wikileaks ico  Home papers ico  Cables mirror and Afghan War Diary privacy policy  Privacy
IdentifierCreatedClassificationOrigin
07THEHAGUE413 2007-03-07 14:47:00 CONFIDENTIAL Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

NETHERLANDS/MTCR: NO MAJOR OBJECTIONS TO U.S.

Tags:   MTCRE PARM PREL ETTC KSCA MNUC TSPA NL 
pdf how-to read a cable


1. (C) Summary: The GONL has no major concerns regarding the
latest U.S. proposal to modernize Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) controls on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and
cruise missiles, and suggested that the EU will support it.
However, the Dutch have minor reservations regarding the
proposal's revision of the 300 kilometer range/500 kilogram
payload, and suggested an additional explanation by the USG
at the Oslo Technical Experts Meeting would be greatly
appreciated. MFA Senior Advisor for Nuclear and
Nonproliferation Affairs Ceta Noland discussed these issues
with POLMILOFF on March 7. End summary.



2. (C) Noland said the GONL is currently reviewing the latest
U.S. proposal to modernize MTCR controls on UAVs and cruise
missiles. The GONL supports the need to review Category 1
and 2 definitions, she said, as current definitions have
become antiquated due to technological advances. Noland
noted that the Dutch have "no major concerns" with the U.S.
proposal and added we should "not be worried" about EU
support -- most EU members favor the proposal, while the UK
urged EU members at a recent non-proliferation meeting in
Brussels to accept it. She also welcomed the proposal's new
revisions, especially those incorporated from a South African
counterproposal.



3. (C) That said, Noland acknowledged that the Dutch have
small reservations regarding the proposal's revision of the
300 kilometer range/500 kilogram payload criteria. She said
the "workable" U.S. proposal remained "quite complicated" due
to the 300/500 criteria revision, and noted the GONL prefers
the "straight-forward" South African counterproposal. She
further characterized Dutch reservations on the 300/500
criteria revision as "a gut feeling," and suggested they
might lead to loopholes the USG could exploit. She
reiterated that these concerns were minor, but added that an
additional explanation by the U.S. delegation at the Oslo
Technical Experts Meeting would be greatly appreciated.

BLAKEMAN