1540 COMMITTEE: UK VIEWS ON PROGRAM OF WORK

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001667 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: UK VIEWS ON PROGRAM OF WORK REF: A. USUN 1532 ¶B. STATE 12839 ¶C. STATE 114027 ¶D. USUN 1428 ¶E. WILCOX/BROWN EMAIL--08/29/06 ¶1. USUN LegalOff met with UKUN First Secretary Samantha Purdy on August 29 to discuss the draft work program for the 1540 Committee, which the Russian delegation blocked on July 27 after presenting last-minute amendments it said would avoid "politicizing" the Committee's work (reftels). Purdy said she had recommended that the UK press the Russians to withdraw their objections but had not received London's response. Purdy said she had not had further discussions with the Russian delegation in New York and expressed interest in USUN's account of its August 10 discussion with Russia's 1540 expert concerning the draft work program (ref A). ¶2. UK PermRep Jones Parry will meet with 1540 Committee Chairman and Slovak PermRep Peter Burian on August 30 to discuss the program of work. (Note: Burian also has requested a meeting with Amb. Bolton to discuss the program of work. End Note.) Jones Parry will ask Burian whether the Russians have indicated any willingness to withdraw their proposals and accept the proposed program of work, or whether they have developed new language that might be more acceptable. Jones Parry also will express concern that the Committee's work program "is being held hostage" by Russian Committee expert Victor Slipchenko and argue that the Committee cannot take direction from any member of its experts' team. (Note: Per ref A, Slipchenko originated the amendments Russia introduced on July 27. End Note.) Purdy thought Jones Parry's views on how to proceed would depend on Burian's response. ¶3. Purdy sought USUN's views on two alternatives if the Russians do not withdraw their amendments or propose an acceptable compromise: (1) extending the current program, which relies on the language from paragraphs 5 and 6 of resolution 1673 (2005),before it expires on August 31, or (2) refusing to agree to any work program until the Russians accept the current draft. She expressed concern that the first option would not provide sufficient clarity to enable the Committee and its experts to work productively and efficiently. She also thought the second option might be overly confrontational, although it might enable the Committee to seek revocation of the experts' contracts, which currently are effective through December 31, 2006. Specifically, she hoped the Committee could prevent Slipchenko from obstructing its work by removing him from the experts' team, although she noted that attempting to dismiss Slipchenko would be politically difficult. She acknowledged that a better approach might be to wait for Slipchenko's contract to lapse in December, after which UN rules prohibit him from continuing to serve. ¶4. USUN responded that continuing to rely on the language of resolution 1673 could lead to additional delays in the Committee. USUN also questioned whether the UN could revoke Slipchenko's contract if the Committee refused to agree upon a work program. (Comment: Although Slipchenko's actions have been a problem, the political costs of seeking his dismissal just four months before his contract expires seem to outweigh any potential advantage. End Comment.) Purdy agreed to advise USUN on Jones Parry's August 30 meeting with Burian. She also said she would look more carefully at the compromise language Argentina circulated to Committee members on August 8 (ref E). ¶5. USUN has not yet consulted with the French Mission, because the officer who serves on the Committee is on vacation. In early August, the French Mission had presented proposed compromise language to Paris. UKUN and USUN expressed reservations about the language and asked France not to circulate it to Committee members, which it has not. BOLTON