Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05MADRID3151
2005-09-06 13:25:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Madrid
Cable title:  

SPAIN ON AUSTRALIA GROUP BIOLOGICAL AGENTS WORKING

Tags:  PARM PREL ETTC SP CBW 
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 MADRID 003151 

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR NP/CBM AND EUR/WE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/06/2015
TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC SP CBW
SUBJECT: SPAIN ON AUSTRALIA GROUP BIOLOGICAL AGENTS WORKING
GROUP

REF: STATE 149921

Classified By: ESTHOFF KEN FORDER PER 1.4 (B/D)

C O N F I D E N T I A L MADRID 003151

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR NP/CBM AND EUR/WE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/06/2015
TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC SP CBW
SUBJECT: SPAIN ON AUSTRALIA GROUP BIOLOGICAL AGENTS WORKING
GROUP

REF: STATE 149921

Classified By: ESTHOFF KEN FORDER PER 1.4 (B/D)


1. (C) ESTHOFF passed reftel points August 23 to MFA
Disarmament Affairs Deputy Director General Marcos Rodriguez
Cantero, requesting Spanish views regarding the U.S. proposal
to add 23 biological agents to the Australia Group's (AG)
control list. Rodriguez Cantero informed ESTHOFF September 2
that the Spanish response to our request would be provided by
Industry Ministry Deputy Director General for Foreign Trade
in Defense and Dual Use Equipment Antonio Segura. Segura
called ESTHOFF September 6 and made the following points:

-- biological weapons proliferation will become an
increasing priority for both our nations and the AG plays a
critical role in combating this threat;

-- Spain agrees that the AG needs to increase the number of
controlled agents;

-- however, Spain does not think the AG should continue with
only one all-encompassing control list;

-- instead, there should be at least two lists, one for the
most dangerous agents, the other for agents of less
importance;

-- multiple lists are already employed in other multilateral
nonproliferation fora such as the MTCR and the CWC;

-- furthermore, restricting the number of agents on the
higher priority list would ease the burden on licensing
agents, who generally lack the expertise to focus on a
too-large list.


2. (C) Segura also noted that the EU is currently
considering controlling high priority biological agents in an
even more restrictive fashion than that employed by the AG.
He said the AG and the EU needed to coordinate their efforts
to make sure they do not work at cross purposes.


3. (C) Segura concluded by underscoring that Spain would
not/not block any AG consensus position in favor of the U.S.
proposal to add the 23 agents. It merely believes that its
"two lists proposal" is a better idea and should be
considered as well.
AGUIRRE