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