Currently released so far... 97115 / 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
2010/12/25
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
2011/05/09
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
2011/08/10
2011/08/11
2011/08/12
2011/08/13
2011/08/15
2011/08/16
2011/08/17
2011/08/19
2011/08/21
2011/08/22
2011/08/23
2011/08/24
2011/08/25
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
Consulate Kaduna
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 Ponta Delgada
Consulate Peshawar
REO Mosul
REO Kirkuk
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
US Delegation FEST TWO
UNVIE
UN Rome
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vientiane
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AF
ADANA
ASEC
AFIN
AMGT
AE
AORC
AID
AR
AO
AU
ASEAN
AGOA
AFGHANISTAN
AFFAIRS
AMED
APER
ASECARP
APEC
AEMR
AS
AA
ANET
AFLU
ABLD
AL
ASUP
AJ
APECO
AMER
ABUD
AODE
AM
AFSN
AESC
AND
AG
ALOW
AROC
AVIANFLU
ATRN
ACOA
AEGR
AMGMT
AADP
AFSI
ACABQ
APRM
AZ
AIDS
ASE
AGAO
ADCO
ABDALLAH
ARF
AIDAC
ACOTA
ASCH
AC
ASEG
AGR
ACS
AMCHAMS
AN
AMIA
ASIG
ADPM
ADB
ANARCHISTS
ALOWAR
ARM
AUC
AINF
AINT
AORG
AY
AVIAN
AMEDCASCKFLO
AK
ARSO
ARABBL
ASO
ANTITERRORISM
ARABL
AOWC
AGRICULTURE
ALJAZEERA
AMTC
AFINM
AOCR
ABER
ARR
AFPK
ASSEMBLY
ASSK
AZE
AORCYM
AINR
AGMT
AEC
ACKM
APRC
AIN
ASCC
AFPREL
ASED
APERTH
ASFC
ASECTH
AFSA
AOMS
AORCO
ANTXON
ARC
AFAF
ADIP
AIAG
AFARI
AEMED
AORL
AX
ASECAF
AOPC
ASECAFIN
AFZAL
APCS
AMB
AGUIRRE
AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL
AIT
ARCH
AMEX
ALI
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AORCD
AVIATION
ARAS
AINFCY
ACBAQ
AOPR
AREP
ALEXANDER
ATRD
AEIR
AOIC
ABLDG
ASEX
AFR
ASCE
ATRA
ASEK
AER
ALOUNI
AMCT
AVERY
APR
AMAT
AEMRS
ASPA
AFU
AMG
ATPDEA
ALL
AECL
ACAO
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AORD
AFL
AME
ADM
ASECPHUM
AGIT
ABT
ASECVE
AGUILAR
AT
ABMC
ALZUGUREN
ANGEL
ASR
ANTONIO
BMGT
BEXP
BM
BG
BL
BA
BR
BTA
BO
BY
BBSR
BLUE
BK
BF
BTIO
BELLVIEW
BE
BU
BN
BH
BD
BC
BTC
BILAT
BT
BX
BRUSSELS
BP
BB
BRPA
BUSH
BURMA
BMENA
BESP
BIT
BBG
BGD
BMEAID
BAGHDAD
BEN
BIO
BMOT
BWC
BLUNT
BURNS
BUT
BGMT
BAIO
BCW
BOEHNER
BFIF
BOL
BASHAR
BIMSTEC
BOU
BIDEN
BZ
BFIN
BTRA
BI
BHUM
BOIKO
BERARDUCCI
BOUCHAIB
BORDER
BEXPC
BTIU
BTT
BIOS
BEXB
BGPGOV
BOND
BLR
CE
CG
CH
CVR
CASC
CU
CI
CD
CO
CDG
CB
CJAN
CPAS
COM
CVIS
CMGT
CT
CENTCOM
CNARC
CTERR
COUNTER
CHIEF
CDC
CTR
CBW
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CY
CA
CM
CS
CWC
CN
CITES
CF
CWG
CIVS
CFIS
CASCC
CROATIA
CONS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CASA
COE
CJ
CHR
CODEL
CR
CBC
CACS
CHERTOFF
CAS
CONTROL
CONDITIONS
CONDOLEEZZA
CITEL
CV
CLINTON
CHG
CZ
CON
CTBT
CEN
CRIMES
COMMERCE
CLOK
CRISTINA
CFED
CARC
CND
CTM
CARICOM
COUNTRYCLEARANCE
CBTH
CHINA
CSW
CICTE
CJUS
CYPRUS
CW
CAMBODIA
CENSUS
CIDA
CRIME
CBG
CBE
CMGMT
CAIO
CEC
CARSON
CPCTC
CEDAW
COMESA
CVIA
CWCM
CEA
COSI
CAPC
CGEN
COPUOS
CGOPRC
COETRD
CKGR
CFE
CQ
CITT
CIC
CARIB
CVIC
CLO
CAFTA
CVISU
CHRISTOPHER
CACM
CIAT
CDB
CIS
CUL
CHAO
CNC
CL
CSEP
COMMAND
CENTER
COL
CAN
CAJC
CUIS
CONSULAR
CLMT
CIA
CBSA
CEUDA
CAC
CROS
CIO
CPUOS
CKOR
CVPR
CONG
CONTROLS
CEPTER
CVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGKIRF
CDCE
DPOL
DEMARCHE
DHS
DR
DA
DISENGAGEMENT
DEMOCRATIC
DEFENSE
DJ
DY
DARFUR
DHRF
DEA
DTRO
DPRK
DO
DARFR
DOC
DRL
DK
DOJ
DTRA
DOMESTIC
DAC
DOD
DEAX
DIEZ
DEOC
DELTAVIOLENCE
DCOM
DMINE
DRC
DCG
DPKO
DOMESTICPOLITICS
DE
DB
DOT
DEPT
DOE
DHLAKAMA
DHSX
DS
DKEM
DAO
DCM
DANIEL
DEM
DAVID
DCRM
ETRD
EAGR
ETTC
EAID
ECON
EFIN
ECIN
EINV
ELAB
EAIR
ENRG
EPET
EWWT
ECPS
EIND
EMIN
ELTN
EC
ETMIN
EUC
EZ
ET
ELECTIONS
ENVR
EU
EUN
EG
EINT
ER
ECONOMICS
ES
EMS
ENIV
EEB
EN
ECE
ECOSOC
EK
ENVIRONMENT
EFIS
EI
EWT
ENGRD
ECPSN
EXIM
EIAD
ERIN
ECPC
EDEV
ENGY
ECTRD
EPA
ESTH
ECCT
EINVECON
ENGR
ERTD
EUR
EAP
EWWC
ELTD
EL
EXIMOPIC
EXTERNAL
ETRDEC
ESCAP
ECO
EGAD
ELNT
ECONOMIC
ENV
ETRN
EIAR
EUMEM
ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID
EREL
ECOM
ECONETRDEAGRJA
ETCC
ETRG
ECONOMY
EMED
ETR
ENERG
EITC
EFINOECD
EURM
EENG
ERA
EXPORT
ENRD
ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC
EGEN
EBRD
EVIN
ETRAD
ECOWAS
EFTA
ECONETRDBESPAR
EGOVSY
EPIN
EID
ECONENRG
EDRC
ESENV
ETT
EB
ENER
ELTNSNAR
ECHEVARRIA
ETRC
EPIT
EDUC
ESA
EFI
ENRGY
ESCI
EE
EAIDXMXAXBXFFR
EETC
ECIP
EIAID
EIVN
EBEXP
ESTN
EING
EGOV
ETRA
EPETEIND
ELAN
ETRDGK
EAIDRW
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
EPEC
ENVI
ELN
EAG
EPCS
EPRT
EPTED
ETRB
EUM
EAIDS
EFIC
EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM
EAIDAR
ESF
EIDN
ELAM
EDU
EV
EAIDAF
ECN
EDA
EXBS
EINTECPS
ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ
EPREL
EAC
EINVEFIN
ETA
EAGER
EINDIR
ECA
ECLAC
ELAP
EITI
EUCOM
ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID
EARG
ELDIN
EINVKSCA
ENNP
EFINECONCS
EFINTS
ECCP
ETC
EAIRASECCASCID
EINN
ETRP
EAIDNI
EFQ
ECOQKPKO
EGPHUM
EBUD
ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ
ENERGY
ELB
EINDETRD
EMI
ECONEFIN
EIB
EURN
ETRDEINVTINTCS
EIN
EFIM
ETIO
ELAINE
EMN
EATO
EWTR
EIPR
EINVETC
ETTD
ETDR
EIQ
ECONCS
EPPD
ENRGIZ
EISL
ESPINOSA
ELEC
EAIG
ESLCO
EUREM
ENTG
ERD
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
ECINECONCS
ETRO
ETRDECONWTOCS
ECUN
EFND
EPECO
EAIRECONRP
ERGR
ETRDPGOV
ECPN
ENRGMO
EPWR
EET
EAIS
EAGRE
EDUARDO
EAGRRP
EAIDPHUMPRELUG
EICN
ECONQH
EVN
EGHG
ELBR
EINF
EAIDHO
EENV
ETEX
ERNG
ED
FR
FREEDOM
FINREF
FJ
FI
FRELIMO
FOREIGN
FAA
FETHI
FAS
FTAA
FRB
FAO
FCS
FINANCE
FWS
FTA
FEMA
FDA
FLU
FRANCISCO
FBI
FORCE
FO
FARC
FK
FT
FCSC
FAC
FM
FMGT
FINV
FCSCEG
FARM
FERNANDO
FINR
FIN
FINE
FIR
FDIC
FOR
FOI
FCUL
FKLU
FMLN
FISO
FIXED
GM
GMUS
GG
GR
GE
GAZA
GT
GH
GZ
GJ
GLOBAL
GV
GABY
GOI
GA
GCC
GB
GY
GATT
GC
GUAM
GEORGE
GTIP
GOV
GOMEZ
GUTIERREZ
GL
GKGIC
GF
GU
GWI
GARCIA
GTMO
GN
GANGS
GIPNC
GAERC
GREGG
GUILLERMO
GASPAR
GERARD
GI
HK
HR
HUMANR
HUMAN
HO
HA
HUMANRIGHTS
HU
HHS
HIV
HUM
HRKAWC
HILLEN
HILLARY
HDP
HUMRIT
HSTC
HUMANITARIAN
HCOPIL
HADLEY
HURI
HL
HRETRD
HOURANI
HG
HARRIET
HESHAM
HI
HNCHR
HARRY
HRECON
HRC
HOSTAGES
HEBRON
HUMOR
HSWG
HYMPSK
HECTOR
HN
HYDE
HUD
HRPGOV
HIGHLIGHTS
ID
ILC
IS
IZ
ICAO
IMO
ITU
IR
IAEA
ICRC
IPROP
IT
IBRD
ISRAELI
IRAQI
ISSUES
ITRA
IV
IO
IGAD
IRAQ
IN
IMF
ICTR
ISCON
IADB
IDB
IEA
INR
IWC
ICCAT
ILO
INMARSAT
IOM
ICJ
IQ
ISPA
ITRD
IPR
INTELSAT
ISN
IAHRC
INTERNAL
IFAD
IICA
IHO
IRAN
IL
IRCE
IC
INTELLECTUAL
IRM
IE
ICTY
IDLI
IFO
ISCA
INF
INL
ISRAEL
INV
IBB
INFLUENZA
ISPL
ITER
ITIA
INRA
ISAF
IACHR
INTERPOL
IFR
IRS
INRB
IEF
ISAAC
ICC
INDO
IIP
IATTC
INAUGURATION
IND
INS
IZPREL
IACI
IEFIN
INNP
ILAB
IA
IMTS
ITALY
ITALIAN
IFIN
IRAJ
IX
ICG
IF
ITPHUM
ITA
IP
IACW
IK
IUCN
IZEAID
IRPE
IDA
ISLAMISTS
ITF
INRO
IBET
IDP
IRC
ISO
ICES
IRMO
ITPGOV
IQNV
IMSO
IRDB
IMET
INCB
IFRC
JA
JO
JP
JM
JCIC
JOHN
JE
JEFFERY
JS
JUS
JN
JOHNNIE
JAMES
JKUS
JOSEPH
JML
JAWAD
JSRP
JIMENEZ
JOSE
JKJUS
JK
JAPAN
KMDR
KPAO
KPKO
KJUS
KCRM
KGHG
KFRD
KWMN
KDEM
KTFN
KHIV
KGIC
KIDE
KSCA
KNNP
KHUM
KIPR
KSUM
KISL
KIRF
KCOR
KRCM
KPAL
KWBG
KN
KS
KOMC
KSEP
KFLU
KPWR
KTIA
KSEO
KMPI
KHLS
KICC
KSTH
KMCA
KVPR
KPRM
KE
KU
KZ
KFLO
KSAF
KTIP
KTEX
KBCT
KOCI
KOLY
KOR
KAWC
KACT
KUNR
KTDB
KSTC
KLIG
KSKN
KNN
KCFE
KCIP
KGHA
KHDP
KPOW
KUNC
KDRL
KV
KPREL
KCRS
KPOL
KRVC
KRIM
KGIT
KWIR
KT
KIRC
KOMO
KRFD
KUWAIT
KG
KFIN
KSCI
KTFIN
KFTN
KGOV
KPRV
KSAC
KGIV
KCRIM
KPIR
KSOC
KBIO
KW
KGLB
KMWN
KPO
KFSC
KSEAO
KSTCPL
KSI
KPRP
KREC
KFPC
KUNH
KCSA
KMRS
KNDP
KR
KICCPUR
KPPAO
KCSY
KTBT
KCIS
KNEP
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KNNB
KGCC
KINR
KPOP
KMFO
KENV
KNAR
KVIR
KDRG
KDMR
KFCE
KNAO
KDEN
KGCN
KICA
KIMMITT
KMCC
KLFU
KMSG
KSEC
KUM
KCUL
KMNP
KSMT
KCOM
KOMCSG
KSPR
KPMI
KRAD
KIND
KCRP
KAUST
KWAWC
KTER
KCHG
KRDP
KPAS
KITA
KTSC
KPAOPREL
KWGB
KIRP
KJUST
KMIG
KLAB
KTFR
KSEI
KSTT
KAPO
KSTS
KLSO
KWNN
KPOA
KHSA
KNPP
KPAONZ
KBTS
KWWW
KY
KJRE
KPAOKMDRKE
KCRCM
KSCS
KWMNCI
KESO
KWUN
KPLS
KIIP
KEDEM
KPAOY
KRIF
KGICKS
KREF
KTRD
KFRDSOCIRO
KTAO
KJU
KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW
KEN
KO
KNEI
KEMR
KKIV
KEAI
KWAC
KRCIM
KWCI
KFIU
KWIC
KCORR
KOMS
KNNO
KPAI
KBWG
KTTB
KTBD
KTIALG
KILS
KFEM
KTDM
KESS
KNUC
KPA
KOMCCO
KCEM
KRCS
KWBGSY
KNPPIS
KNNPMNUC
KWN
KERG
KLTN
KALM
KCCP
KSUMPHUM
KREL
KGH
KLIP
KTLA
KAWK
KWMM
KVRP
KVRC
KAID
KSLG
KDEMK
KX
KIF
KNPR
KCFC
KFTFN
KTFM
KPDD
KCERS
KMOC
KDEMAF
KMEPI
KEMS
KDRM
KEPREL
KBTR
KEDU
KNP
KIRL
KNNR
KMPT
KISLPINR
KTPN
KA
KJUSTH
KPIN
KDEV
KTDD
KAKA
KFRP
KWNM
KTSD
KINL
KJUSKUNR
KWWMN
KECF
KWBC
KPRO
KVBL
KOM
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KEDM
KFLD
KLPM
KRGY
KNNF
KICR
KIFR
KM
KWMNCS
KAWS
KLAP
KPAK
KDDG
KCGC
KID
KNSD
KMPF
KPFO
KDP
KCMR
KRMS
KNPT
KNNNP
KTIAPARM
KDTB
KNUP
KPGOV
KNAP
KNNC
KUK
KSRE
KREISLER
KIVP
KQ
KTIAEUN
KPALAOIS
KRM
KISLAO
KWM
KFLOA
LE
LU
LH
LA
LG
LO
LY
LANTERN
LI
LABOR
LORAN
LTTE
LT
LAS
LAB
LAW
LVPR
LARREA
LEBIK
LAURA
LS
LOTT
LOVE
LR
LEON
LAVIN
LGAT
LV
LAOS
LOG
LN
LB
MOPS
MO
MARR
ML
MASS
MZ
MR
MNUC
MX
MV
MCC
MY
MEDIA
MTCRE
MG
MCAP
MOPPS
MP
MI
MK
MC
MD
MA
MU
MASC
MW
MT
MEPP
MN
MTCR
MH
MEPI
MIL
MNUCPTEREZ
MMAR
MICHAEL
MUNC
MDC
MPOS
MONUC
MAR
MGMT
MAS
MEPN
MENDIETA
MARIA
MONTENEGRO
MOOPS
MSG
MARITIME
MURRAY
MUKASEY
MOTO
MCA
MFO
MEX
MRSEC
MMED
MACP
MAAR
MINUSTAH
MCCONNELL
MAPP
MGT
MARQUEZ
MANUEL
MNUR
MCCAIN
MF
MOHAMMAD
MOHAMED
MNU
MFA
MILITANTS
MINORITIES
MTS
MLS
MILI
MIAH
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MED
MARAD
MNVC
MINURSO
MNUCUN
MIK
MARK
MBM
MPP
MILITARY
MAPS
MNUK
MILA
MTRRE
MACEDONIA
MICHEL
MASSMNUC
MUCN
MQADHAFI
MPS
MARRGH
MRCRE
MTRE
MORALES
MAP
MCTRE
MHUC
MOPSGRPARM
MOROCCO
MCAPS
NL
NU
NS
NI
NPT
NATO
NO
NG
NATEU
NSF
NZ
NAS
NP
NDP
NLD
NGO
NEPAD
NAFTA
NASA
NEA
NGUYEN
NIH
NK
NIPP
NONE
NR
NANCY
NEGROPONTE
NRR
NERG
NSSP
NSG
NSFO
NE
NATSIOS
NFSO
NATIONAL
NTDB
NT
NCD
NTSB
NRC
NELSON
NAM
NH
NPG
NEC
NSC
NFATC
NMFS
NATOIRAQ
NAR
NZUS
NARC
NCCC
NA
NC
NEW
NRG
NUIN
NOVO
NATOPREL
NEY
NV
NICHOLAS
NPA
NW
NARCOTICS
NORAD
NOAA
NON
NTTC
NKNNP
NMNUC
NUMBERING
ODIP
OIIP
OPRC
OSCE
OREP
OTRA
OPET
OSCI
OVIP
OECD
OCII
OUALI
OPDC
OEXC
OFPD
OPIC
OFDP
OPCW
OECV
OAS
OM
OMIG
ODAG
OPREP
ORA
OIC
OEXCSCULKPAO
OIG
OASS
OFFICIALS
ORTA
OSAC
OIL
OIE
OEXP
OPEC
OPDAT
OMS
OES
OHI
OMAR
OCRA
OFSO
OCBD
OSTA
OAO
ONA
OTP
ORC
OAU
OXEC
OA
ODPC
OPDP
OVIPPRELUNGANU
OASC
OSHA
OPCD
OTR
OPPI
OPCR
OF
OFDPQIS
OSIC
OHUM
OSTRA
OASCC
OBSP
OFDA
OPICEAGR
OIM
OGAC
OTA
OTRAORP
OPPC
OESC
OCEA
OVP
ON
OPAD
OTAR
OCS
ODC
OTRD
OCED
OSD
ORUE
OREG
PHUM
PINR
PTER
PGOV
PREL
PREF
PL
PM
PHSA
PE
PARM
PINS
PK
PUNE
PO
PALESTINIAN
PU
PBTS
PROP
PTBS
POL
POLI
PA
PGOVZI
POLMIL
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POLM
PD
POLITICS
POLICY
PAS
PMIL
PINT
PNAT
PV
PKO
PPOL
PERSONS
PING
PBIO
PH
PETR
PARMS
PRES
PCON
PETERS
PRELBR
PT
PLAB
PP
PAK
PDEM
PKPA
PSOCI
PF
PLO
PTERM
PJUS
PSOE
PELOSI
PROPERTY
PGOVPREL
PARP
PRL
PNIR
PHUMKPAL
PG
PREZ
PGIC
PBOV
PAO
PKK
PROV
PHSAK
PHUMPREL
PROTECTION
PGOVBL
PSI
PRELPK
PGOVENRG
PUM
PRELKPKO
PATTY
PSOC
PRIVATIZATION
PRELSP
PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ
PMIG
PREC
PAIGH
PROG
PSHA
PARK
PETER
POG
PHUS
PPREL
PS
PTERPREL
PRELPGOV
POV
PKPO
PGOVECON
POUS
PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN
PWBG
PMAR
PREM
PAR
PNR
PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO
PARMIR
PGOVGM
PHUH
PARTM
PN
PRE
PTE
PY
POLUN
PPEL
PDOV
PGOVSOCI
PIRF
PGOVPM
PBST
PRELEVU
PGOR
PBTSRU
PRM
PRELKPAOIZ
PGVO
PERL
PGOC
PAGR
PMIN
PHUMR
PVIP
PPD
PGV
PRAM
PINL
PKPAL
PTERE
PGOF
PINO
PHAS
PODC
PRHUM
PHUMA
PREO
PPA
PEPFAR
PGO
PRGOV
PAC
PRESL
PORG
PKFK
PEPR
PRELP
PREFA
PNG
PGOVPHUMKPAO
PRELECON
PINOCHET
PFOR
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PRELC
PREK
PHUME
PHJM
POLINT
PGOVPZ
PGOVKCRM
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PECON
PEACE
PROCESS
PLN
PRELSW
PAHO
PEDRO
PRELA
PASS
PPAO
PGPV
PNUM
PCUL
PGGV
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PGIV
PRFE
POGOV
PEL
PBT
PAMQ
PINF
PSEPC
POSTS
PHUMPGOV
PVOV
PHSAPREL
PROLIFERATION
PENA
PRELTBIOBA
PIN
PRELL
PGOVPTER
PHAM
PHYTRP
PTEL
PTERPGOV
PHARM
PROTESTS
PRELAF
PKBL
PRELKPAO
PKNP
PARMP
PHUML
PFOV
PERM
PUOS
PRELGOV
PHUMPTER
PARAGRAPH
PERURENA
PBTSEWWT
PCI
PETROL
PINSO
PINSCE
PQL
PEREZ
PBS
RS
REFUGEES
RW
RP
RELFREE
RO
REGIONAL
RIGHTS
REACTION
REPORT
RU
RENAMO
RIGHTSPOLMIL
REFORM
RM
REFUGEE
REL
RELATIONS
ROW
RREL
REGION
RATIFICATION
RBI
RICE
ROOD
RODENAS
RUIZ
RODHAM
ROBERT
RGY
ROY
REUBEN
RELIGIOUS
RUEHZO
RODRIGUEZ
RUEUN
RELAM
RSP
RF
RSO
RCMP
REO
ROSS
RPTS
RENE
REID
RUPREL
RMA
RI
REMON
RPEL
RFE
RFIN
RA
RAFAEL
RAY
RUS
RPREL
ROBERTG
RECIN
RAMONTEIJELO
SNAR
SP
SN
SMIG
SL
SOCI
SU
SG
SF
SENV
SZ
SOE
SCUL
SY
SO
SR
SYR
SE
SA
SW
SIPDIS
SCIENCE
SADC
SI
SCI
SOCIETY
SC
SAARC
STR
SECRETARY
SANC
SSH
ST
SNA
SGWI
SEP
SOCIS
SETTLEMENTS
SPECIALIST
SK
SHUM
START
STET
SCVL
SREF
SCHUL
SCUIL
SYRIA
SECURITY
SPCE
SYAI
SMIL
SOWGC
STEPHEN
SNRV
SKCA
SENSITIVE
SECI
SNAP
SPP
SCUD
SOM
SPECI
SMIGBG
SENC
SCRM
SGNV
SECTOR
SENVEAGREAIDTBIOECONSOCIXR
SENVSXE
SASIAIN
SACU
SENVSPL
SWMN
STEINBERG
SOPN
SOCR
SCOI
SCRS
SILVASANDE
SWE
SARS
SNARIZ
SUDAN
SENVQGR
SM
SNARKTFN
SAAD
SD
SAN
SIPRNET
STATE
SENS
SUBJECT
SFNV
SECSTATE
SSA
SPCVIS
SOI
SOFA
SCULKPAOECONTU
SPTER
SKSAF
SENVKGHG
SHI
SEVN
SANR
SPSTATE
SMITH
SCOM
SH
SNARCS
SNARN
SIPRS
SNARM
SIPDI
SCPR
SNIG
SELAB
SULLIVAN
SENVENV
SECDEF
SOLIC
SOIC
SPAS
SASC
SOSI
SEC
SEN
SENVCASCEAIDID
TU
TH
TW
TSPA
TRGY
TPHY
TBIO
TIFA
TS
TZ
TX
TSPL
TT
TK
TC
TINT
TERFIN
TERRORISM
TIP
TURKEY
TI
TECHNOLOGY
TNGD
TRSY
TRAFFICKING
TOPEC
TPSL
TP
TD
TR
TA
TIO
TREATY
TO
THPY
TECH
TRADE
TPSA
TG
TAGS
TF
TRAD
THKSJA
TVBIO
TNDG
TN
TBIOZK
TWI
TV
TWL
TRT
TWRO
TSRY
TTPGOV
TAUSCHER
TRBY
TRBIO
TL
TPKO
TIA
TGRY
TSPAM
TREL
TNAR
TBI
TFIN
TPHYPA
TWCH
THOMMA
THOMAS
TERROR
TRY
TBID
TPP
TE
THANH
TJ
TBKIO
UNGA
USUN
UN
UG
UNSC
UK
UP
US
UNCTAD
UNVIE
UNHRC
USTR
UNAMA
UNCRIME
UNESCO
UV
UNDP
UNHCR
UNCSD
UNCHR
UZ
USAID
UNEP
UNO
UNPUOS
UY
UNDC
UNCITRAL
UNAUS
UNCND
UA
UNMIK
USTDA
USEU
USDA
UNICEF
UR
UNFICYP
USNC
USTRRP
UNODC
UNRWA
UNOMIG
USTRPS
USAU
USCC
UNEF
UNGAPL
UNFPA
UNSCE
USSC
UGA
UEU
UNMIC
UNTAC
UNION
UNCLASSIFIED
USPS
UNA
UMIK
USOAS
UNMOVIC
UNFA
UNAIDS
UNCHC
USGS
UNSE
UNRCR
UNTERR
USG
UE
UAE
UNWRA
UNCSW
UNSCR
UNCHS
UNDESCO
UNPAR
UNC
UB
UNSCS
UKXG
UNGACG
UNREST
UNHR
USPTO
UNFCYP
USCG
UNIDROIT
UNSCD
UPU
UNBRO
UNECE
USTRUWR
UNCC
UNESCOSCULPRELPHUMKPALCUIRXFVEKV
VM
VE
VT
VETTING
VN
VZ
VIS
VC
VTPREL
VIP
VTEAID
VTEG
VOA
VA
VTIZ
VANG
VISIT
VO
VENZ
VAT
VI
VEPREL
VEN
WFP
WTO
WHO
WTRO
WBG
WMO
WIPO
WA
WI
WSIS
WHA
WCL
WE
WMN
WEBZ
WS
WAR
WZ
WMD
WW
WILLIAM
WEET
WAEMU
WM
WWBG
WWT
WWARD
WITH
WMDT
WTRQ
WCO
WEU
WALTER
WRTO
WB
WHTI
WBEG
WCI
WEF
WAKI
WHOA
WGC
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