GUIDANCE: UN ILLICIT SA/LW TRAFFICKING RESOLUTION

UNCLAS STATE 150916

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV UNGA
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE: UN ILLICIT SA/LW TRAFFICKING RESOLUTION



1. (U) This is an action request (see paras. 2 and 3).


2. (SBU) Washington has considered USDEL's request for
guidance on joining consensus on the draft resolution
regarding "The Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons
in All Its Aspects" put forward by the delegations from
Colombia, Japan, and South Africa. There are several
elements of the resolution that, if not corrected or deleted,
will prevent the United States from joining consensus.
(Note: As originally written, this guidance cable reversed
the USG position on UN Reforms that began in 2001. In 2001,
it was agreed that the USG would limit its participation in a
review conference on the Program of Action for Small Arms and
Light Weapons to one time only. In July 2006, DNSA Crouch,
U/S Joseph, and A/S Silverberg agreed to reject a UK proposal
to have additional meetings on the Program of Action under
different titles. The agreement reached within the
interagency was that meetings under different names, e.g.,
biennial meeting of States Parties, etc., in fact constitute
de facto review conferences
and would be rejected. The USG voted no on this resolution
last year, precisely for this reason.)

a. (SBU) USDEL should be alert to, and oppose, efforts to
insert text that calls for any review or biennial meetings on
this subject, on the basis that review meetings are
unnecessary. Pursuant to the U.S. policy of opposing new
mandates, in particular review conferences, biennial meetings
and the like, if the final text calls for review meetings of
the recently concluded Group of Governmental Experts (GGE)
meeting on brokering, or for additional meetings to consider
implementation of the Program of Action, USDEL should call
for a vote and vote no.

b. (SBU) USDEL should work to delete PP6 as now formulated
and re-insert previously deleted language, "Reiterating the
significance of the International Instrument to Enable States
to Identify and Trace, in a Timely and Reliable Manner,
Illicit Small Arms and Light Weapons." If the delegation is
unsuccessful, USDEL should vote no.

c. (SBU) USDEL should work to delete the language "as the
main framework for measures in the activities of the
international community to prevent, combat and eradicate the
illicit trade in small arms and light weapons in all its
aspects, beyond 2006," in PP10. If the delegation is
unsuccessful in deleting this language, USDEL should vote no.

d. (SBU) USDEL should work to delete OP4 and OP4bis. If the
delegation is unsuccessful in deleting these paragraphs,
USDEL should vote no.

e. (SBU) USDEL should work to delete the language in OP5,
"well in advance of the next Biennial Meeting of States;" If
the delegation is unsuccessful in deleting this phrase, USDEL
should vote no. However, if the delegation is successful,
then the delegation should seek to add the phrase "and to
highlight their implementation challenges and opportunities"
(which would then be deleted from the end of OP7) to the end
of OP5.

f. (SBU) USDEL should work to delete OP7 in its entirety
except for the clause noted in the guidance paragraph above.
If the delegation is unsuccessful, USDEL should vote no.

g. (SBU) USDEL should work to delete OP8. If the delegation
is unsuccessful, USDEL should vote no.

h. (SBU) USDEL should work to delete OP14. If the
delegation is unsuccessful, USDEL should vote no.

Washington considers these points to be red lines.


3. (SBU) USDEL should propose the following language
modifications to improve the text of this resolution. USDEL
is instructed to join consensus regardless of acceptance of
these modifications, assuming the text does not cross any of
the red lines above:

a. (SBU) Delete the phrase in PP2 "and full" before
"implementation" as the phrase makes the statement too broad;

b. (SBU) Modify the language in PP7 from "that the
international community should address urgently" to "that
each State and Region should address urgently;"

c. (SBU) Modify the language in PP8 to "Emphasizing the
importance of comprehensive national reporting on
implementation of the Programme of Action with a view to
facilitating international cooperation and the rendering of
assistance where such assistance is needed;"

d. (SBU) Modify OP1 to read "Encourages relevant
initiatives, including those of the United Nations, other
international organizations, and regional and subregional
organizations for the successful implementation . . . " All
initiatives are not relevant or helpful, and there is
questionable value in soliciting initiatives from NGOs and
"civil society" in general;

e. (SBU) Delete the phrase in OP2, "among others," as it
does not make sense in this context;

f. (SBU) Modify the language in OP9 to conclude with "where
appropriate."

g. (SBU) Modify the language in OP11 to state "Recognizes
the necessity of States with limited resources to identify
needs and request support accordingly from interested States
in the implementation of the Programme of Action to make
international cooperation and assistance more effective."


4. (U) Questions regarding the subject of brokering should
be directed to Deborah Carroll, PM/DDTC, at (202) 663-2809.
All other questions can be coordinated through Sho Morimoto,
PM/WRA, at (202) 663-0290. Department thanks USDEL for its
assistance and hard work in attending to the formulation of
this resolution.
RICE