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