTH
AFSA
AINR
AOPC
AFAF
AFARI
AX
ASECAF
ASECAFIN
AT
AFZAL
APCS
AGAO
AIT
ARCH
AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL
AMEX
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AORCD
AVIATION
ARAS
AINFCY
ACBAQ
AOPR
AREP
AOIC
ASEX
ASEK
AER
AGR
AMCT
AVERY
APR
AEMRS
AFU
AMG
ATPDEA
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AORL
ACS
AMCHAMS
AECL
AUC
ACAO
BA
BR
BB
BG
BEXP
BY
BRUSSELS
BU
BD
BTIO
BK
BL
BE
BMGT
BO
BM
BX
BN
BWC
BBSR
BTT
BC
BH
BILAT
BUSH
BHUM
BT
BTC
BMENA
BOND
BAIO
BP
BF
BRPA
BURNS
BUT
BBG
BCW
BOEHNER
BOL
BASHAR
BIDEN
BFIN
BZ
BEXPC
BTIU
CPAS
CA
CASC
CS
CBW
CIDA
CO
CODEL
CI
CROS
CU
CH
CWC
CMGT
CVIS
CDG
CTR
CG
CF
CHIEF
CJAN
CBSA
CE
CY
CB
CW
CM
CHR
CD
COE
CV
COUNTER
CT
CN
CPUOS
CTERR
CVR
CVPR
CDC
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CONS
COM
CACS
CR
CONTROLS
CAN
CACM
COMMERCE
CAMBODIA
CFIS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITES
CONDOLEEZZA
CZ
CTBT
CEN
CLINTON
CFED
CARC
CTM
CARICOM
CSW
CICTE
CYPRUS
CBE
CMGMT
CARSON
CWCM
CIVS
COUNTRYCLEARANCE
CENTCOM
CAPC
COPUOS
CKGR
CITEL
CQ
CITT
CIC
CARIB
CVIC
CAFTA
CVISU
CDB
CEDAW
CNC
CJUS
COMMAND
CENTER
COL
CAJC
CONSULAR
CLMT
CBC
CIA
CNARC
CIS
CEUDA
CHINA
CAC
CL
DR
DJ
DEMOCRATIC
DEMARCHE
DOMESTIC
DISENGAGEMENT
DB
DA
DHS
DAO
DCM
DAVID
DO
DEAX
DEFENSE
DEA
DTRO
DPRK
DOC
DTRA
DK
DAC
DOD
DRL
DRC
DCG
DE
DOT
DEPT
DOE
DS
DKEM
ECON
ETTC
EFIS
ETRD
EC
EMIN
EAGR
EAID
EFIN
EUN
ECIN
EG
EWWT
EINV
ENRG
ELAB
EPET
EIND
EN
EAIR
EUMEM
ECPS
ES
EI
ELTN
ET
EZ
EU
ER
EINT
ENGR
ECONOMIC
ENIV
EFTA
ETRN
EMS
EUREM
EPA
ESTH
EEB
EET
ENV
EAG
EXIM
ECTRD
ELNT
ENVIRONMENT
ECA
EAP
EINDIR
ETR
ECONOMY
ETRC
ELECTIONS
EICN
EXPORT
EARG
EGHG
EID
ETRO
EINF
EAIDHO
ECIP
EENV
EURM
EPEC
ERNG
ENERG
EIAD
EXBS
ED
EREL
ELAM
EK
EWT
ENGRD
EDEV
ECE
ENGY
EXIMOPIC
ETRDEC
ECCT
EUR
ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID
EFI
ECOSOC
EXTERNAL
ESCAP
ETCC
EENG
ERA
ENRD
ECLAC
ETRAD
EBRD
ENVR
ECONENRG
ELTNSNAR
ELAP
EPIT
EDUC
EAIDXMXAXBXFFR
EETC
EIVN
EDRC
EGOV
ETRA
EAIDRW
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ESA
ETRDGK
ENVI
ELN
EPRT
EPTED
ERTD
EUM
EAIDS
EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM
EDU
EV
EAIDAF
EDA
EPREL
EINVEFIN
EAGER
ETMIN
EUCOM
ECCP
EIDN
EINVKSCA
ENNP
EFINECONCS
ETC
EAIRASECCASCID
EINN
ETRP
ECONOMICS
ENERGY
EIAR
EINDETRD
ECONEFIN
EURN
ETRDEINVTINTCS
EFIM
ETIO
EATO
EIPR
EINVETC
ETTD
ETDR
EIQ
ECONCS
ENRGIZ
EAIG
ENTG
EUC
ERD
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
ESENV
ECINECONCS
ETRDECONWTOCS
ECUN
FR
FI
FOREIGN
FARM
FIR
FAO
FK
FARC
FAS
FJ
FREEDOM
FAC
FINANCE
FBI
FTAA
FM
FCS
FAA
FORCE
FDA
FTA
FT
FCSC
FMGT
FINR
FIN
FDIC
FOR
FOI
FO
FMLN
FISO
GM
GERARD
GT
GA
GG
GR
GTIP
GH
GZ
GE
GB
GY
GAZA
GJ
GEORGE
GOI
GCC
GMUS
GI
GLOBAL
GV
GC
GL
GOV
GKGIC
GF
GWI
GIPNC
GUTIERREZ
GTMO
GANGS
GAERC
GUILLERMO
GASPAR
HR
HA
HYMPSK
HO
HK
HUMAN
HU
HN
HHS
HURI
HUD
HUMRIT
HUMANITARIAN
HUMANR
HL
HSTC
HILLARY
HCOPIL
HADLEY
HOURANI
HI
HUM
HEBRON
HUMOR
IZ
IN
IAEA
IS
IMO
ILO
IR
IC
IT
ITU
ID
IV
IMF
IBRD
IWC
ICAO
ICRC
INF
IO
IPR
ISO
IK
ISRAELI
IQ
ICES
IDB
INFLUENZA
IRAQI
ISCON
IGAD
IRAN
ITALY
IRAQ
ICTY
ICTR
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
IQNV
IADB
INTERNAL
INMARSAT
IRDB
ILC
INCB
INRB
ICJ
ISRAEL
INR
IEA
ISPA
ICCAT
IOM
ITRD
IHO
IL
IFAD
ITRA
IDLI
ISCA
INL
INRA
INTELSAT
ISAF
ISPL
IRS
IEF
ITER
INDO
IIP
IND
IEFIN
IACI
IAHRC
INNP
IA
INTERPOL
IFIN
ISSUES
IZPREL
IRAJ
IF
ITPHUM
ITA
IP
IRPE
IDA
ISLAMISTS
ITF
INRO
IBET
IDP
IRC
KMDR
KPAO
KOMC
KNNP
KFLO
KDEM
KSUM
KIPR
KFLU
KE
KCRM
KJUS
KAWC
KZ
KSCA
KDRG
KCOR
KGHG
KPAL
KTIP
KMCA
KCRS
KPKO
KOLY
KRVC
KVPR
KG
KWBG
KTER
KS
KN
KSPR
KWMN
KV
KTFN
KFRD
KU
KSTC
KSTH
KISL
KGIC
KSEP
KFIN
KTEX
KTIA
KUNR
KCMR
KCIP
KMOC
KTDB
KBIO
KBCT
KMPI
KSAF
KACT
KFEM
KPRV
KPWR
KIRC
KCFE
KRIM
KHIV
KHLS
KVIR
KNNNP
KCEM
KLIG
KIRF
KNUP
KSAC
KNUC
KPGOV
KTDD
KIDE
KOMS
KLFU
KNNC
KMFO
KSEO
KJRE
KJUST
KMRS
KSRE
KGIT
KPIR
KPOA
KUWAIT
KIVP
KICC
KSCS
KPOL
KSEAO
KRCM
KSCI
KNAP
KGLB
KICA
KCUL
KPRM
KFSC
KQ
KPOP
KPFO
KPALAOIS
KREC
KBWG
KR
KTTB
KNAR
KCOM
KESS
KINR
KOCI
KWN
KCSY
KREL
KTBT
KFTN
KW
KRFD
KFLOA
KHDP
KNEP
KIND
KHUM
KSKN
KOMO
KDRL
KTFIN
KSOC
KPO
KGIV
KSTCPL
KSI
KPRP
KFPC
KNNB
KNDP
KICCPUR
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KDMR
KFCE
KIMMITT
KMCC
KMNP
KSEC
KOMCSG
KGCC
KRAD
KCRP
KAUST
KWAWC
KCHG
KRDP
KPAS
KTIAPARM
KPAOPREL
KWGB
KIRP
KMIG
KLAB
KSEI
KHSA
KNPP
KPAONZ
KWWW
KGHA
KY
KCRIM
KCRCM
KGCN
KPLS
KIIP
KPAOY
KTRD
KTAO
KJU
KBTS
KWAC
KFIU
KNNO
KPAI
KILS
KPA
KRCS
KWBGSY
KNPPIS
KNNPMNUC
KNPT
KERG
KLTN
KPREL
KTLA
KO
KAWK
KVRP
KAID
KX
KENV
KWCI
KNPR
KCFC
KNEI
KFTFN
KTFM
KCERS
KDEMAF
KMEPI
KEMS
KBTR
KEDU
KIRL
KNNR
KMPT
KPDD
KPIN
KDEV
KFRP
KTBD
KMSG
KWWMN
KWBC
KA
KOM
KWNM
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KRGY
KNNF
KICR
KIFR
KWMNCS
KPAK
KDDG
KCGC
KID
KNSD
KMPF
KWMM
MARR
MX
MASS
MOPS
MNUC
MCAP
MTCRE
MRCRE
MTRE
MASC
MY
MK
MG
MU
MILI
MO
MZ
MEPP
MCC
MEDIA
MOPPS
MI
MAS
MW
MP
MEPN
MV
MD
MR
MC
MCA
MT
MIL
MARITIME
MOPSGRPARM
MAAR
MOOPS
ML
MA
MN
MNUCPTEREZ
MTCR
MUNC
MPOS
MONUC
MGMT
MURRAY
MACP
MINUSTAH
MCCONNELL
MGT
MNUR
MF
MEPI
MOHAMMAD
MAR
MAPP
MNU
MFA
MTS
MLS
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MED
MNVC
MIK
MBM
MILITARY
MAPS
MARAD
MDC
MACEDONIA
MASSMNUC
MUCN
MQADHAFI
MPS
NZ
NATO
NI
NO
NU
NG
NL
NPT
NS
NA
NP
NASA
NSF
NEA
NANCY
NSG
NRR
NATIONAL
NMNUC
NC
NSC
NAS
NARC
NELSON
NATEU
NDP
NIH
NK
NIPP
NR
NERG
NSSP
NE
NTDB
NT
NEGROPONTE
NGO
NATOIRAQ
NAR
NZUS
NCCC
NH
NAFTA
NEW
NRG
NUIN
NOVO
NATOPREL
NV
NICHOLAS
NPA
NSFO
NW
NORAD
NPG
NOAA
OPRC
OPDC
OTRA
OECD
OVIP
OREP
ODC
OIIP
OAS
OSCE
OPIC
OMS
OFDP
OFDA
OEXC
OPCW
OIE
OSCI
OM
OPAD
ODPC
OIC
ODIP
OPPI
ORA
OCEA
OREG
OMIG
OFFICIALS
OSAC
OEXP
OPEC
OFPD
OAU
OCII
OIL
OVIPPRELUNGANU
OSHA
OPCD
OPCR
OF
OFDPQIS
OSIC
OHUM
OTR
OBSP
OGAC
OESC
OVP
ON
OES
OTAR
OCS
PREL
PGOV
PARM
PINR
PHUM
PM
PREF
PTER
PK
PINS
PBIO
PHSA
PE
PBTS
PA
PL
POL
PAK
POV
POLITICS
POLICY
PO
PRELTBIOBA
PKO
PIN
PNAT
PU
PGOVPREL
PALESTINIAN
PTERPGOV
PELOSI
PAS
PP
PTEL
PROP
PRELAF
PRHUM
PRE
PUNE
PIRF
PVOV
PROG
PERSONS
PROV
PKK
PRGOV
PH
PLAB
PDEM
PCI
PRL
PRM
PINSO
PERM
PETR
PPAO
PERL
PBS
PETERS
PRELBR
PCON
POLITICAL
PMIL
POLM
PKPA
PNUM
PLO
PTERM
PJUS
PARMP
PNIR
PHUMKPAL
PG
PREZ
PGIC
PAO
PROTECTION
PRELPK
PGOVENRG
PATTY
PSOC
PARTIES
PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ
PMIG
PAIGH
PARK
PETER
PHUS
PKPO
PGOVECON
POUS
PMAR
PWBG
PAR
PGOVGM
PHUH
PTE
PY
POLUN
PDOV
PGOVSOCI
PGOVPM
PRELEVU
PGOR
PBTSRU
PHUMA
PHUMR
PPD
PGV
PRAM
PARMS
PINL
PSI
PKPAL
PPA
PTERE
PGOF
PINO
PREO
PHAS
PAC
PRESL
PORG
PS
PGVO
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PINT
PRELP
PREFA
PNG
PTBS
PFOR
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PREK
PHJM
POLINT
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PECON
PEACE
PROCESS
PLN
PEDRO
PF
PGPV
PCUL
PGGV
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGIV
PHUMPREL
POGOV
PEL
PBT
PAMQ
PINF
PSEPC
POSTS
PAHO
PHUMPGOV
PGOC
PNR
RS
RP
RU
RW
RFE
RCMP
RIGHTSPOLMIL
REFORM
RO
ROW
ROBERT
REACTION
REPORT
REGION
RELATIONS
RAY
ROBERTG
RIGHTS
RM
RATIFICATION
RREL
RBI
RICE
ROOD
REL
RODHAM
RGY
RUEHZO
RELIGIOUS
RELFREE
RUEUN
RELAM
RSP
RF
REO
REGIONAL
RUPREL
RI
REMON
RPEL
RSO
SCUL
SENV
SOCI
SZ
SNAR
SO
SP
SU
SY
SI
SMIG
SYR
SA
SW
SF
SR
SYRIA
SNARM
START
SPECIALIST
SG
SNIG
SCI
SGWI
SE
SIPDIS
SANC
SELAB
SN
SETTLEMENTS
SCIENCE
SENVENV
SENS
SPCE
SPAS
SECURITY
SENC
SOCIETY
SOSI
SENVEAGREAIDTBIOECONSOCIXR
SEN
SPECI
ST
SL
SENVCASCEAIDID
SC
SECRETARY
STR
SNA
SOCIS
SADC
SEP
SK
SHUM
SYAI
SMIL
STEPHEN
SNRV
SKCA
SENSITIVE
SECI
SCUD
SCRM
SGNV
SECTOR
SAARC
SENVSXE
SWMN
STEINBERG
SOPN
SOCR
SCRS
SWE
SARS
SNARIZ
SUDAN
SENVQGR
SAN
SM
SFNV
SSA
SPCVIS
SOFA
SCULKPAOECONTU
SENVKGHG
SHI
SEVN
SH
SNARCS
SNARN
SIPRS
TBIO
TW
TRGY
TSPA
TU
TPHY
TI
TX
TH
TIP
TSPL
TNGD
TZ
TS
TC
TK
TURKEY
TERRORISM
TPSL
TINT
TRSY
TERFIN
TPP
TT
TECHNOLOGY
TE
TAGS
TRAFFICKING
TJ
TN
TO
TD
TP
TREATY
TR
TA
TIO
TECH
TF
TRAD
TNDG
TWI
TPSA
TWL
TAUSCHER
TRBY
TL
TV
THPY
TSPAM
TREL
TRT
TNAR
TFIN
TWCH
THOMMA
THOMAS
TERROR
TRY
TBID
UK
UNESCO
UNSC
UNGA
UN
US
UZ
USEU
UG
UP
UNAUS
UNMIK
USTR
UY
USUN
UNEP
UNDC
UV
UNPUOS
UNSCR
USAID
UNODC
UNRCR
UNHCR
UNDP
UNCRIME
UA
UNHRC
UNRWA
UNO
UNCND
UNCHR
USAU
UNICEF
USPS
UNOMIG
UNESCOSCULPRELPHUMKPALCUIRXFVEKV
UR
UNFICYP
UNCITRAL
UNAMA
UNVIE
USTDA
USNC
UNCSD
USCC
UNEF
UNGAPL
USSC
UNMIC
UNTAC
UNCLASSIFIED
USDA
UNCTAD
USGS
UNFPA
UNSE
USOAS
UE
UAE
UNCHS
UNDESCO
UNC
UNSCS
UKXG
UNGACG
UNHR
UNBRO
UNCHC
UNFCYP
UNIDROIT
WHTI
WIPO
WTRO
WHO
WTO
WMO
WFP
WEET
WS
WE
WA
WHA
WBG
WILLIAM
WI
WSIS
WCL
WEBZ
WZ
WW
WWBG
WMD
WWT
WMN
WWARD
WITH
WTRQ
WCO
WEU
WB
WBEG
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 07JAKARTA353, FIRST ROUND OF U.S.-INDONESIA MLAT NEGOTIATIONS
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #07JAKARTA353.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
07JAKARTA353 | 2007-02-09 02:06 | 2011-08-24 01:00 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | Embassy Jakarta |
VZCZCXRO2615
PP RUEHCHI RUEHDT RUEHHM
DE RUEHJA #0353/01 0400206
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 090206Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY JAKARTA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 3221
INFO RUEHZS/ASSOCIATION OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN NATIONS PRIORITY
RUEHBK/AMEMBASSY BANGKOK PRIORITY 7685
RUEHML/AMEMBASSY MANILA PRIORITY 2985
RUEAWJB/DEPT OF JUSTICE WASHDC PRIORITY
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 JAKARTA 000353
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EAP/MTS, L/LEI FOR BUCHHOLZ
DOJ FOR CRIM AAG SWARTZ
DOJ/OIA FOR WARNER/ROBINSON
DOJ/OPDAT FOR ALEXANDRE/LEHMANN/CRAWFORD
BANGKOK FOR SONDERBY
MANILA FOR COLE
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PGOV KCRM KJUS CJAN KTIA ID
SUBJECT: FIRST ROUND OF U.S.-INDONESIA MLAT NEGOTIATIONS
¶1. Summary. (U) On January 23-25, delegations from the U.S. and
Indonesia met in Jakarta for a first round of negotiations aimed at
conclusion of a mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) between the
two countries. The discussions were friendly and productive. All
participants agreed that an MLAT should add to, rather than
complicate, existing law enforcement cooperation. The delegations
exchanged information about their respective legal systems and
mutual legal assistance practices, and then began working on draft
text, using proposals that each delegation had prepared and shared
prior to the negotiations. A thorough review of about a third of
the text was completed. The delegations agreed that a second round
of negotiations should occur this year in Washington. End Summary.
¶2. (U) The U.S. delegation consisted of representatives from State
L/LEI, the Department of Justice's Office of International Affairs,
Embassy Bangkok, and Embassy Jakarta. The Indonesia delegation was
led by the Department of Foreign Affairs, and included
representatives from the Attorney General's Office, the Ministry of
Law and Human Rights, Interpol, the Financial Transaction Reports
and Analysis Center, the Indonesian National Police and the
Department of Immigration. Separately the two delegations (and
Charg) met briefly with the Attorney General of Indonesia, who
offered his support for the negotiations.
Indonesia Legal System
-----------------------------
¶3. (SBU) At the U.S. request, Indonesia's delegation made a
presentation on its legal system and its practices with respect to
mutual legal assistance. Indonesia has a civil law system inherited
from the Dutch, under which law is mainly governed by statutes. In
the criminal law field, the two main statutes are the Penal Code and
the Code of Criminal Procedure, although various other statutes have
been enacted to address specific crimes such as terrorism, money
laundering, and corruption. These specific statutes include both
substantive offense definitions and procedural provisions, such as,
for example, creation of special courts or provisions to allow for
introduction of electronic evidence. Indonesia explained that,
where a specific law conflicts with a more general law such as the
criminal procedure code, the more specific law controls. They
further explained that this would be true of a ratified treaty as
well - if Indonesia ratified a mutual legal assistance treaty with a
particular country, its provisions would supersede any contrary
provision contained in Indonesia's general mutual assistance law.
(Note: This is an important point, as there are provisions in
Indonesia's mutual assistance law that would pose significant
problems for the United States, as noted below. Indonesia suggested
that its Law on International Treaties would clarify and confirm
this point. Post will obtain an English translation of that law for
the U.S. delegation. End Note)
¶4. (U) Under normal Indonesia criminal procedure, the police will
begin an investigation of a crime based on specific, known charges
and a suspect. Where no suspect has yet been identified, the police
can undertake a "preliminary investigation," which is still part of
a criminal proceeding. The police will create a dossier, the
primary contents of which are summaries of witness statements
prepared by police investigators. Once the dossier is complete, it
is given to a prosecutor who reviews it and, if he agrees it is
complete, presents it to a court. If the judge believes there is
sufficient evidence, he will order the dossier "admitted," which
amounts to requiring the defendant to appear at trial. Only five
kinds of evidence are recognized under the criminal procedure code:
witness statements, expert statements, documents, a defendant's
testimony, and "indication," loosely equivalent to circumstantial
evidence. The judge plays an active role in questioning witnesses
at trial. At the end of trial, a prosecutor will recommend a
sentence in addition to arguing for a conviction. The judge decides
guilt and sentence at the same time; a person can be found guilty
only if there are two forms of evidence and the judge also believes
the person is guilty. The prosecutor is then responsible for
executing the sentence.
¶5. (U) With respect to mutual legal assistance, Indonesia's
practice is now governed by the Mutual Assistance in Criminal
Matters Law of 2006, although previously Indonesia provided
assistance on the basis of reciprocity. The mutual assistance law
spells out procedures to be followed, the types of assistance that
can be granted, and reasons for refusing requests. Indonesia's
delegation indicated that, for the purpose of treaty negotiations,
while its proposed treaty is based on its law, it is not bound by
JAKARTA 00000353 002 OF 006
any of these provisions. Rather, so long as Indonesia law does not
prohibit it, a treaty may add any practice or procedure, in
particular so long as it advances the principles of Indonesia's
criminal procedure code (one of which is efficiency). Indonesia has
mutual assistance treaties with Australia and China, has signed but
not ratified treaties with Korea and ASEAN, and will soon sign a
treaty with Hong Kong.
¶6. (SBU) When a mutual assistance request is received, the various
agencies with responsibility for executing such requests will meet
under the auspices of the Department of Foreign Affairs. They
collectively determine whether and how the request should be
executed. For example, if a request is at the investigative stage,
it will be executed by the police, because the police handle
investigations in Indonesia. In general, requests will be executed
according to the procedures in the mutual assistance law.
¶7. (SBU) The U.S. delegation, in reviewing the mutual assistance
law, found several potential problems which were discussed. For
example, the law speaks of assisting in "investigations," but that
is a term of art in Indonesia (as noted above, a formal stage of the
process). The U.S. delegation described the grand jury process in
the United States and Indonesia's delegation expressed confidence
that it was sufficiently similar to Indonesia's investigations
and/or preliminary investigations that it would be able to provide
assistance. Similarly, the law seems not to contemplate being able
to compel a witness to testify for a foreign state's proceeding, but
Indonesia's delegation clarified that, if a court order is needed
because a witness refuses to testify voluntarily, either the police
or prosecutors can obtain one, and that the police also have the
authority to compel witnesses to testify if necessary. The
delegation further clarified that, under its mutual assistance law,
Indonesia can collect evidence on behalf of a foreign country even
if it could not use the same kind of evidence itself - for example,
electronic evidence in a case that did not involve one of the
specific crimes for which electronic evidence is admissible in
Indonesia. The U.S. delegation will continue to explore such issues
in connection with specific types of assistance contemplated under
the treaty.
Proposed Treaty Text
--------------------------
¶8. (U) Prior to commencing an article by article review, the
delegations made general presentations about their proposed drafts.
Indonesia noted that its text was based on its act and on its prior
treaties, including most notably the ASEAN MLAT. In describing the
treaty, it focused particular attention on articles relating to
recovery of proceeds of crime, making it quite clear that this
concept was of paramount importance from Indonesia's point of view.
The U.S. delegation highlighted three themes that run through its
proposed text: the creation of broad, open-ended obligations to
provide assistance with limited bases for refusal; the creation of a
partnership of "central authorities" - the experts on either side
that are to engage in constant consultation to help ensure effective
execution of requests; and the goal, achieved through various
specific textual requirements, of ensuring that the result of a
mutual assistance request is the provision of admissible evidence.
With those themes in mind, the U.S. delegation briefly identified
and highlighted key provisions of each article in the treaty.
¶9. (U) The delegations agreed to consider issues by looking at both
drafts simultaneously. Indonesia's delegation prepared a chart
containing both proposed texts and a column for "agreed text." All
agreements that were reached were, of course, subject to further
consideration, and the delegations agreed that the text would later
be reviewed for consistency.
Article by Article Review
-------------------------------
¶10. (SBU) In the preamble, the delegations discussed the U.S.
proposal to include the word "prevention" of crime as one of the
objectives of the treaty. Indonesia questioned whether that
encompassed training and other types of general cooperation. The
U.S. delegation clarified its intent to cover assistance for crimes
that might not yet be complete, such as with respect to a terrorist
plot or the activities of an organized criminal group. Indonesia's
delegation agreed to the concept, but expressed concern about the
translation into Indonesian of the word "prevention." The
delegations agreed to use the word "suppression" instead. The
delegations also agreed to omit a specific reference, sought by
JAKARTA 00000353 003 OF 006
Indonesia, to the confiscation of criminal proceeds as being a goal
of the treaty, recognizing that it is covered in depth in a specific
article.
¶11. (SBU) In Article 1 ("scope of assistance"), the delegations
discussed the scope of matters for which assistance would be
available. The delegations agreed that the MLAT is for criminal law
enforcement purposes and the authority conducting an investigation
must be competent to do so in the context of law enforcement (for
example, legislative investigations would not be covered), but that
specific language regarding the jurisdiction of the investigating
authority was not necessary - it would be up to the requesting state
to ensure it did not submit requests where there was no competent
authority. The delegations also agreed that "proceedings related to
criminal matters" would include administrative and regulatory
investigations where a criminal referral is possible, such as by the
Securities and Exchange Commission or in tax cases, as well as civil
forfeiture actions connected with criminal conduct and grand jury
proceedings.
¶12. (SBU) The delegations were in general agreement on the types of
assistance to be covered. They clarified that evidence, including
testimony, could be compelled where necessary. They agreed that the
MLAT would not be used to obtain general "information," which was
more properly obtained through informal cooperation. And they
agreed that, in addition to listed types of assistance, the treaty
should cover any other form of assistance not prohibited by domestic
laws, regardless of whether it is specifically mentioned in the
treaty. With respect to two forms of assistance - arranging for
people to travel across borders to give evidence and asset
forfeiture - the delegations recognized that they did not yet have a
meeting of the minds on the appropriate scope of such assistance and
agreed to come back to the descriptive language after discussing the
details in connection with later articles.
¶13. (SBU) The delegations began a discusion f the issue of "dual
criminality," as the U.S. daft has a provision requiring assistance
regardlss of whether the conduct at issue would be criminl in the
requested state. Indonesia expressed adesire to reflect in the
treaty the provision of its law that allovs h(cretion to refuse an
assistance request if there isn*o dual criminality. The U.S.
delegation explained the importance of being able to obtain
assistacce for investigations of a wide variety of offense that are
often not criminalized in other countrees. Indonesia acknowledged
that it did not alwas" have comparable laws - for example, with
respect to computer crime - but that it would take a broa view of a
request and tend to grant it if therew"ere a general crime (e.g.,
fraud) that broadly eescribed the conduct at issue. Indeed, the
Indoe sia delegation indicated it had no experience of denying a
request based on lack of dual criminality, but that if the treaty
did not reflect the discretion to do so it could pose problems in
the ratification process, as it would appear the United States were
obtaining special treatment. The U.S. delegation indicated the
importance of having certainty that certain crimes would be covered,
and suggested potential consideration of a "list" approach.
Indonesia did not like the list approach, but indicated it would
consider the issue further and propose language at the next
session.
The U.S. delegation also asked for an explanation of the difference
in Indonesia's mutual assistance act between two articles (6c and
7a) that each appear to address dual criminality. Indonesia's
delegation was unable to articulate a true difference between the
two provisions. The U.S. delegation further described why a dual
criminality restriction is less applicable to the mutual legal
assistance situation than to extradition, and the sides agreed to
consider the matter further at the next round.
¶14. (SBU) In the context of the dual criminality discussion, the
delegations described some crimes of importance and reviewed whether
they were covered under respective laws. Indonesia indicated its
priorities were terrorism, financial crimes (including bribery,
corruption, money laundering, bankruptcy, and fraud), narcotics, and
trafficking in persons, all of which are adequately covered under
U.S. law. In addition to these, the U.S. asked about financing of
terrorism, environmental crimes, antitrust, securities offenses, tax
offenses, export controls, corporate crimes, intellectual property,
explosives, immigration, piracy, obstruction of justice, and
conspiracy and other inchoate offenses, all of which Indonesia
indicated were adequately covered. Some questions were raised about
two important areas - computer crime and racketeering - both of
which Indonesia felt could largely be covered under general laws.
In both areas, however, further discussion appeared to reveal gaps
JAKARTA 00000353 004 OF 006
in coverage (for example, with respect to computer crime, it did not
appear any general law would cover the intentional dissemination of
a computer virus or worm).
¶15. (SBU) Finally, on Article 1 the delegations agreed that the
treaty would not cover defense requests, and that the U.S. language
setting that out was acceptable. Indonesia also agreed it did not
require a territorial provision in the treaty. Both sides agreed
the treaty would cover the entire territory of the respective
countries.
¶16. (SBU) The delegations discussed Indonesia's proposal that the
treaty have a "non-application" article. The U.S. delegation
expressed its view that such articles are not customary and would
raise questions about other things not listed in the article. The
U.S. further pointed out that one of the items on the list -
enforcement of criminal judgments - appeared to contradict the
intent of both sides with respect to forfeiture judgments.
Indonesia agreed to consider this further.
¶17. (SBU) The delegations next discussed an article on the impact
of an MLAT on other types of cooperation ("other assistance" or
"compatibility with other arrangements"). The delegations expressed
at length their mutual desire to ensure that an MLAT does not
undermine existing law enforcement cooperation which occurs outside
of treaty channels. Indonesia's Interpol representative reiterated
on many occasions that assistance could continue to be obtained via
direct police to police contacts. The delegations agreed that the
purpose of the treaty was to create a mechanism for obtaining
admissible evidence - a goal over and above the types of informal
cooperation that already occur - and that, for example, it would not
require use of the treaty if the police in one country simply wanted
to see a document that the police in the other country had. The
delegations agreed on the U.S. text for the article, and agreed to
discuss later its placement in the treaty (it was article 3 in the
Indonesia draft and article 17 in the U.S. draft).
¶18. (SBU) Concerning the article on "central authorities," although
there were few disputes over language, it was clear that the two
sides had different approaches to the concept. For the U.S., the
central authority (Justice's Office of International Affairs) has an
active role in the preparation of outgoing requests and the
execution of incoming requests, and the U.S. seeks similar partners
in other countries. But Indonesia's central authority is the
Ministry for Law and Human Rights, and Indonesia described that
agency's role as, essentially, chairing the interagency meeting to
decide what to do about requests. The real work, both with incoming
and outgoing requests, would be done by the Attorney General's
Office and/or the police. The U.S. delegation tried many ways to
convince Indonesia to attempt to streamline the process further, but
Indonesia explained that its police and prosecutors were part of
different agencies and that it needed the interagency coordination
because of divisions of authority. Indonesia did indicate, however,
that its police and especially prosecutors were able to have direct
contact with central authorities in other countries with respect to
particular requests and would continue to do so. In light of the
Indonesia position, the parties agreed to language expressing the
role of the central authority as "processing" requests. The U.S.
agreed to Indonesia's proposed language regarding the process for
changing a central authority, and encouraged Indonesia to consider
such a change.
¶19. (SBU) A similar problem prevented agreement on language
regarding the role of the diplomatic channel. The U.S. prefers
eliminating the diplomatic channel from MLAT requests, viewing that
as one of an MLAT's primary advantages over letters rogatory.
Indonesia expressed the view that its act requires it to maintain
the option of communicating through the diplomatic channel. The
U.S. delegation indicated that option was always available, whether
or not the treaty said so, as governments could always communicate
through their foreign ministries if they so choose. Indonesia
indicated that the language should remain bracketed for now.
¶20. (SBU) Most of the article on the content and form of requests
was identical or close to identical in the respective drafts. As is
customary, the draft provides that requests will be made in writing,
but both sides agreed that, given the distance between the
countries, it would be appropriate to incorporate the possibility of
electronic transmission of requests, so long as the authenticity of
requests could be verified (for example, by a follow-up phone call,
or perhaps through electronic signature technology). The
delegations agreed that translations would not routinely be
JAKARTA 00000353 005 OF 006
required, but that sometimes a request would need to be translated
into Indonesian in order to be executed in Indonesia, and that the
United States would commonly provide a translation if requested in
such a circumstance.
¶21. (SBU) With respect to the contents of requests, the delegations
could not agree on two items - whether they would include
information on the subject of an investigation (the U.S. indicated
such information was often provided in practice but should not be
required, as it suggests that the identity of the subject might be
deemed relevant for determining whether to execute a request) and
whether a "court order relating to the assistance requested" should
be included. On the latter point, the U.S. delegation expressed its
concern about the provision of Indonesia's mutual assistance law
regarding search warrants. The law seems to require a requesting
state to obtain its own warrant for a search in Indonesia and
forward a copy of that warrant to Indonesian authorities for
execution, a process that would be impossible in the United States,
as a court would not issue such a warrant for a search outside its
jurisdiction. Indonesia indicated it would have to reflect further
on this problem. The delegations did indicate, however, that there
might be some types of court orders that would be required to be
included in an assistance request, such as a forfeiture order that a
state wanted enforced.
¶22. (SBU) The U.S. delegation sought confirmation, with respect to
the contents of requests, that the list that the two sides had
agreed and would put in the treaty would supersede the requirements
of Indonesia's mutual assistance law, which provides that certain
items (not included in the draft treaty text) "must" appear in a
request. Indonesia's delegation confirmed that Indonesia would look
to the treaty for the specific requirements with respect to a
particular country, and that the act provided only general
guidelines.
¶23. (SBU) In the article on "limitations on assistance," one of the
more important issues from the U.S. point of view is whether the
chapeau of this article includes the word "shall" (as in Indonesia's
draft) or "may." The U.S. delegation explained that the purpose of
the treaty is to create an obligation to provide assistance, not an
obligation to refuse assistance. The discretionary word "may"
always leaves open the option of denying assistance, but also leaves
open the possibility that assistance would be granted even in a case
in which a ground for refusal appears to apply. The U.S. pointed
out that the UN model treaty and all but one of existing U.S.
treaties use discretionary language, even with countries that have
laws similar to Indonesia's. The Indonesia delegation indicated
that it understood the U.S. arguments, but that it was not yet
comfortable ignoring the provisions of its law on this question, and
that the issue should remain bracketed.
¶24. (SBU) With respect to specific grounds for refusal, the U.S.
expressed its preference for a short list, in keeping with the
overall theme of the treaty to promote assistance. Both sides
quickly agreed on limitations for political offenses, military
offenses (that are not ordinary crimes), and petty crimes (because
the treaty is to be used for serious offenses). Both sides also
agreed to U.S. language allowing refusal of requests when they tread
upon a state's "essential interests," a term that the U.S.
delegation defined as amounting primarily to interests of a
constitutional dimension. In this respect, the U.S. delegation made
clear that it would not be able to provide assistance in the
investigation of certain crimes in Indonesia's penal code that
amount to speech crimes - criticizing the President or a religion,
defamation or libel, etc. - because of the First Amendment. Nor
would the U.S. be able to assist in debtor cases. Indonesia
indicated it had never invoked a similar clause in its draft treaty.
The delegations also agreed to a U.S. proposal that requests "not
in conformity with the treaty" could be denied, as this is often
useful in addressing defense attorney requests, and to an Indonesia
proposal that politically-motivated requests could be denied. With
respect to two other grounds that had been in the Indonesia draft -
assurances regarding limitations on use of evidence and interference
with ongoing investigations in the requested state - the delegations
agreed that they should be considered in different contexts but not
as bases for refusal.
¶25. (SBU) The delegations agreed to bracket for further
consideration language on double jeopardy. Both delegations
indicated that it was possible in each country to prosecute the same
conduct under different types of offenses without running afoul of
double jeopardy provisions, and that the issue was the offense, not
JAKARTA 00000353 006 OF 006
the conduct. The U.S. delegation pointed out that the particular
charges (offenses) might not be known at the time of a request for
assistance, so that it would not make sense to deny a request on the
ground that the offense had already been prosecuted. The
delegations considered various scenarios in which an assistance
request might be made, including when a crime affected victims in
both countries and each country wanted to prosecute the offender.
Indonesia's delegation indicated it would have to give further
thought to the issues. Indonesia's delegation did acknowledge that
the language of its proposed provision was redundant in covering
"pardons" as well as convictions, as it explained that under
Indonesian law, one cannot be pardoned until after one is
convicted.
¶26. (SBU) Finally, the delegations agreed to include language
reaffirming that bank secrecy or the presence of fiscal matters are
not bases to refuse a request, and furthermore that before any
grounds of refusal are invoked, the central authorities would
consult to determine if assistance can nonetheless be granted. In
addition, the delegations agreed that the central authorities would
be expected to provide reasons for any refusal of assistance.
Next Steps
-------------
¶27. (U) At the conclusion of the third day of negotiations, the two
sides, at the request of Indonesia, signed a "record of discussion"
prepared by Indonesia's delegation that generally reflects the
intentions of the two sides and attaches a copy of the text as
agreed to date. The two delegations expressed their mutual desire
to continue the discussions in Washington, where they will proceed
to analyze the remaining articles. The U.S. delegation pointed out
that there are issues to be considered by each side in advance of
such negotiations, and that direct contact in the interim might be
appropriate as well.
¶28. (SBU) One of the issues that was touched upon tangentially but
not explored in detail was the role of Sharia law in Indonesia.
While the Indonesia delegation indicated that Sharia law is separate
from the penal code, they did acknowledge that, in some regions in
particular, Sharia law crimes are prosecuted by state officials.
This is an issue that delegations will need to fully explore in a
second round.
¶29. (U) This cable was drafted by the U.S. delegation to the
negotiations.
PASCOE