1540: UPDATE ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000519

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PTER UNSC PARM
SUBJECT: 1540: UPDATE ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES

REF: STATE 78188


1. (SBU) Summary. Per reftel, USUN has solicited views
from 1540 Committee Members on how to handle matrices more
broadly and with specific regard to Iran. The Chair
(Slovakia) has indicated that he intends to hold a meeting in
late June to consider formally how matrices are handled.
UNODA has made available a CD-ROM which includes the updated
matrices of 76 states prepared by experts. The Iran matrix
is included. UNODA is under the erroneous impression that
the sub-committee on which the U.S. serves approved the draft
Iran matrix (in April 2006 we agreed to take no action on
it). At this time it appears there is wide agreement on how
to deal with matrices more broadly, but UNODA has essentially
forced our hand now on the Iran matrix by including it on the
CD-ROM.


2. (SBU) USUN also reiterated the willingness of the USG
to co-sponsor and provide funding for a 1540 workshop in
Jordan, assuming it is held at the Cooperative Monitoring
Center (CMC). Our understanding, while nothing is official,
is that Jordan has agreed to this and we expect official
confirmation shortly. USUN has communicated to UNODA that
due to procedural issues, the USG money must go to the CMC
itself. This may raise some coordination and logistical
issues. USUN is prepared to meet with UNODA to hammer these
out as appropriate.


Matrices


3. (SBU) Since April 2006, the Committee has not taken
any further action on the matrices analyzing states,
implementation of Resolution 1540 (2004) that the
Committee,s experts have prepared. There was broad support
for addressing this issue prior to the Donors Conference
meeting, currently scheduled for July 11th here in New York.
On June 12th, UNODA made available to Committee Members a
CD-ROM which contains 76 updated matrices, including Iran.
Per reftel, USUN canvassed views on the disposition of the
matrices. There appeared to be no opposition to returning
matrices to Member States that submitted them as a means to
enhance and continue dialogue about implementation of 1540.
While Committee Members supported the goal of transparency in
theory, it is not clear that there is consensus to support
sharing matrices with other States and organizations, even if
the individual state in question consents. Some feel Russia
and China will invoke the security argument, maintaining that
too much transparency might expose weaknesses that could be
exploited by those with intentions counter to the goals
established by 1540. Privately, several delegations agreed
that Russia and China are likely more concerned that maximum
transparency will facilitate &criticism8 of Member States
whose implementation of 1540 may be lackluster.


4. (SBU) Per reftel, USUN solicited views on whether the
function of the matrix was simply to summarize information
provided by Member States, or should it provide an accurate
picture of States, circumstances. The overwhelming view was
that it should simply summarize the information presented.
Accuracy, of course, was an ideal goal, but the belief was
that if a State provided inaccurate information or was
intentionally trying to deceive the Committee, then it would
be unlikely to seek assistance or engage in dialogue on that
particular issue in any case. Many felt that using experts
or outside sources to make submissions more accurate would be
highly controversial and might encourage Member States to
provide less, not more information. If in fact a state
submitted inaccurate or incomplete information, but was
sincere in wanting to work with the Committee, then there
were better ways to address these shortcomings than by
indirectly (or directly) criticizing their voluntary
submissions. If in fact a state was being intentionally
deceitful, then the issue was moot because there was very
little the Committee could or should do in response given the
Committee,s mandate.


5. (SBU) Per reftel, USUN also solicited views on whether
or not &approval8 of a matrix constitutes &endorsement8,
or is it only administrative function? Consistent with the
views noted in para 3, there was consensus that the matrix in
no way is meant as a stamp of approval about the validity and
veracity of respective Member States, reports upon which the
matrix is based. There was an overwhelming sense that the
Committee could best serve as a conduit between donors and
Member States that requested assistance, and that those
Member States seeking assistance would find it in their own
self-interest to provide an accurate picture.


6. (SBU) Per reftel, USUN sought views from other
Committee members about how to dispose of the Iran matrix in
particular. USUN sought views from others operating under
the assumption that the Iran matrix would not be included for

consideration at the end of the June meeting. Based on the
working assumption, all friendly countries spoken to,
including the Chair, felt it was better to let the specific
case of Iran lay dormant for a while, since the Subcommittee
did not approve Iran,s matrix in April 2006. Other
Committee members more broadly agreed that the Committee
should not take any action that might be inconsistent with
any decision by the Security Council of Iran,s nuclear
weapons program. Unfortunately, on June 12th, UNODA made
available to Committee members a CD-ROM with 76 updated
matrices, one of them being Iran. In essence, the issue is
now being forced upon us. USUN has spoken only with the UK,
France and the Chair about this issue. The preferred option
is that the Iran matrix be &quietly removed8 from
consideration at the next meeting. Whether or not this is
possible remains unclear. Attempting to block consideration
of Iran,s matrix would be viewed by several Committee
members, notably China and Russia, as outside the mandate of
the Committee and unnecessarily provocative.

Jordan Workshop


7. (U) USUN spoke with UNODA about our willingness and
hope to co-sponsor a 1540-related workshop at Jordan,s
Cooperative Monitoring Center. UNODA said they had still not
received official confirmation from the Jordanians on the
site location, but expect to hear shortly that the Jordanians
have agreed. Given that the money from the USG must go
directly to the CMC itself, UNODA said it would be useful to
sit down with USUN to work out logistics. In so doing, UNODA
believes they can approach the Jordanians and begin hammering
out concrete details, in particular, the date of the
conference.
KHALILZAD