Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06USUNNEWYORK1789
2006-09-12 20:37:00
UNCLASSIFIED
USUN New York
Cable title:  

1540: RUSSIANS CIRCULATE "COMPROMISE" ON WORK

Tags:  PARM PREL AORC PTER UNSC KNNP 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #1789/01 2552037
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 122037Z SEP 06
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0173
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001789 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

FOR IO/UNP:EBROWN, IO/PSC:JSANDAGE AND ISN/CPI:TWUCHTE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL AORC PTER UNSC KNNP
SUBJECT: 1540: RUSSIANS CIRCULATE "COMPROMISE" ON WORK
PROGRAM

REF: A. KONZET/BROWN/WUCHTE EMAIL-09/08/06

B. USUN 1720

C. USUN 1667

D. USUN 1532

E. USUN 1428

F. STATE 128389

G. STATE 114027

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 001789

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

FOR IO/UNP:EBROWN, IO/PSC:JSANDAGE AND ISN/CPI:TWUCHTE

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL AORC PTER UNSC KNNP
SUBJECT: 1540: RUSSIANS CIRCULATE "COMPROMISE" ON WORK
PROGRAM

REF: A. KONZET/BROWN/WUCHTE EMAIL-09/08/06

B. USUN 1720

C. USUN 1667

D. USUN 1532

E. USUN 1428

F. STATE 128389

G. STATE 114027


1. (U) BEGIN SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUEST: On September 8, the
Russian Mission circulated new compromise language for the
1540 Committee's work program (ref A),revising amendments it
had presented after blocking adoption of the draft work
program on July 27. Russia's new language proposes that the
Committee engage in "greater compilation" - rather than
analysis -- of information on states' implementation of
resolution 1540 (2004). Notably, it reinstates two
paragraphs Russia had sought to delete earlier, which task
the Committee to undertake further compilation in areas in
which its initial examination of reports revealed gaps in
information or implementation related to all aspects of the
resolution, including expanding the matrix as necessary, and
to undertake thematic consideration of the obligations and
requirements under resolutions 1540 and 1673, based on
compilation by the experts, to identify areas for further
work for the Committee. (However, the Russians continue to
seek to change all relevant references from "analysis" to
"compilation.") Mission seeks instructions, by no later than
10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, September 13, on whether to accept
the Russian language. END SUMMARY AND ACTION REQUEST.


2. (SBU) Russia has introduced its proposals after series of
meetings at both the ambassadorial and experts' level, at
which USUN and other delegations urged Russia to find a way
to break the impasse (refs B-E). At a P-5 ambassadors'
meeting September 5, Russia reiterated its opposition to any
language suggesting that the Committee analyze or make value
judgments about states' implementation of resolution 1540
(2004),while French PermRep de la Sabliere said France could
not accept language tasking the Committee merely to compile
information because it would be too weak. Amb. Bolton noted
that the Committee's entire purpose was to offer assistance

to improve their export controls and cooperation in
preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction
and related delivery systems. He said it seems only logical
that states' reports to the Committee must be analyzed so the
Committee and its experts have some idea of how to set
priorities and where to offer relevant assistance.


3. (SBU) Neither the French nor the UK delegations have
responded to Russia's latest proposals, but USUN-Legal's
September 6 meeting with French and UK experts suggests that
Russia's proposals might disappoint the French in particular.
At that meeting, French and UK experts stressed that the
onus remains on the Russians to propose an acceptable
compromise, and France has refused to approve any requests
for the Committee's experts to travel to conferences and
other events until the Committee has adopted a suitable work
program. At the September 6 meeting, France seemed to have
the least flexibility, although the French expert indicated
willingness to work with the UK and the U.S. to develop
options. To ensure that the Committee can function and
produce useful results, both thought the P-5 should reach a
"political agreement" to complement any agreement on the work
program.


4. (SBU) The French expert said the French Mission has been
instructed to reject anything in the program of work that
does not specifically task the experts to undertake
"detailed" work on the means of delivery-related provisions
of resolution 1540. France is frustrated that the 1540
experts (Russian expert Victor Slipchenko and Brazilian
expert Roque Monteleone-Neto in particular) did little
analysis of states' compliance with the means of delivery
parts of 1540 during the Committee's first mandate, despite
frequent French requests. France is unwilling to allow the
experts to continue to sidestep the issue. France also
complained that the 1540 experts read 1540 narrowly as an
instrument that covers only the requirements of the NPT, the
CWC, and the BWC, as well as issues concerning non-state
actors. (Note: We understand from another member of the
experts' team, who has since moved on, that only Russia and
the United States reported on their implementation of the
means of delivery portions of UNSCR 1540. End Note.)


5. (U) UKUN suggested that the Committee should discuss the
means of delivery provisions of UNSCR 1540 this fall before
the MTCR briefs the Committee. (Note: The Danes have
indicated that the MTCR will ask to brief the Committee
sometime later this fall. End Note.)



6. (SBU) Otherwise, UKUN and the French also expect that
their ambassadors will make regretful comments on the 1540
Committee's inability to reach consensus on a work program
when 1540 Committee Chairman and Slovak PermRep Burian briefs
the Council on September 28, along with Counter-Terrorism
Committee Chairman and Danish PermRep Loj and 1267 Committee
Chairman and Argentine PermRep Mayoral. The Committee's
current work program expires on Friday, September 15.


7. (SBU) Comment: This may not be a matter of finding
bridging language with the Russians. We appear to have a
fundamental difference of opinion in our approach to the
future of the 1540 Committee. The kind of "compilation" that
the Russians seek -- and the prohibition on "analysis" --
would lead to a Committee that does not meet our basic
objectives. France has taken a strong position that the
Committee and its experts must do more than simply compile
states' reports, and although the UK appears more ready to
compromise, it agrees that the Committee must do more than
simply collect information. While Russia remains isolated it
may be time, together with the France and the UK, to raise
the issue to the political level with the Russians. We
believe that an emphasis on the need for "analysis" as a
means of directing technical assistance will appeal to the
majority of Council members. In the meantime, we should work
with France and the UK to find ways to permit the Committee
to work productively while avoiding Russia's concerns about
"politicizing" its work or turning it into a forum for
designating compliant and non-compliant states. End Comment.

BOLTON