1540 COMMITTEE: RUSSIAN VIEWS ON PROGRAM OF WORK

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001532

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

FOR IO/UNP:EBROWN AND ISN/CPI:TWUCHTE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL AORC PTER UNSC KNNP
SUBJECT: 1540 COMMITTEE: RUSSIAN VIEWS ON PROGRAM OF WORK

REF: A. STATE 128389


B. STATE 114027

C. USUN 1428


1. USUN LegalOff delivered ref A points, concerning the 1540
Committee's draft program of work, to Russian Mission First
Secretary Denis Paletskiy on August 10. While acknowledging

SIPDIS
that Victor Slipchenko, the Russian on the 1540 Committee's
team of experts, might have originated the objections Russia
introduced, Paletskiy stressed that the Russian Mission now
had "strict" instructions from Moscow to seek amendments to
the draft. Paletskiy appealed to USUN to show flexibility
and help develop a compromise that could meet Russian
concerns, stressing that he did not think involving capitals
would be useful.


2. Paletskiy said the Russian Federation was concerned that
aspects of the work program could lead the Committee to make
"politically motivated decisions," which would distract the
Committee from achieving its main goals. He stressed that
the Russian Federation did not want to block the Committee's
work and agreed that the Committee's experts would need to
analyze data about states' implementation to accomplish their
work.


3. Until the Committee has received reports from the states
that have not yet submitted a report, it would be "premature"
for the Committee to focus on other areas of states'
implementation, he said. The Committee should not engage in
a "thematic consideration of the obligations and requirements
under SCR 1540 and SCR 1673, based on analysis by the
experts, to identify areas for further work by the
Committee," he said. He also questioned the need for the
Committee to "engage in further analysis in areas in which
its initial examination of reports revealed gaps in
information or implementation related to all aspects of the
resolution encompassing all measures required, for each type
of weapons, for their respective means of delivery, and for
the materials related to them." He continued that the
Russian Federation did not want to expand the Committee's
matrix. Instead, the Committee should focus on the gaps
reflected in the states' matrices the Committee's experts had
prepared.


4. Paletskiy then asked whether the United States could
accept Russia's request to delete language tasking the
Committee to "identify and agree priority measures that
States should take to implement resolution 1540 fully,"
stressing that Russia's alternative language came from the
Committee's April 2006 report to the Council. If the United
States could accept that change, Paletskiy suggested he would
have more flexibility to move forward on the rest of the
text. (Comment: Russia has proposed that the Committee
would "respond to specific requests by Member States to help
identify priorities in the process of national implementation
of resolution 1540." USUN recommends accepting Russia's
language, which is consistent with the Committee's report to
the Council and with reftel points if Russia's flexibility on
the rest of the text would help the USG accomplish its
overall objectives. End Comment.)

BOLTON