SLOVENIA: LITTLE EU SUPPORT FOR U.S. AMENDMENTS TO

C O N F I D E N T I A L LJUBLJANA 000039

SIPDIS


DEPT FOR EUR/NCE, NP/RA (SONTAG),L/NP (HERR),AND L/LEI
(MANNING)

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/19/2015
TAGS: KNNP KTIA MNUC PARM PREL PHSA EWWT SI
SUBJECT: SLOVENIA: LITTLE EU SUPPORT FOR U.S. AMENDMENTS TO
SUA CONVENTION

REF: A. SECSTATE 4828


B. EMAIL CROSBY TO SONTAG ET AL - 01/14/2005

Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Dean J. Haas for reasons 1.4(b)
and (d).


1. (C) As reported ref B, Pol-Miloff delivered ref A talking
points on 12 January to MFA Security Policy Department
staffer Bostjan Jerman, who serves as MFA's point person for
non-proliferation issues. Jerman read through the points and
issue paper with interest, remarked that UNSCR 1540 is seen
as very important by the EU and its member states, and opined
that Slovenia would have no problem supporting the U.S.
position on either issue: dual use offenses or non-state
actors. He said he would forward the points to MFA Legal and
to the appropriate person in Slovenia's Mission to the EU in
Brussels, noting that the Slovenes would be represented at
the 17 January COMAR meeting. Jerman noted that he had not
been aware of the impact of the Indonesian proposal and
expressed appreciation for the helpful policy issues paper.


2. (C) After an unrelated demarche on 20 January, Pol-Miloff
asked Jerman if Slovenia had been able to send a
representative to the 17 January COMAR meeting. Jerman
replied that Undersecretary Aleksander Cicerov, from MFA's
Legal Department, had attended the meeting with Jerman's
recommendation that Slovenia support the U.S. position on
both open issues. Jerman had not received a readout of the
meeting; however, Jerman and Pol-Miloff encountered Cicerov
on the way out of the MFA. Asked by Jerman about the outcome
of the COMAR meeting, Cicerov replied that the attendees had
decided not to support the U.S. positions. Perplexed,
Pol-Miloff asked what happened. Cicerov said that he and the
other COMAR attendees had all received the U.S. position
papers and collectively wondered why they had been contacted
about the open issues. He said the attendees decided that
the U.S. overture amounted to an inappropriate attempt at
politically pressuring fellow IMO Legal Committee members,
and he opined that the U.S. should have delivered its
position through the Committee chair. Pol-Miloff clarified
that the intent of disseminating the paper was to achieve a
better-informed and more streamlined process for reaching an
agreement within the Committee, stressing that there was no
political pressure intended and that the U.S. overture should
not be seen in such a light.
ROBERTSON


NNNN

2005LJUBLJ00039 - Classification: CONFIDENTIAL



v1.6.2