OSLO PROCESS: PM/WRA CONSULTATIONS WITH

C O N F I D E N T I A L BERN 000238

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR PM/WRA (R.KIDD/K.BAKER),L (T.HEINEMANN),AND
EUR/AGS (Y.SAINT-ANDRE); USMISSION GENEVA FOR J.KOVAR

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/19/2018
TAGS: MOPS PARM PREL NATO UN SZ
SUBJECT: OSLO PROCESS: PM/WRA CONSULTATIONS WITH
AMBASSADOR SCHRANER - "FRIEND OF THE CHAIR" FOR
INTEROPERABILITY

REF: BERN 227

Classified By: Poloff Chris Buck; reasons 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (C) Summary: Schraner emphasized that, as Friend of the
Chair at the Dublin conference, she will seek to take a
"realistic, balanced approach that can reach consensus." She
said that it is her strong conviction that the convention
will not be successful if the major military powers involved
in the process do not remain on board. Schraner said that
the Core Group had informed her that they really would like a
consensus solution to the interoperability issue, preferring
that it not come to a vote. PM/WRA Director Kidd underlined
that the USG is not part of the Oslo Process, nor is the USG
trying to wreck the Oslo Process; however, the USG has strong
concerns about the possible impact of the current Oslo
Process text on interoperability across the spectrum of
military operations. Schraner commented that, as a lawyer,
she personally would prefer "very clear language" in the
convention, rather than a situation in which individual
states would address the interoperability issue via national
declarations. She said that she doubts that deleting Article
1(b) and (c) would be an option that could achieve consensus.
Schraner referred to insertion of exemption language as one
option, while holding out the possibility of a reservation
article, perhaps in the form of a modification to Article 19.
End Summary.


2. (C) PM/WRA Director Richard Kidd met May 16 with
Ambassador Christine Schraner Burgener, MFA Deputy Head of
the Directorate for International Law, to re-emphasize and
further describe the USG's strong concerns regarding the
threat to interoperability posed by the Oslo Process text in
advance of the May 19 - 30 Dublin conference. Schraner was
selected by the Irish conference hosts to serve as "Friend of
the Chair" tasked with resolving the interoperability dispute
among states participating in Oslo Process (reftel). She was
joined in the meeting by Bernard Jeanty, Head of Arms Control
and Disarmament Policy at the Swiss MOD. Mr. Kidd was joined
in the meeting by the U.S. Mission Geneva Legal Advisor, the
Embassy Bern Defense Attache, and poloff.

--------------
Schraner: "Realistic and Balanced Approach"
--------------


3. (C) Schraner emphasized that, as Friend of the Chair at
the Dublin conference, she will seek to take a "realistic,
balanced approach that can reach consensus." She said that
it is her strong conviction that the convention will not be
successful if the major military powers involved in the
process do not remain on board. Schraner indicated that she
assumes that ten states would probably refuse the text and
leave the Oslo Process if a suitable fix cannot be found to
the interoperability problem. (Note: This number is
considerably lower than PM/WRA's current count of 20-22
states, all but a couple of which are in Europe. End Note)


4. (C) Schraner indicated that Switzerland's main national
goal at Dublin is to obtain an exemption for sensor-fused
cluster munitions and a workable transition period. However,
while commenting that Switzerland itself does not have major
problems with interoperability issues, Schraner said that the
GOS understands the importance of the issue to others, and
therefore will do its best to seek a solution. She
underlined that "no one wants to dismantle NATO or operations
under Chapter 7" of the UN Charter. Schraner added that one
of her first tasks in Dublin will be to convince non-Western
states that interoperability is an issue, and to develop
regional "Friends of the Friend" to assist in driving toward
a suitable consensus outcome. She said that the Core Group
had informed her that they really would like a consensus
solution to the interoperability issue, preferring that it
not come to a vote. Schraner reported that she had not yet
consulted with the ICRC or Handicap International in her new
role, but planned to do so before the beginning of the Dublin
conference.


5. (C) Kidd underlined that the USG is not part of the Oslo
Process, nor is the USG trying to wreck the Oslo Process;


however, the USG has strong concerns about the possible
impact of the current Oslo Process text on interoperability
across the spectrum of military operations, including
humanitarian operations. He observed that the humanitarian
impact of cluster munitions needs to be kept in proper
perspective, as cluster munitions cause significantly less
harm to civilians than other explosive remnants of war. Kidd
noted that the USG is committed to a legally binding
agreement on cluster munitions within the Convention on
Conventional Weapons (CCW). He cautioned Schraner that she
should expect high pressure in a politically and emotionally
charged environment while performing her role as "Friend of
the Chair" on the interoperability issue. Schraner replied
that she is used to pressure, and already had been criticized
for Switzerland taking on this role. She mentioned that
there also is some domestic political pressure in Switzerland
for a total ban on cluster munitions.

--------------
Exemptions, Reservations...
--------------


6. (C) Schraner commented that, as a lawyer, she personally
would prefer "very clear language" in the convention, rather
than a situation in which individual states would address the
interoperability issue via national declarations. At one
point, she suggested that listing permissible cooperative
activities might be a possible solution to the
interoperability problem. However, Kidd illustrated for her
in concrete terms the pitfalls and ultimate futility of such
a listing approach, particularly with regard to
interoperability with U.S. Forces.


7. (C) Schraner said that she doubts that deleting Article
1(b) and (c) would be an option that could achieve consensus.
In response to the question of whether she was contemplating
an additional paragraph to attempt a textual fix to the
problematic article, Schraner said that she had received
numerous suggestions for a way forward during her recent
consultations in Geneva, and that she needs to be "tactical"
in how she employs them. She referred to insertion of
exemption language as one option, while holding out the
possibility of a reservation article, perhaps in the form of
a modification to Article 19.
CONEWAY