Cablegate: Improving Human Rights Vetting Processing From Washington

VZCZCXYZ0001
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHPU #1720 2981414
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 251414Z OCT 07
FM AMEMBASSY PORT AU PRINCE
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7106

UNCLAS PORT AU PRINCE 001720

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

WHA/CAR FOR CHRIS WARD & ELIZABETH JAFFEE; INL/LP FOR KEVIN BROWN &
ANGELIC V. YOUNG

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: SNAR MARR MASS PGOV PHUM HA
SUBJECT: Improving Human Rights vetting processing from Washington

1. In 2007, the Narcotics Affairs Section (NAS) in Port-au-Prince
assumed responsibility for handling the human rights vetting at Post
in compliance with the Department of State Leahy Amendment. Post has
developed a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Leahy vetting.
However, we have encountered problems, particularly with individuals
or small groups, in getting a timely response from Washington to
vetting requests. Although individual desk officers have provided
valuable service to Post in such cases, Port-au-Prince would like to
make the following suggestions with an eye toward improving the
vetting process and communication between Posts and Washington in a
timely manner:

A) Once the vetting request cable from Post reaches Washington, Post
should receive (via e-mail or phone call) an estimate of the time to
expect results.

B) Develop a process, including a possible waiver mechanism, for
conducting a vetting request for urgent and time-sensitive training.
How fast can we expedite truly high priority requests?

C) At Post, we operate on the assumption of a standardized framework
for Washington's reply, depending on the number to vet, and would
like to establish with Washington an accurate framework within which
to expect replies. For example, Post has been using the following:
Less than 5 business days for a list of 15 or less persons;
5 to 10 days for a list of 16-100 persons;
15 business days for over 100 persons.

D) We sometimes vet the same people more than once in a year -
Washington should pursue an option similar to that of DOD that
allows for vetting to remain valid for a specific length of time (at
least six months, preferably a year).

E) Develop two tracks for vetting based on the number to be vetted
or the size of the Post. This would allow quick turnaround on
individuals or small groups attending time-sensitive training
without throwing them into the queue with hundreds of vetting
requests related to long-term training or on-going employment, as is
now the case.

F) Designate POCs and alternates for Posts to use in urgent cases,
and ensure that Posts are informed when staffing changes occur.
When response from Washignton is delayed and threatens to delay or
cancel training, it is important to know who to reach out to to
expedite matters.

2. Post appreciates Washington's efforts to help improve and
expedite the vetting process. Post believes that implementation of
the steps above could lead to a more effective system with less
strain on resources for all involved.
Sanderson

© Scoop Media