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