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