1540 COMMITTEE MEETS INFORMALLY TO DISCUSS ITS

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000715 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PTER UNSC PARM SUBJECT: 1540 COMMITTEE MEETS INFORMALLY TO DISCUSS ITS FUTURE REF: A. STATE 038101 ¶B. USUN 375 ¶C. USUN 2937 ¶D. USUN 2694 ¶1. SUMMARY: The 1540 Committee (established by resolution 1540 (2004)) met informally March 29 to discuss the extension of its mandate, which expires on April 28, 2006, as well as its future work. In their remarks, delegations reacted to a non-paper on the Committee's future work and the renewal of its mandate that the Chairman had circulated. Many delegations expressed support for a resolution with language to clarify the scope of the Committee's future work, with many hoping the Committee could play a more robust role in promoting states' implementation of resolution 1540. Many delegations argued that the Committee should turn its focus from collecting information and analyzing reports to using that information as a basis for additional efforts to promote states' implementation of resolution 1540. END SUMMARY. ¶2. All delegations other than France, which was not represented by its usual expert, spoke. (Comment: France has made its views well-known, both among the P-5 ambassadors, at the experts' level, and in its statements to the Council: France supports a simple resolution to extend the Committee's current work for two years.) Russia announced that it had started drafting a simple resolution and would circulate it soon. (Comment: Before the meeting, the Russian expert advised that the Mission had not yet received instructions from Moscow on whether to accept a joint U.S./Russian text that specifically directs the Committee to pursue a work program that continues to focus on terrorism financing, among other issues. He hoped Moscow would respond soon so the U.S. and Russia could proceed to circulate a joint text. End comment.) The Chairman indicated that he also would be preparing concrete suggestions. ¶3. Many delegations (including the UK, Denmark, Japan, and Ghana) expressed support for the Committee to play a more robust role in promoting states' implementation of resolution 1540, noting that a resolution to extend the Committee's mandate should provide language to clarify the scope of the Committee's future work. These delegations stressed that the resolution to extend the mandate should include specific language concerning the Committee's expanded mandate, and argued that the Committee should turn its focus from collecting information and analyzing reports to using that information as a basis for additional efforts to promote states' implementation of resolution 1540. ¶4. Timing: Delegations mostly preferred a two-year extension, except for Ghana, which advocated a longer mandate, and Qatar, which questioned the need to renew the mandate at all. In response to Ghana, Japan cautioned that any discussions about how the Committee might play a longer-term role relating to implementation of states' nonproliferation commitments would require more discussion. ¶5. Consolidated Reporting: The Chairman's non-paper recommended that the Committee engage in discussions with the Council's two other counter-terrorism-related subsidiary bodies, the 1267 Committee and the 1373 Committee, concerning proposals to respond to the 2005 Summit Outcome, which encourages the Security Council to consider ways to strengthen its monitoring and enforcement role in counterterrorism, including by consolidating state reporting requirements, taking into account the different mandates of its three subsidiary bodies. Most delegations expressed support for the idea of consolidating reporting to the three committees; USUN commented that consideration of the issue is premature and the Committee needs to take a pragmatic approach to ensure it has the information it needs to conduct its work. While they said they would not oppose the idea of consolidated reporting, Argentina and Greece noted that resolution 1540 addresses different issues from resolutions 1267 and 1373. ¶6. Technical Assistance: Without providing specifics, the UK, Denmark, and Greece argued that the Committee should enhance its role in facilitating technical assistance, and Congo-Brazzaville pointed to great needs for assistance among African countries, many of which have not reported. USUN stressed the U.S. position that although the Committee could continue to serve as a clearinghouse for information relating to technical assistance, it should not direct states' decisions on assistance. ¶7. Outreach/International and Regional Organizations: Delegations expressed support for working more closely with international organizations that could assist states in implementing resolution 1540. Delegations also expressed support for enhancing the Committee's outreach efforts to promote states' compliance with their obligations under resolution 1540. ¶8. States' Implementation: Referring to a request by Latin American states participating in the UK/Argentina-sponsored conference in Buenos Aires last fall for the Committee to help them set priorities for implementing resolution 1540, the UK stressed that the Committee should respond to requests by states and regional organizations for assistance in setting priorities for implementing resolution 1540. ¶9. Proliferation Financing: USUN stressed the importance of the Committee focusing on proliferation financing in its future work. China said it needed instructions from Beijing. (Comment: On the margins of the meeting, the Greek delegation approached USUN to inquire about our proposal to expand resolution 1540 to require states to freeze proliferation-related transactions and assets. USUN stressed our desire for the Committee to enhance its focus on proliferation financing.) ¶10. Chairman Burian summed up the meeting by noting that members appeared to agree generally on the shape of the Committee's future work. BOLTON