wikileaks ico  Home papers ico  Cables mirror and Afghan War Diary privacy policy Privacy
Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
05PARIS675
2005-02-02 18:29:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Paris
Cable title:  

MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME: 19 JANUARY

Tags:  ETTC FR KS KSCA MNUC PARM PREL TSPA MTCRE 
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 PARIS 000675 

SIPDIS

FOR NP/CBM

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10 YEARS
TAGS: ETTC FR KS KSCA MNUC PARM PREL TSPA MTCRE
SUBJECT: MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME: 19 JANUARY
MEETING OF MTCR POINTS OF CONTACT IN PARIS

Classified By: EST Counselor Robert W. Dry for Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d).



1. (C) SUMMARY: During a 19 January 2005 meeting of the
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Points of Contacts
(POCS) at the residence of the Norwegian Ambassador to
France, members were provided with updates and had
constructive discussions of a wide-range of MTCR issues.
These included a report of the Republic of Korea (ROK) MTCR
chair Oh Joon's outreach activities and his outreach agenda
in the coming months, planning for the 5-6 April 2005 meeting
of the Reinforced Points of Contact (RPOC), discussion
regarding the efficacy of holding a Technical Experts Meeting
(TEM) prior to the RPOC, final stage preparations for the
test implementation of the Electronic Points of Contact
(EPOC) system, plans for French POC's trend analysis of
denials and catch-all notifications, and early stage
discussions on the September 2005 MTCR Plenary meeting,
tentatively slated for Madrid, Spain. In terms of U.S.
government objectives for the meeting, the results were in
line with our position regarding an intersessional TEM, our
desire to have a substantive agenda for the April RPOC
meeting, and a deferment of further discussions on
contentious membership issues. END SUMMARY.



--------------------------


OUTREACH BY THE KOREAN MTCR CHAIR


--------------------------





2. (C) Following an introductory statement by French Point
of Contact and MTCR coordinator David Bertolotti, the ROK's
Deputy Director of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Division
of Disarmament and Nuclear Energy (in from Seoul in order to
brief the partners during the POC meeting), Yeo Sung
presented the MTCR representatives present with an update on
the outreach activities of the ROK Chair since the Seoul
Plenary. Yeo began by highlighting a report he circulated to
the partners regarding Chair Oh's visit to Hong Kong and
Macao, China in December 2004. Yeo made only general remarks
about the Chair's findings from his visits to Hong Kong and
Macao, commenting that Hong Kong had a well-established
export control structure, while Macao's system was found to
be much less effective. Yeo added that Macao was in need of
significant assistance from the MTCR in order to improve its
current export control structure. At this point, the
Japanese MTCR representative took the floor, noting that both
Hong Kong and Macao served as staging points for
front-company activities in support of North Korea's illicit
missile programs. He then suggested that Hong Kong and Macao
could serve as test cases for broader MTCR engagement with
China. Yeo agreed with the Japanese representative's
recommendation.



3. (C) Yeo informed partners that Chair Oh's planned visit
to Malaysia had been postponed as a result of the Malaysian
MFA's inability to organize the visit within the proposed
time-frame. Oh's efforts at arranging a visit to the United
Arab Emirates (UAE) had also been delayed following a request
from the UAE government for more information on the MTCR's
activities prior to any visit. In addition to plans to
follow through with future visits to Malaysia and UAE, Chair
Oh plans to visit Israel and Singapore in early March.
Following the April RPOC meeting, Oh hopes to make a trip to
South Asia for meetings in India and Pakistan. If the ROK
chair is unable to secure an agreement from the Indian and
Pakistani governments for an MTCR-related visit, he will look
for alternative countries to visit. Yeo also noted the
Chair's intention to travel to Libya in June 2005, and the
partners agreed to discuss MTCR outreach efforts toward Libya
during the April RPOC. The Italian representative made a
brief intervention, expressing his country's desire to be
closely involved with outreach efforts to Libya, for "obvious
reasons."



--------------------------


PLANNING FOR THE APRIL RPOC IN PARIS


--------------------------




4. (C) Following Yeo's report, Bertolotti provided MTCR
partners with a text of the proposed agenda for the RPOC
meeting on 5-6 April in Paris. In addition to circulating a
draft agenda for the RPOC, the French POC encouraged members
to submit their documents for the Information Exchange (IE)
well in advance of the RPOC meeting. Bertolotti also
requested that partners prepare and then provide the full
list of their delegations coming from their respective
capitals for the meeting as soon as possible, noting that for
the last RPOC several partners had submitted the names of
their delegations at the eleventh-hour, making coordination
and preparations the meeting difficult. Bertolotti also
commented that the final dates for the 2005 MTCR Plenary
would be discussed at the RPOC. He said, however, that
tentative plans were for the Plenary to be held in Madrid,
beginning on 12 September.




--------------------------


DECISION NOT TO HOLD AN INTERSESSIONAL TEM


--------------------------






5. (C) One of the primary issues discussed during the POC
was whether to convene an intersessional TEM meeting prior to
the April RPOC. Before opening the discussion to members,
Bertolotti made a statement on behalf of the TEM Chairman
(not present at the meeting). The recommendation of the TEM
Chair was not to hold an intersessional TEM, arguing that
there had been insufficient notice to the MTCR members, and
that no IE papers had been disseminated to partners in
advance of such a meeting. The TEM Chair also passed on his
preference for the issues to be resolved via paper process.
This triggered a short debate, in which members, including
the U.S. Embassy EST officer and representatives from
Austria, Australia, and Canada, made clear statements in
opposition to holding an intersessional TEM for essentially
the same reasons cited by the Chair's in his in absentia
statement. The German representative, however, voiced his
government's willingness to host an intersessional TEM either
before or after the RPOC meeting. Partners agreed, however,
not to hold an intersessional TEM prior to the RPOC, and to
resolve outstanding questions via a paper process outside of
the TEM formal structure. Bertolotti highlighted the fact
that issues 9A3 and 19A3 still needed to be resolved, and
that two unnamed MTCR partner governments had been sent email
notification requesting that these outstanding issues be
addressed and resolved as soon as possible. The members did
agree to have further discussions regarding the possibility
of holding a TEM prior to the Madrid Plenary.



--------------------------

--
FRENCH POC'S PLANS FOR PROVIDING TREND ANALYSIS


--------------------------

--




6. (C) Bertolotti also gave members an informative briefing
on the previously agreed upon plans for the French POC to
expand its role. Bertolotti informed partners that the
initial project he would undertake as French POC would be
trend analysis of denials and catch-all notification from
1995 to 2005. The French POC planned to focus the trend
analysis on a few critical technologies with numerous denial
notifications. Bertolotti noted that he would closely
coordinate this project with Germany and the United Kingdom.
Bertolotti also planned to compile a "pilot" list of
end-users of concern. Bertolotti stressed that it would be
only be a "pilot" list because of differing views among MTCR
members as to what constituted an end-user of concern. The
pilot list will be compiled starting from 2000 to the
present. Bertolotti stressed that he would not be trying to
"reinvent the wheel," but rather the list would be based on
information culled from existing materials. He planned to
use three main sources of information, namely denial
notification lists, IEM documents, and papers distributed by
MTCR partners to the POCS, as well as documents from the
Australia Group. Bertolotti expressed his intention to have
some preliminary results from these projects prior to the
RPOC, and planned to present the results during the meeting.



--------------------------


UPDATE ON THE EPOC SYSTEM


--------------------------





7. (C) A final issue raised by Bertolotti was the impending
test-phase implementation of a classified EPOC system for
MTCR partners. He informed partners that final-stage testing
by MFA communications experts would be completed by late
January 2005, with the official test-phase to start in early
March 2005. Canada, Sweden, and Australia had agreed to
participate in the test runs of the system. The initial
distribution list would include up to forty users, including
selected desk officers from the capitals of participating
partners. Results from the system's test-phase would be
presented by the pilot group of partners at the April RPOC.
The three primary functions of the EPOC will be to provide
updates to partner POCS of MTCR outreach and TEM activities,
to serve as a database of POC documents starting from late
2004 (with plans to eventually include archival data
stretching back several years), and to provide a secure forum
to facilitate the exchange of information and discussion
among the TEM and other experts. Bertolotti noted that much
of the communications among experts was at present being
conducted via non-secure email exchanges. Bertolotti hoped
that the full EPOC system would be ready to put in place by
the September 2005 MTCR Plenary.



8. (U) Minimize considered.
Leach