1540: RUSSIA BLOCKS ADOPTION OF WORK PROGRAM

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 001428 SIPDIS SIPDIS FOR IO/UNP:EBROWN AND ISN/CPI:TWUCHTE E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/28/2011 TAGS: PREL PTER PARM UNSC AORC KNNP SUBJECT: 1540: RUSSIA BLOCKS ADOPTION OF WORK PROGRAM REF: STATE 114027 Classified By: Ambassador Jackie W. Sanders, Alternate Representative f or Special Political Affairs, for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (U) Summary: The Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) met informally July 27 to discuss the status of reporting, outreach activities, and the adoption of a new 12-month program. After no delegation commented on the draft work program during the informal meeting, which the UK prepared after consultations among the P-5, the Chairman convened a formal meeting for the Committee to adopt it. The Russian delegation's eleventh-hour amendments then blocked adoption of the program, to the frustration of other delegations. After extensive debate, the Committee adopted operative paras 5 and 6 of resolution 1673 (2006) as its provisional program of work through August 31, 2006. End Summary. -------------- Status of Reporting and Outreach Activities -------------- ¶2. (U) Committee Chairman and Slovak PermRep Peter Burian announced that Bangladesh, Eritrea, and Honduras had submitted first reports on their implementation of resolution 1540 (2004). Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Jordan, Monaco, Lebanon, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Namibia, Oman, and Paraguay have submitted second reports. ¶3. (U) The Chairman reported positively on the regional outreach seminar in Beijing on 1540 implementation sponsored July 12-13. The seminar, which the Chinese government and the Department of Disarmament Affairs (DDA) sponsored, was the first of its kind in the Asia-Pacific region. The seminar provided a forum for discussing finance control, securing WMD equipment and means of delivery, sharing lessons learned, and developing non-proliferation strategies. Representatives of 70 countries attended. (Note: Peru and Ghana both are planning similar seminars, together with DDA. On the margins of the meeting, the Peruvian delegation said they had not received Peru's proposal from Lima but would provide it to USUN once it arrived. End Comment.) ¶4. (U) The Chair also reported positively on his meeting with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe Forum for Cooperation (OSCE/FSC) in Vienna on July 5. Chairman Burian made a presentation at the OSCE/FSC and discussed the 1540 Committee's goal of providing guidance to states to extend the reach of resolution 1540, establish a best practices tool, and develop strategies for implementation. The Chair said he hoped the Committee could use the OSCE to promote the importance and awareness of 1540, and USUN briefed the Committee on the U.S., Greek, Danish, and Spanish proposal for the OSCE to host a workshop on 1540 implementation in 2006. -------------- Russia Blocks Adoption of Program -------------- ¶5. (U) After no delegations commented on the UK-drafted work program during the informal meeting, Chairman Burian accepted UKUN's proposal that he call a formal meeting for the Committee to adopt it. (Note: The Russian delegation's usual 1540 expert was absent during the informal meeting, but appeared at the formal meeting. End Note.) At the outset of the formal meeting, the Russian delegation presented several proposed amendments to the draft program, focusing primarily on removing all reference to the committee's "analysis" of information received. The Russian delegation said its proposals aimed to prevent the Committee from making "political decisions" about states' implementation that might have "far-reaching ramifications." He also argued that UNSCR 1673 mandates the Committee only to "compile" information - not assess states' implementation. The Chinese delegation supported Russia's amendments. ¶7. (U) Argentina, UKUN, and the United States expressed disappointment at the Russian delegation's last-minute changes. USUN delivered points on U.S. objectives for the Committee's work program per reftel. Argentina recalled that at the October 2005 seminar on 1540 implementation in Buenos Aires, Latin American and Caribbean states had asked the Committee to make recommendations on priorities states should establish for implementing UNSCR 1540. Argentina said the Committee could not do so without engaging in analysis. UKUN said the Committee could not report to the Security Council in 2008 on states' compliance with UNSCR 1540, as UNSCR 1673 requires, without analyzing information from reporting states. UKUN, Argentina, and Tanzania also expressed their increasing concerns about the Committee's delays in adopting a program of work, particularly since the Chairman and many other delegations would be away in August. ¶8. (U) After extensive debate, the Committee agreed to rely provisionally on operative paras 5 and 6 of UNSCR 1673 to guide its work through August 31. (Note: Both paragraphs set forth the elements of the Committee's work program. End Note.) ¶9. (C) Comment: Russia's objections were predictable but unfortunate. Both in the negotiations of the Committee's April 2006 report to the Council and in the negotiations of UNSCR 1673, Russia expressed concerns about having the Committee press states to comply with UNSCR 1540. Russia insisted repeatedly that UNSCR 1540 applies only to preventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction. Before the meeting, Ionut Suseanu, the Romanian member of the experts' team (please protect),warned USUN that the Russian member of the experts' team (Victor Slipchenko) had opposed aspects of the program that would make the Committee's role more robust (and require the experts to do more). According to Suseanu, Slipchenko intervened both with the Russian Mission and with the Russian Foreign Ministry at the highest levels, providing the same instructions the Russian expert delivered. Slipchenko also opposed any language in the work program to focus the Committee on states' compliance with resolution 1540. Slipchenko has acted repeatedly through the Russian Mission to block U.S. initiatives and objectives for the 1540 Committee. End Comment. ¶10. (U) On July 28, the Russian expert phoned USUN to say Russia's interventions "were not a sign of any intention to freeze the work of the Committee." He stressed his willingness to work to develop alternative language that would address Russia's concerns about politicizing the Committee's work. He said he would brief Moscow but pressed USUN on whether the U.S. would make new proposals. USUN said the U.S. had made its views clear and viewed the UK draft as an acceptable compromise text. The Russian expert then emphasized again Russia's view that UNSCR 1540 applies only to preventing terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction and that the Committee should not attempt to use resolution 1540 against state action. "Resolution 1540 is not about North Korea and Iran," he said. USUN also stressed the U.S. view that resolution 1540 imposes obligations to counter proliferation by and to state and non-state actors. ¶11. (U) Mission recommends that Department consider demarching Moscow and Beijing to appeal for better Russian and Chinese cooperation with U.S. objectives. Securing Russian support is crucial; the Chinese will not block consensus on issues Russia can accept. BOLTON