NPT REVCON: AUSTRALIAN VIEWS ON USG PROPOSALS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 CANBERRA 000387 SIPDIS STATE FOR EAP/ANP, NP/MNA, GENEVA FOR CD DEL, USUN (POL) E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2015 TAGS: PARM PREL KNNP AORC AS IR IAEA SUBJECT: NPT REVCON: AUSTRALIAN VIEWS ON USG PROPOSALS REF: A. STATE 18228 ¶B. CANBERRA 341 Classified By: POLCOUNS WOO LEE FOR REASONS 1.4 (B AND D). ¶1. (C) Summary. GOA officials have provided additional comments on U.S. preparations for the 2005 NPT Review Conference (Ref A) to those they offered to NPT Envoy Ambassador Jackie Sanders (Ref B) during her February 9-10 visit. The additional comments reinforce Australian support for the overall U.S. approach, while noting two areas where the GOA sees room for Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) states to misinterpret USG language. Australian officials reiterated their advice for the U.S. to have "hip pocket" language ready on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) for inclusion if there is a final consensus document at the RevCon. Embassy thoughts on public diplomacy outreach per Ref A request are provided at para. 5. End Summary. GOA REACTION TO NPT PAPER -------------- ¶2. (C) NPT Envoy and CD Ambassador Jackie Sanders presented Ref A talking points on preparing for the 2005 NPT Review Conference (RevCon) on February 10 to DFAT Deputy Secretary Nick Warner, as well as to First Assistant Secretary David Stuart and a GOA interagency roundtable (Ref B). In follow-up discussions with Polmiloff, Arms Control Office Director David Mason provided additional comments on the U.S. proposals. Mason told us the GOA broadly supports the U.S. approach to the NPT RevCon, but he had three specific comments. Under the Ref A talking points of what "the United States will urge the RevCon to (do)," Mason was concerned about the point regarding non-compliant states not receiving Article IV benefits, nor being able to claim that Article IV "protects them from the imposition of measures against their nuclear programs." Without further elaboration, he worried that "NAM states could assume those 'measures' could mean bombing runs" against their nuclear programs. Mason suggested refining the language to read: "measures under IAEA statutes or under the purview of the UNSC...." ¶3. (C) Similarly, in the next paragraph of Ref A non-paper, Mason pointed to the following language: "The United States will underscore and seek recognition that NPT parties are responsible for exercising independent judgment in assessing ;compliance with the Treaty's nonproliferation obligations and for holding violators accountable for their actions and enforcing compliance." Mason wondered what would happen if the NAM states suggested substituting the words "nonproliferation obligations" with "disarmament obligations" in that sentence. In other words, if the NAM wanted to apply the same "exercising independent judgment" rubric under Article VI against the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) that the U.S. wanted use under Article IV against nonproliferation noncompliant states, it could "open up a slippery slope" of independent judgments that neither the U.S. nor Australia wanted to see. ¶4. (C) Mason's third point was to reiterate the Australian comments to Ambassador Sanders (Ref B) urging the U.S. to put its "best face forward" on disarmament in order to get its wishes on nonproliferation by having "hip pocket language" ready on FMCT and CTBT for a RevCon consensus document. Mason went as far as to offer ideas on specific language the U.S. might use on CTBT: "All NPT parties recognized the value of the CTBT, and while one state said it would not pursue ratification, all urged a continued testing moratorium and continued monitoring to that effect." Similar language on beginning FMCT negotiations would also be useful to have. Finally, Mason mentioned that the GOA would sponsor an Article X initiative at the RevCon which would seek to raise the bar of unacceptability for states that wanted to withdraw from the NPT. NPT PUBLIC DIPLOMACY -------------- ¶5. (SBU) We provide responses below to Ref A questions on the most useful ways to convey the U.S. message on NPT issues to the Australian public. -- Which NPT issues are most prominent in your host country? The left-wing of the university and NGO crowd pays attention to disarmament issues. The general public is concerned about North Korea's NPT and IAEA-noncompliant nuclear programs, and to a lesser extent about those in Iran. The opposition Australian Labor Party (ALP) and Greens are opposed to nuclear energy for Australia and to developing additional uranium mines in Australia, even though the country has the world's largest uranium deposits. They are also suspicious of U.S. arms control and disarmament intentions. -- Which public diplomacy tools would be most persuasive in communicating the U.S. message on nonproliferation, disarmament, and peaceful use issues? Outreach materials would probably be the most effective tools. -- Would DVC be influential on NPT issues in your country? Which host government officials, non-governmental organizations, or press outlets would it make sense to target? What issues should DVC address? How far before the RevCon should DVC be employed? A DVC would certainly not hurt, but the Embassy believes that the "hardcore fringe" elements who would be the most attracted to attend would also be the least likely to listen with an open mind. The host government is firmly on board with USG policy and does not require further outreach, but think tanks, specific journalists and universities in Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne could be targeted, particularly on the need to focus on the "crisis pillar" of the NPT, which is not disarmament, but nonproliferation. Another option would be ot arrange a DVC just for journalists with an eye towards placement of articles based on the discussion. If Washington chooses to provide a DVC for Australia, it would be optimal during the week immediately prior to the RevCon. Most universities are not in session during much of April. The 25th is also a public holiday. -- Are there local journals or other key national or regional media in which it would make sense to place articles by USG officials on NPT issues? What issues should such articles emphasize? What publication date would maximize their impact on local preparations for the RevCon? Embassy recommends articles and editorial pieces by very senior U.S. officials for our Office of Public Affairs to place in "The Australian," "The Sydney Morning Herald," "The Age," "The Daily Telegraph" and the "Australian Financial Review," among others. OPA would seek to place them in the two weeks prior to the RevCon and would appreciate as much lead time as possible. While providing the U.S. record on disarmament, the articles should also highlight the need for noncompliant states to be put under the international spotlight during the Review Conference. -- Would public outreach activities by a visiting USG official prove useful in influencing your host country's views on NPT issues? What, if any, NGOs, press outlets, academic or research institutions or other fora might be useful in this context? A USG official would be welcome, if willing to visit key universities and think tanks in Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide, and Perth. We have been invited to address the main NGO-hosted NPT seminar of the pre-RevCon season in Canberra on March 11, and will do so using AC/AS Rademaker's February 3 speech on U.S. Compliance with Article VI. DFAT officials will be making their own NPT presentations around Australia, using the Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) in most of the cities mentioned above. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) in Canberra is Australia's leading defense policy think tank. The Sydney Institute and the Lowy Institute are the two best in New South Wales. AIIA and leading universities in other cities also provide appropriate venues. One-on-one interviews with select print and broadcast journalists are the preferred method for reaching Australian audiences through the media and our Office of Public Affairs could arrange them as needed. STANTON