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