1540 COMMITTEE DISCUSSES MIDDLE EAST OUTREACH,

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000127 SIPDIS SIPDIS FOR IO/PSC:JSANDAGE, IO/UNP:EBROWN, AND ISN/CPI:TWUCHTE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL AORC PTER UNSC KNNP SUBJECT: 1540 COMMITTEE DISCUSSES MIDDLE EAST OUTREACH, EXPERTS REF: A. KONZET/SANDAGE/BROWN EMAILS (02/05/07 & 02/06/07) ¶B. STATE 12967 ¶C. BROWN/WILCOX EMAIL (02/08/07) ¶D. WILCOX/SANDAGE/BROWN EMAIL (02/08/07) ¶E. USUN 19 ¶F. WILCOX/SANDAGE/BROWN EMAIL (02/06/07) ¶G. STATE 6792 ¶1. (SBU) BEGIN SUMMARY: At an informal meeting February 7, the 1540 Committee discussed outreach activities; a proposed roadmap for implementing its program of work; and proposals for coordination among the Committee's experts, the Counter-Terrorism Committee Executive Directorate (CTED) and the 1267 Monitoring Team, as well as the three committees (ref A). The Committee also debated its process for seeking new nominations for the three slots on the Committee's experts' panels that Rocque Monteleone-Neto, Gunterio Heineken, and Berhanykun Andemical will fill until their two-year anniversaries as UN consultants expire. END SUMMARY. Middle East Workshop -------------- ¶2. (SBU) After Chairman Burian expressed gratitude for Jordan's letter, offering to host a regional meeting in the Middle East on implementation of resolution 1540, several Committee members expressed concern, stressing the need to clarify Jordan's intentions concerning participation. (Note: Per ref B, USUN previously had advised Chairman Burian and the Jordanian Mission of the U.S. desire for Jordan to host a regional workshop for the Middle East on implementation of resolution 1540 before the end of this summer, as well as U.S. willingness to fund such an event. USUN had stressed the U.S. desire for an initial meeting with broad participation, along the lines of the 2006 regional seminars in Beijing, Accra, and Lima, to be followed by narrower sub-regional events involving the Arab League or other groups. After Jordan submitted its offer to host the event, USUN advised Italy, France, and the UK of our view that Jordan would be an excellent host and requested their support.) ¶3. (SBU) While indicating that it still needed instructions, France asked whether Israel or the North African states would participate, noting the sensitivities that have arisen in the General Assembly First Committee concerning Israeli participation in non-proliferation-related events. Italy praised Jordan's contributions to several aspects of nonproliferation and disarmament, but stressed that it would not welcome any initiative that would risk becoming overly politicized, rather than focusing on action-oriented approaches to fostering implementation of resolution 1540. Per ref B, USUN welcomed Jordan's offer and supported a broad Middle East outreach event. After Chairman Burian suggested proposing that the Jordanian Mission convene the meeting for members of the League of Arab States, USUN, per ref B, reiterated the view that the meeting should be a regional event, with follow-on work that could occur in the Arab League or other venues. The Chairman concluded by proposing to contact the Jordanian Mission for clarification. (Per USUN's subsequent consultations with Department and ref C, USUN will follow up again with the Jordanian Mission to clarify that the United States believes the seminar should be an event with broad participation from Arab countries only. End comment.) Implementation of Program of Work -------------- ¶4. (U) The Committee briefly discussed the experts' paper listing the specific elements of the Committee's 12-month work program and the tasks the Committee and its experts will carry out to fulfill those elements. Summing up the discussion, Chairman Burian suggested the Committee use the experts' paper as a practical tool, treating it as a living document rather than approving it formally, which might lead to lengthy, unproductive drafting negotiations. Assistance -------------- ¶5. (U) U.S. expert Richard Cupitt introduced a paper presenting four proposals for the Committee to pursue in facilitating the delivery of technical assistance (ref D). First, the Committee's experts could develop a database of individuals managing non-proliferation-related assistance programs in states, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations. Second, the Committee's experts could develop networks of experts in different regions for each of the types of prohibitions and controls in the resolution who could support requests for assistance. Third, the Committee could encourage states to contribute government-sponsored experts or participants in assistance programs; the Committee would maintain a database of these contributions. Fourth, the Committee's experts could identify or, where necessary, help develop sets of national practices, together with multilateral institutions, professional bodies, and expert networks. Because no Committee members had seen the paper previously, the Committee did not react. (Comment: To have the broadest impact, USUN believes that the databases the experts have proposed should be posted on the Committee's website. End comment.) ¶6. (SBU) Chairman Burian also advised that Norway and Germany would provide the Committee with details on their plans for a 1540 donors' workshop in New York on March 27. USUN reiterated the United States' desire, as a significant donor of assistance relating to implementation of resolution 1540, to participate actively in the workshop and to contribute to its planning (ref E). Burian encouraged delegations to provide their input bilaterally with Germany and Norway even before the Committee's discussion. (Note: Per ref F, USUN has consulted with the German and Norwegian Missions to convey the U.S. interest in contributing to the planning process and participating actively in the workshop. Both Missions encouraged the United States to provide specific input to Berlin and Oslo, where planning is occurring in Oslo and Berlin. Contact points are "Section Referat 240" at the Germany Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Kare Aaf, Director General of the Department for Security Policy at the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Norwegian Mission has advised that the meeting will take place at the Millenium Hotel (across from the United Nations) and that 10-12 donors are expected to participate.) Coordination among the 1540 Experts, CTED, the the 1267 Monitoring Team, and Their Three Committees -------------- -------------- ¶7. (U) The Committee discussed the experts' proposals for pursuing a common strategy for non- and late-reporting states with CTED and the 1267 Monitoring Team and agreed to revisit the issue at its next meeting. The experts recommended that they pursue their collaboration with CTED and the Monitoring Team only insofar as those efforts supplement and help to achieve the Committee's primary objectives and activities. The experts said that the experts' groups do not think it would be feasible to send a common questionnaire to non- and late-reporting states or to request combined reports, not only due to differing mandates but also because the 1267 Committee and 1540 Committee are still seeking first reports from some states while the Counter-Terrorism Committee (CTC) has made more reporting requests. Doing so could confuse states and even discourage them from responding. Instead, the experts suggested approaching non- and late-reporting states through sub-regional workshops the three groups would conduct. As a pilot, the three groups intend to pursue workshops for states in Africa that have not reported or are late in reporting to the three committees. Those workshops would supplement the 1540 Committee's other outreach activities in Africa. France and UKUN stressed the need to focus on specific results and to pursue only those approaches that can yield concrete improvements in states' reporting. ¶8. (U) The Chairman proposed that he, together with the Chairmen of the CTC and the 1267 Committee, should brief the Council twice annually rather than quarterly. Several delegations supported Chairman Burian's proposal as a way to make the briefings more efficient and focused. Chairman Burian said he would consult with the two other Chairmen. Experts -------------- ¶9. (SBU) After the experts left at the Chairman's request, the Committee discussed how to fill the three spaces on the experts' panel that will open up after Rocque Monteleone-Neto, Gunterio Heineken, and Berhanykun Andemical reach their two-year anniversaries as UN consultants. The Committee's deliberations followed on its February 6 decision to adopt the Chairman's proposal to extend the contracts of Monteleone-Neto, Heineken, and Andemicael through their two-year anniversaries, while renewing the contracts of Victor Slipchenko and Richard Cupitt through December 31, 2007 (ref G). Before the experts left, Monteleone-Neto asked the Committee to reconsider its February 6 decision, saying that the affected experts would not stay through their two-year anniversaries unless the Committee instead agreed to extend their contracts through December 31, 2007. ¶10. (SBU) Panama, South Africa, and Peru stressed that, while the Committee should not revisit its decision, the process for reaching that decision had been flawed. Several argued that the Committee should not rule out the possibility of extending the contracts of Monteleone-Neto, Heineken, and Andemicael through the end of 2007. Some complained that they had not fully understood the Chairman's proposal when they accepted it. ¶11. (SBU) In response, Chairman Burian stressed that all Committee members had had repeated opportunities to raise questions and concerns before the Committee reached its February 6 decision, and that the Committee's decision reflected the views of all members. He also said there must be a clear division of responsibility among the experts to ensure that they are fulfilling the tasks for which they have been hired. He noted that Monteleone-Neto, as coordinator, had refused the Chairman's repeated requests (on behalf of the Committee) for the coordinator to provide terms of reference for the experts' work. He stressed that Monteleone-Neto's refusal does not justify a decision not to retain him, but added that he had not experienced comparable problems with the previous coordinator. He then proposed to circulate a draft note verbale shortly for the Committee's consideration. That note verbale would invite states to nominate candidates for three spots on the experts' panel. Eritrea, Argentina, and Brazil could re-nominate their nationals on the panel (Andemicael, Heineken, and Monteleone-Neto),and other states could make new nominations. Chairman Burian stressed that the decision to retain Andemicael, Heineken, or Monteleone-Neto through the end of 2007 ultimately rests with the Committee. WOLFF