ICELAND NOT IN FAVOR OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS BAN, BUT IS

UNCLAS REYKJAVIK 000154

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR PM/WRA, EUR/NB

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: MOPS NATO PARM PREL IC
SUBJECT: ICELAND NOT IN FAVOR OF CLUSTER MUNITIONS BAN, BUT IS
CLOSELY FOLLOWING NORWEGIAN POSITION

Ref: State 66596


1. (SBU) Summary: Iceland has not taken a final position on the
cluster munitions issue, but is unwilling to support a complete ban
on their use. However, due to regional solidarity and a desire to
make disarmament a key issue in Iceland's campaign for a UN Security
Council seat, the GOI is inclined to support Norwegian efforts.
Further engagement on the NATO-related impacts of such a ban and USG
views on the way forward through the framework of the Convention on
Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) may bear fruit in helpfully
shaping the GOI position. End summary.


2. (SBU) PolOff presented reftel points on May 18 to Icelandic
Ministry for Foreign Affairs Ambassador for Arms Control Issues
Petur Thorsteinsson. Asked directly whether or not Iceland favored
a total ban on cluster munitions, Thorsteinsson said that was not
currently the Icelandic Government's position. However, Iceland is
looking closely at the Norwegian Government's stance on the matter,
and is still studying the Lima text.


3. (SBU) PolOff pointed out to Thorsteinsson that a ban on cluster
munitions -- the effective result of the provisions of the current
draft -- would have an immediate negative impact on NATO operations
and other joint military activities which Iceland has expressed its
support for. Thorsteinsson expressed his appreciation for USG views
on the topic, and asked for clarification as to what process the
U.S. would like to see go forward in the CCW. He added that it had
been the GOI's understanding that the slow pace of CCW movement on
the issue was at least in part due to a USG desire to see no action
taken regarding cluster munitions. PolOff replied that the U.S. is
prepared to see a negotiating mandate in the CCW to deal with the
issue, vice the current discussion mandate.


4. (SBU) By way of background, Thorsteinsson noted that Iceland's
candidacy for a UN Security Council seat in 2009-2010 is in part
based on the idea that Iceland, as a nation without a military of
its own, could help drive action on disarmament and arms control.
As such, the MFA felt "obligated" to take some action on the cluster
munitions issue. That said, he also allowed that Iceland needed to
take military realities into account by virtue of its NATO
membership, and looked forward to hearing the views of other NATO
allies on the topic.


5. (SBU) Comment: Post believes that two related dynamics are at
work here. In the first case, as Thorsteinsson alluded to, Iceland
is looking for issues to "make its own" as part of its campaign for
a UNSC seat. Disarmament and weapons abatement mesh nicely with
Iceland's record of deploying explosive ordnance disposal personnel
to crisis zones, making the cluster munitions issue appealing.
Secondly, there is the matter of Nordic consonance on foreign policy
issues, whereby the MFA feels pressure to support initiatives by
other Nordic countries in the absence of overriding domestic
factors. As Iceland has no military, there are few voices within
the GOI that will argue for -- or be naturally inclined to agree
with -- the military necessity of cluster munitions, meaning the
default policy will likely be one of supporting Norwegian efforts.
In response, Post will increase our engagement with those actors
more open to NATO-related concerns on a cluster munitions ban.
Additionally, Post would welcome further points on the USG approach
to dealing with the issue in the CCW.


VAN VOORST