AUSTRIAN RESPONSE: NOVEMBER 2006 CONVENTION ON

C O N F I D E N T I A L VIENNA 003155 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/AGS (YSAINTANDRE),L/PM (ADEEKS),PM, AND ISN E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/27/2016 TAGS: MCAP PARM PREL AU SUBJECT: AUSTRIAN RESPONSE: NOVEMBER 2006 CONVENTION ON CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS REVIEW CONFERENCE REF: STATE 168629 Classified By: Acting Economic-Political Counselor Phillip R. Nelson for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) EconPolOff presented reftel points on October 17 to Dorothea Auer, Head of MFA's Arms Control and Disarmament Department, and Monika Froemler, Auer's advisor on the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW). Regarding the upcoming Review Conference (RevCon) for the CCW, Auer said that consultations are still ongoing within the EU concerning the U.S. "opt-in" approach to the proposed protocol to the CCW on anti-vehicle mines (MOTAPM). The EU, she added, is very close to a decision. ¶2. (C) Auer acknowledged that the GoA has humanitarian concerns about the USG's opt-in approach. She questioned what the added value would be, if the detectibility and mobility issues are opt-in. She said the GoA would rather have countries like Russia, China, and Cuba opt-out, rather than opt-in to a protocol with weak language. According to Auer, the crucial question regarding the RevCon is "where and how deep" the States Parties are willing to go on the MOTAPM issue. The GoA would like to continue discussions on MOTAPM. In response to Auer's question on the on-going work related to the implementation of the ERW protocol, Emboff said the USG was prepared to agree to a meeting of military experts on this. ¶3. (C) Concerning the opt-in approach, Froemler asked whether the USG would accept the definition of "PMAs" in the current paper, which the MOTAPM coordinator circulated in Geneva. She also asked if the USG had consulted with Brazil, the MOTAPM chair, whether difficult countries (Russia China) were willing to discuss the opt-in approch. Addressing the USG's preference to defer futher discussions on MOTAPM, Froemler asked for carification on whether the USG would like to defr MOTAPM discussions entirely or whether MOTAPM culd still be discussed as part of the Second Amendd Protocol (AP2). Froemler questioned what the mplications would be for subtopics -- ERW protocl and compliance -- if the States Parties defer iscussions on MOTAPM. Additionally, if the StatesParties defer discussion on MOTAPM, how would the parties restart the negotiations? ¶4. (U) Guidance Request: Post appreciates guidance from Department regarding Froemler's questions. Kilner