Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
Secretary of State
DE RUEHC #4249 0582059
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P R 272052Z FEB 07
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHML/AMEMBASSY MANILA PRIORITY 0000
INFO RUEHJA/AMEMBASSY JAKARTA 0000
C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 024249
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/27/2017
TAGS: SNAR KCRM PTER PGOV RP
SUBJECT: INTERIM REPLY TO MARITIME POLICE UNIT FUNDING REQUEST
REF: A. 06 MANILA 3789
¶B. 2006 E-MAIL RICHARD/JONES/O’FRIEL/KAPOYOS
Classified By: INL Assistant Secretary Anne W. Patterson
for Reasons 1.4(b) and (d).
¶1. (U) This is an action request cable. See paragraphs
12 through 16.
¶2. (C) SUMMARY. Post requested via reftels two million
USD to purchase boats and ancillary items for a maritime
security unit. In 2005 the USG conducted an assessment of
the Philippines National Police (PNP) and made
recommendations and prioritized the assistance that would
be necessary to support the PNP’s efforts to reform and
transformation as an institution. The assessment found
that the PNP is afflicted by severe and debilitating
systemic deficiencies. To support the PNP’s stated goal
of reform and transformation, the assessment identified
in priority order deficiencies in the following
categories: budget and funding; internal affairs; core
training; links between police and prosecutors; and prison
¶3. (C) SUMMARY CONTINUED. While an infusion of resources
may benefit the capabilities of the PNP’s maritime law
enforcement capability, by not funding assistance for the
prioritized items, the institution of the PNP will remain
weak, corruptible and ineffectual. Bureau asks post the
below questions to better understand how the proposal fits
into post’s goals for the PNP, as Post’s proposal does not
on its face address the identified priorities for reforming
and restructuring the PNP. END SUMMARY.
¶4. (C) BACKGROUND. Embassy Manila requested (reftel A) two
million USD to fund a the purchase of six boats for use by
the PNP on an island in the southwest Philippines, an area
that is home to a natural gas facility and tourist resorts,
and is vulnerable to narcotics trafficking and other
transnational crime, as well as transit of terrorists.
Specifically, to purchase six watercraft for a maritime
police unit in the PNP, and to purchase related equipment,
technical and training assistance. Post informed (reftel A)
the Department that this project would help the Philippines
better secure its maritime borders and internal seas. A
robust version of this proposal may address counterterrorism
capabilities. Embassy Manila wrote in reftels that JIATF-West
and SOCPAC were going to offer funding for training and
infrastructure construction, as well as a commitment from
the Philippine government to sustain costs beyond the first
year of operations. END BACKGROUND.
How robust is the proposed project?
¶5. (C) In Embassy Manila’s proposal, operational items such
as fuel an on-going maintenance costs are not addressed. We
do not have copies of signed commitments from the other two
USG agencies that quantify the nature and date of their
assistance, nor have we even seen drafts of such.
¶6. (C) INL is concerned about the need for training and
infrastructure as well as long-term use and maintenance of
boats. Our budgets for programs in the Philippines have no
provision for a stream of funds that will be required to
support such a maritime police unit project over the
requisite number of years to achieve full implementation.
What impact on agreed fundamental reforms?
¶7. (C) Our core project, support for PNP reform, will likely
cost between 1.5 and 2 million USD over two years, and need
to service the other priorities set forth in the assessment.
The approximately 3.8 million USD had been intended for
continuing the funding of projects that addressed already
identified core issues. Were the USG to fund the boat
purchase proposal, based on our experiences in Indonesia, we
would anticipate that the Philippines will likely expect
follow-on funding, and plan based on their desires rather
than what we have in the budgets for FY07 and FY08.
¶8. (C) INL is concerned that funding post’s proposal would
negatively impact other initiatives such as support for the
Philippines Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), and the FBI
Automated Fingerprinting Identification System (AFIS). The
FY08 budget request has 1.2 million USD for INL activities in
the Philippines. If post chooses to use the 5.88 million USD
(combined total of FY 2005 and FY 2006) for the ongoing
reform program and the marine project, that will use up the
available pipeline and conclude INL’s activities in the
Indonesia; the Benchmark
¶9. (SBU) In Indonesia, INL first funded infrastructure
construction and then provided training and assistance to
develop an in-service, replicable training model that the
Indonesians would be able to continue on their own. Once
these were in place, INL then funded the purchase of boats.
¶10. (SBU) INL’s experience in Indonesia illustrated that
a maritime police program required a serious and sustained
commitment by the Government of Indonesia, a minimum of
four years of joint development, required at least 11
million USD spread over four years, and required that the
Government of Indonesia provide dockside and drydock
facilities as well as preventative and routine
¶11. (C) The 11 million USD required for Indonesia’s
program represents a level of funding that far exceeds what
is currently and what is anticipated to be available for
the Philippines. Furthermore, the amount sought in the
Philippines would require post to abandon the Senior Law
Enforcement Advisor (SLEA) Miller project at the end of
this fiscal year, despite the fact the latter is exactly
what was specified in the assessment report and the
preliminary reports of success.
¶12. (C) Bureau asks post to identify which priorities,
as laid out in the 2005 USG Assessment of the PNP, the
maritime police unit (MPU) addresses, and to describe how
the MPU fulfills the identified priorities.
¶13. (C) Has post signed agreements with JIATF-West and
SOCPAC? If yes, INL would appreciate a copy (scanned
into PDF format or physical copy via pouch) of each
¶14. (C) Has the PNP committed to provide key
infrastructure support for the MPU? If yes, INL would
appreciate a copy. Has the PNP agreed to the
obligations for use of provided equipment? If yes, INL
would appreciate a copy.
¶15. (C) Has the Philippine Congress passed legislation
that will provide a regular, steady stream of funding
to the PNP.
¶16. (C) Has post reprioritized assistance to PNP, such
that reftel A reflects the new prioritization?
END ACTION REQUESTS
¶17. (U) Responses should be slugged to INL/AAE attention
Sani Sadaghiani. INL thanks post for the project submission.