1540: COMMITTEE STILL DEBATING MATRICES

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000728 SIPDIS SIPDIS SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL AORC KPAO PTER UNSC KNNP SUBJECT: 1540: COMMITTEE STILL DEBATING MATRICES REF: A. STATE 116085 ¶B. PRETORIA 2985 ¶C. JAKARTA 2279 ¶D. PARIS 3480 ¶E. LONDON 3262 ¶F. PANAMA 1410 ¶G. ROME 1800 ¶H. BEIJING 5579 ¶I. ACCRA 1821 ¶J. MOSCOW 4120 ¶K. WILCOX/SANDAGE/WUCHTE EMAILS--08/29/07 ¶1. (U) BEGIN SUMMARY: At the August 29 meeting of the Security Council Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540 (2004) ("1540 Committee"),South Africa, Indonesia, and China agreed to seek instructions on a U.S. compromise concerning the posting of country-specific implementation matrices on its website but reiterated their concerns about the general concept. END SUMMARY. Transmitting the Matrices -------------- ¶2. (U) On August 29, the 1540 Committee again considered a proposal to post its implementation matrices on its website (refs A-J). If the Committee reaches agreement, a draft letter transmitting implementation matrices to states would include language on posting the matrices and seek states' concurrence to do so. USUN opened the meeting by reiterating that posting the matrices would provide transparency and facilitate the delivery of technical assistance by providing donor states who are not on the Council with valuable information about needs. USUN then introduced a compromise proposal (para 9, ref K),intended to address some of the concerns that Indonesia, South Africa, and China had raised earlier (refs A, B, H). The compromise language gives states the opportunity to withhold consent to the posting of their matrices, to elect to have their matrices posted on the Committee's website as public documents, or to ask the Committee to treat their matrices as "close-hold documents" and post them on its website on a password protected basis. ¶3. (U) Italy, France, the UK, Belgium, Panama, Congo, and Peru offered support for posting the matrices, but many stressed that the Committee's deliberations on the issue should not delay transmission of the matrices to states. Russia called the U.S. compromise "a good start," and Ghana said the U.S. compromise addresses many concerns, although it then questioned why the Committee's inability to agree on the language on posting the matrices is "holding hostage" its ability to transmit matrices to states. Comment: The broad and favorable participation by so many Committee members was notable and reflected the hard work of U.S. embassies to raise awareness in Security Council capitals of the importance of posting the matrices. End Comment. ¶4. (U) Indonesia requested time to seek instructions but then questioned the necessity of publishing the matrices. Indonesia argued that deciding to post the matrices is premature since the Committee has not decided how best to update its website. It also rejected the transparency arguments most members had made, saying the national reports and legislative database (containing texts of states' 1540-related laws, regulations, etc.) on its website provide sufficient information on states' implementation of resolution 1540. Indonesia also reiterated its earlier concern about the potentially negative impact on states of publicizing the matrices. Doing so will highlight gaps in states' implementation of resolution 1540, Indonesia argued, creating "an awkward situation for countries." Note: Privately, Indonesia's 1540 expert had told USUN that Indonesia fears that states will feel pressured to consent to post their matrices and that states that do not consent will be criticized by other countries. End Note. ¶5. (U) China then noted Indonesia's concerns and stressed the need for the Committee to reach a consensus-based decision that reflects the views and concerns of all of its members. ¶6. (SBU) South Africa called the U.S. compromise proposal "constructive" but noted that it only addressed "some" of South Africa's earlier concerns. South Africa reiterated that it still has questions about the need to post the matrices and emphasized that if the Committee intends to post the matrices on its website, it must provide states with a clear explanation of the matrices' function. If the matrix is posted to facilitate technical assistance, then the Committee's website must indicate that the matrices are posted only for that reason, South Africa argued. Note: On August 30, South Africa's 1540 expert indicated that South Africa might be willing to agree to the U.S. compromise as long as the Committee explicitly limited the purposes for which the matrices could be used. Suggesting that South Africa does not want the matrices to become a tool for measuring compliance or punishing non-compliance, he said South Africa is concerned that financial institutions might use publicly available matrices as a basis for closing branches or taking other punitive measures to curb proliferation financing. End Note. ¶7. (SBU) The Committee also discussed whether the transmittal letter would attach an annex explaining the matrices. South Africa reminded the Committee that it had expressed concerns about the draft annex early in the negotiations but said the revised transmittal letter had resolved those concerns. As a result, South Africa said it might be able to join consensus on the proposal to restore the annex, although it would need to review the language again. Note: UKUN and France remained silent but had expressed some reservations privately. UKUN argues that states do not need the explanation, since states have been familiar with the matrices since the Committee began sending them to states in 2005. UKUN also is concerned that South Africa might seek edits to the annex that the UK could not accept. France is concerned about language in the annex that suggests (imprecisely) that states must provide the Committee with an accounting on their nuclear arsenals. End Note. 8 (SBU) In conclusion, the Chairman said he hoped the Committee could reach agreement on the draft transmittal letter by Friday, September 7. Comment: Indonesia and South Africa's positions still seem entrenched, and unless both countries change their positions, China is unlikely to budge. Sharing the U.S. compromise with Jakarta and Pretoria might be useful; a demarche to Beijing might be less useful. The Chinese in New York have signaled their discomfort with U.S. demarches on 1540 and another round might have the perverse effect of making the Chinese position even more entrenched. End Comment. ¶9. (U) Begin Text: The Committee also hopes that the matrix can serve as a useful means to coordinate the provision of technical assistance. The Committee wants to facilitate such coordination by providing a means to post countries' matrices on its website (http://disarmament2.un.org/Committee1540). (State) may choose to have its matrix posted on the Committee's website as a public document. If (State) prefers, (State) may advise the Committee to treat its matrix as a "close-hold document" and post it on the Committee's website on a case-by-case and password protected basis. The Committee would provide access passwords to Member States upon request and, with your prior consent, to non-governmental entities that could demonstrate a need for such information. Accordingly, please advise the Committee by December 15 if (State) consents to have its matrix posted on the Committee's website, and if so, whether the matrix should be posted as a public document or a close-hold document. End Text. KHALILZAD