UNSC/DPRK: SANCTIONS COMMITTEE AGREES ON CHEM/BIO

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 002117 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/31/2016 TAGS: PREL KNNP UNSC KN SUBJECT: UNSC/DPRK: SANCTIONS COMMITTEE AGREES ON CHEM/BIO LIST REF: STATE 176808 (NOTAL) Classified By: Ambassador John R. Bolton, Permanent Representative, for reasons 1.4 b,d. ¶1. (C) Summary. The DPRK Sanctions Committee has agreed on a list of chemical and biological weapons-related items to be included under the sanctions provisions of Resolution 1718. The Committee will now move to a discussion of its own internal guidelines, while simultaneously considering amendments to the sanctions lists and whether to designate individuals or entities for the assets and travel bans. Chinese and Russian representatives have already expressed concern that any move to designate North Koreans by the Committee would disrupt the positive diplomatic movement in advance of the Six Party Talks. End Summary. Chem-Bio List Approved -------------- ¶2. (SBU) After a week of wrangling, the Security Council Committee formed by Resolution 1718 on the DPRK has agreed on a preliminary list of items related to chemical and biological weapons programs to be added to the sanctions imposed by the resolution under paragraph 8(a)(ii). The chem-bio list, which will be issued by the UN as document S/2006/853, joins the nuclear and missile control lists (S/2006/814 and S/2006/815) that were already included in the resolution text. Committee Chairman Peter Burian of Slovakia will communicate the new list to all Member States and remind them of the implementation report due to the Security Council no later than November 13. The Committee's documents will be easily available on its website (www.un.org/docs/sc/committees/1718template). ¶3. (C) The chem-bio list agreed to by the Committee reflects changes to the U.S. proposed list as requested by the Russian, Chinese and French delegations. The Russian delegation was insistent that - because it is not a member of the Australia Group (AG) - any chem-bio list agreed by the Committee could not be based on the AG export control lists. At one point, the Russian delegate told the Committee: "We don't even know what this Australia Group is." The Russians also complained that it was difficult for their experts to work on lists submitted in English, and have requested that any further proposed amendments be translated into all six official UN languages. ¶4. (C) The Chinese and Russian delegations told us explicitly that their deletions were designed to bring the Committee's list into conformity with their existing national legislation, and further amendments will require substantial explanation to convince capital-based experts. The French have quietly apologized that they objected to some items on our list in the first round and have since received instructions to support their inclusion. (The French position, however, had no tangible impact on the approved list, as the Chinese also objected to the same items.) Next steps on the lists -------------- ¶5. (SBU) USUN has reintroduced to the Committee the chem-bio items that were included in our original list but deleted by other delegations. In addition, we plan to re-table our proposed additions to the missile list, and understand the French will re-table their additions to the nuclear list. ¶6. (SBU) There are two particular "clarifications" on which we believe the Committee should act quickly, related to vaccines and consumer products. During the Committee's discussion on November 1, USUN noted that we did not believe the Committee's adoption of the chem-bio list was intended to block the flow of medical vaccines to the DPRK. We would seek an explicit statement to that effect - perhaps as an amendment to the approved list. Similarly, the UK noted that there were trace elements of some prohibited items in consumer goods like toothpaste and shampoo, and proposed that the Committee issue clarifying guidance to Member States. Russia and China lay down markers on future business... -------------- -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Following adoption of the chem-bio list, the November 1 Committee meeting focused on the Committee's internal working guidelines, including listing and de-listing procedures. Delegations agreed to provide specific comments to the Chairman on his proposed guidelines. USUN noted that the 1267 Committee was reviewing a U.S.-French proposal on delisting procedures, and the 1718 Committee should be able to incorporate those provisions once agreed, rather than reinvent the wheel. ¶8. (C) The Chinese took the opportunity during the discussion of the guidelines to note the recent announced resumption of the Six Party Talks. Arguing that the work of the Committee should "be conducive" to the resumption of diplomatic talks, the Chinese delegate said that it was not time for the Committee to consider designating individuals for the financial and travel bans. "The Committee should take into account the political situation," he suggested. The Russians agreed, noting that agreement on the guidelines, in any case, was required before the Committee could consider any designations. ¶9. (C) A number of delegations took the floor to push back against Russian and Chinese arguments for delay. USUN stressed that the adoption of guidelines is not a precondition for any committee action, including sanctions. The 1718 text is clear on this matter. The French, noting the good diplomatic news from Beijing, cited it as proof that "1718 works". Now that we have an instrument that works, he suggested, the Committee should not refrain from using two of its most important mechanisms. The Japanese noted that the Committee's mandate was to implement the provisions of resolution 1718. Any political decisions or change to the mandate was up to the Security Council. It was not for the Committee to make these political judgments. Exactly what is a Luxury Good? -------------- ¶10. (C) Committee Chairman Burian noted that he was receiving numerous questions about exactly what the Council intended to cover under the ban on "luxury goods" in paragraph 8(a)(iii) of the resolution. The Japanese noted that they hoped the Committee would be able to provide guidance to Member States, a sentiment echoed by the Danish. EU countries on the Council noted that discussions were underway in Brussels to develop EU implementation. ¶11. (C) USUN noted that the Committee may not have a mandate to designate specific items to be covered under the luxury goods ban, and suggested that it might be more realistic to first examine States' implementation reports on November 13 and then decide what action should be taken. Member States were under an obligation to implement this provision, but Council members, in negotiating the resolution, had agreed that it would be for national governments to determine what was covered by the ban. (Note: We remain concerned that an effort by the Committee to develop a definition of luxury goods would be unlikely to lead to success at this point, and would distract the Committee from higher priorities - including designations. End Note.) ¶12. (C) France suggested that guidance might be provided bilaterally to interested states. The Chinese suggested that any effort in the Committee to define "luxury goods" would be "mission impossible." In conclusion, Burian said he would continue to respond to questions on the luxury goods provision by noting that the Committee continued to discuss the issue. Committee members agreed with this approach. Comment -------------- ¶13. (C) While the Committee agreed to a relatively comprehensive chem-bio list in its first weeks, China and Russia have made it clear that they will try to make it very slow-going in the Committee as we seek improvements to the lists and possible financial and travel designations in the coming weeks. BOLTON