SOUTH AFRICA CRITICIZES 1540 TO UK EXPERT

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 001186 SIPDIS SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/18/2017 TAGS: PREL PTER UNSC SUBJECT: SOUTH AFRICA CRITICIZES 1540 TO UK EXPERT Classified By: Amb. Jackie Wolcott, for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Begin Summary: Nick Low, Head of the Nuclear Issues Section in the United Kingdom's Counter Proliferation Department, recently discussed issues relating to resolution 1540 (2004) with Abdul Minty, Deputy Director General for non-proliferation issues in South Africa's Department of Foreign Affairs. UKUN provided USUN with details on Low's conversation. End Summary. ¶2. (C) Low said that, according to Minty, South Africa has three difficulties with the way resolution 1540 was being pursued: (1) conceptual; (2) utility; and (3) value for money. Because 1540 had been discussed in South Africa at a Cabinet Sub-Committee and then at full Cabinet, South Africa's position in New York reflected this high-level political position. Minty said South Africa was unhappy at the Security Council being turned into a legislative organ and the establishment of a secretariat, which is an implicit attack on the principle of multilateralism; South Africa feels it would be better to deal with 1540 in the context of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He also said that South Africa's position has not changed, as indicated by its first report to the 1540 Committee, and that if South Africa has been fingered as a member of the "Awkward Squad," it is simply because it dared to speak out when many others shared its thinking but remained silent. ¶3. (C) With respect to utility-based concerns, Minty communicated South Africa's belief that resolution 1540 is completely focused on laws and regulations, and that such a focus does not work in reality. He said that resolution 1540 is not producing the practical and operational improvements that are required. According to Minty, while the A.Q. Khan case had demonstrated the urgent need to share information, resolution 1540 had not delivered. He also claimed that resolution 1540 is not creating desperately needed investigative or prosecutorial capacity. Furthermore, he said that the Council works at the level of the most developed, which is self-defeating, and that it browbeats developing countries to pass laws so that the Security Council's 1540 Committee can tick boxes on a matrix. Instead, he said that South Africa wants practical capacity building action; to that end, it is drawing up a manual to share with developing countries and has undertaken practical outreach work in Haiti, Kenya and Uganda. Additionally, he expressed South Africa's belief that the national reports submitted by most African countries do not mean anything, and that there should be a separate form for developing countries. He said that while the U.S. was originally quite keen on this idea, it is now suggesting that such an approach would reduce standards. However, he said that expecting the least developed countries to achieve the outlined standards was pie in the sky, and the fact was that the 1540 Committee Chair was under pressure to deliver results. ¶4. (C) In terms of value for money, Minty said that the 1540 Committee and its Group of Experts were eating up resources from the regular budget that could, and should, be spent on more developmentally necessary work. He indicated that there was a real risk of a backlash from the Non-Aligned Movement. ¶5. (C) Finally, Minty clarified that none of his observations should create the perception that South Africa is difficult on the objective of preventing materials related to weapons of mass destruction from falling into the hands of criminals and terrorists. Rather, he said that South Africa's concern is that resolution 1540 is not delivering. He said that South Africa does not want weak neighbors who allow proliferation of dangerous materials, nor does it want the authority of the Council to be brought into disrepute or the loss of international political support for this important agenda. ¶6. (C) Low also indicated that he discussed his post-Botswana workshop perceptions with Minty, and that while there were some ideological differences, he does not think the situation is as grim as the above may indicate. ¶7. (C) Comment: Minty's comments, as Low presents them, are consistent with statements South Africa has made in Security Council's discussions of resolution 1540, as well as comments and positions South Africa has taken in the 1540 Committee. One new point is South Africa's assertion that the United States has opposed South Africa's proposal for the 1540 Committee to establish different reporting standards for developing countries. USUN has not told South Africa that its proposal would "reduce standards" (although the reporting request in resolution 1540 applies to all states). Recently South Africa's expert has suggested that the best way for the Committee to avoid theological disagreements about the scope of resolution 1540 would be to hew closely to the text of resolution 1540 in its public pronouncements, rather than trying to make broader statements about the objectives of resolution 1540. South Africa's approach in this regard seems useful and may offer a way for the Committee to focus on technical issues, rather than political debates that offer little hope of resolution. End Comment. Khalilzad