wikileaks ico  Home papers ico  Cables mirror and Afghan War Diary privacy policy Privacy
2005-03-02 02:26:00
Embassy Canberra
Cable title:  


pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
						C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 CANBERRA 000387 



E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2015

REF: A. STATE 18228



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.



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.



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

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.