EC NON-PROLIFERATION WORKSHOPS YIELD IMPROVED

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 BRUSSELS 001034

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

PLEASE PASS TO U.S. OAS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL KNNP EUN
SUBJECT: EC NON-PROLIFERATION WORKSHOPS YIELD IMPROVED
COORDINATION

REF: STATE 33804

This message is Sensitive But Unclassified. Please protect
accordingly.

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (SBU) Building on cooperative efforts that began in
March, U.S. non-proliferation officials participated in
European Commission (EC)-hosted workshops focused on
determining the EC's priorities for programming EU Stability
Instrument funding on non-proliferation and identifying
opportunities for coordination and cooperation with other
actors. U.S. officials provided a detailed overview of U.S.
efforts and programs targeted at export control, nuclear
smuggling/illicit trafficking, scientist redirection, and
UNSCR 1540 outreach. EU and IAEA representatives also
discussed their programs, and EC officials committed to
continue the EU-U.S. coordination with a follow-up meeting in
early 2009 after Stability Instrument funding is allocated.
End Summary.

--------------
Background
--------------


2. (SBU) Coordination is moving ahead based on the U.S.-EU
summit declaration in 2007, which called for promoting
greater coordination of nonproliferation efforts through
UNSCR 1540. In 2006, the EU established an approximately 300
million-Euro "Stability Instrument" to carry out its
activities in this area and has expressed an interest in
further coordinating policies with other donors as a follow
up to the March 2008 consultations. To explore how to aid
third countries in nonproliferation capacity-building,
European Commission and U.S. nonproliferation experts met
June 24-26 at the expert level. Prospective areas of
cooperation include export control, prevention of nuclear
smuggling, support for engagement of scientists, and the
development of regional 1540 centers of excellence, building
off of the Ministerial endorsements in the OSCE, OAS, and ARF
about regional cooperation as called for in UNSCR 1810. In
the June workshops, U.S. officers for third country
assistance, to include EXBS, Nuclear Smuggling (NSOI),
Scientist Redirection, and in conjunction with UNSCR 1540,
presented to EU Commission and Council experts a detailed
overview about ways to program EU Stability Instrument
funding on nonproliferation. The EU (primarily Germany's
export control ministry, BAFA) and IAEA programs were
discussed in more general terms and the EU expressed its
desire to continue this coordination. In all, the joint
U.S.-EU collaboration started in March will complement the
related USG initiatives. End background.

--------------
Workshop I - Nuclear Smuggling
--------------


3. (SBU) The first day's workshop addressed nuclear
smuggling. Michael Stafford, coordinator of the U.S. Nuclear
Smuggling Outreach Initiative (NSOI),gave a briefing on NSOI
and its progress to date, and then laid out a menu of
NSOI-developed projects for the EU to consider supporting
with Stability Instrument funds. This menu included projects
to improve security along green borders in the Kyrgyz
Republic and Kazakhstan; improve security at fixed border
crossings in the Kyrgyz Republic; provide long-term, secure
storage for radioactive sources in Ukraine; improve border
security in Afghanistan; improve security at fixed border
crossings and seaports in Ukraine; improve security along
green borders in Ukraine; improve border security in Georgia,
Armenia, and Azerbaijan; and fight corruption. Stafford also
described anticipated assistance needs for Pakistan and the
particular sensitivities that would be involved in working
with the Pakistani government.


4. (U) Other speakers included Anita Nilssen and George
Moore of the IAEA, who provided a briefing on the IAEA's
Illicit Trafficking Database, what the database indicates
about the nuclear smuggling threat, and some general thoughts

BRUSSELS 00001034 002 OF 004


about assistance priorities and the need for donor
coordination; Bruno Gruselle of the French Foundation for
Strategic Research, who also addressed the nuclear smuggling
threat; and Francesco Marelli of the UN Interregional Crime
and Justice Research Institute, who described the work of his
organization.


5. (SBU) Subsequent to the presentations and ensuing
discussion, EC EuropeAid Cooperation Office Director
Jean-Paul Joulia informed Stafford that he would be making
recommendations shortly on allocation of remaining 2008 funds
and was inclined to support several of the NSOI suggestions.
This would likely include funding from the Nuclear Safety
Instrument for the long-term, secure storage facility in
Ukraine, support from some funding source for anti-corruption
training, and funding from the Nuclear Stability Instrument
for fixed border crossings in the Kyrgyz Republic and/or
Ukraine. Joulia promised Stafford an update on his planning
in mid-July, and he said a final decision would be made in
November. Lars-Gunnar Wigemark, Security Policy Office
Director in the EC External Relations Directorate-General,
told Stafford that he would be formulating recommendations
for allocation of 2009-11 funds and was also inclined to
support several NSOI-developed projects. These included
projects to improve security at fixed border crossings in
Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, as well as projects to
better secure green borders in several Central Asian
countries. He suggested that the sides hold a third meeting
early in 2009 to firm up the details of the EU contribution,
and that they remain in informal communication during the
interim period.

--------------
Workshop II -- Export Control
--------------


6. (SBU) The workshop's discussion topic for June 25 was
"Dual-Use Export Control." U.S. 1540 Coordinator Tom Wuchte
started the discussion with an overview of UNSCR 1540 and the
way ahead, followed by Andrew Church, Deputy Director of
ISN/ECC, who briefed the group on the Department's Export
Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) Program. The
briefing provided background on the types of assistance
offered under the EXBS Program and other related USG programs
that are coordinated through the monthly Interagency Working
Group chaired by ISN/ECC. The main focus, however, was on
the types of assistance the EU could provide to specific
countries and regions to complement U.S. efforts. U.S.
suggestions focused on several areas, including: helping to
institutionalize strategic trade-related training by
integrating it into the curricula of national training
centers, such as customs academies; establishing regional
centers of excellence that could focus on some or all aspects
of strategic trade controls (e.g., licensing, targeting
suspect containers at border crossings) and help foster
regional networks and collaboration; contributing to
large-scale, multi-year projects, including refurbishing
border posts in Central Asia; working in countries and
regions not covered by EXBS or other related USG program
assistance, such as sub-Saharan Africa and those that have
requested assistance under UNSCR 1540 but for which the EXBS
program does not have funding. Church also reiterated the
critical importance of prior coordination in areas of
increasing nonproliferation outreach interest to the EU,
particularly Southeast Asia and the Middle East/North Africa,
given the active ongoing presence of a number of major donors
already in those regions, including some EU member states.
Other suggestions focused on specific countries in which the
EU might be more successful in gaining traction, such as
Egypt, and countries in which EXBS engagement had just begun
and a division of labor made sense, such as Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. Church left behind a list of
countries in which EXBS is currently active.


7. (SBU) In addition to providing suggestions for EU
assistance, he also encouraged the EU to use its clout as a
grouping of 27 countries to help build the political will in
countries to establish or make meaningful improvements to
their strategic trade controls. These remarks helped to
provide a different perspective from those of Olaf Simonsen
of Germany's Federal Office of Economics and Export Control
(BAFA),who presented on BAFA's efforts as the lead

BRUSSELS 00001034 003 OF 004


implementer of current EU export control outreach efforts,
and argued that outreach efforts should be limited to those
countries that invite donors to help them. Simonsen also
proposed a division of labor between the EU and other
assistance providers based on the "best country cooperation
principle." Sergey Yakimov of Russia's Federal Service for
Technical and Export Control (FSTEC) provided a briefing on
the ongoing, multi-year EU-Russian Cooperation Program, which
presumably seeks to harmonize the EU and Russian export
control systems. Yakimov mentioned that a comparative
analysis of the Russian and EU legal frameworks for export
control had been completed and that FSTEC was making several
recommendations for changes to the Russian system as a
result. Department is seeking to obtain a copy but, if
unsuccessful, will ask the mission to formally make the
request. Mati Tarvainen of the IAEA also presented, with the
main suggestion being to focus efforts on countries that
lacked safeguards. When pressed to suggest specific
countries for outreach efforts, he would say only that there
are many countries in Africa that had no safeguards in force.



8. (SBU) The EC is clearly interested in broadening its
outreach efforts to specific regions, including the Middle
East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. It also appears
willing to explore assistance to Africa, and EC staffer Bruno
Dupre openly supported comments by UNSCR 1540 Coordinator Tom
Wuchte that, while African countries might not pose an
immediate nonproliferation threat, there was value in a
forward-looking approach, and engagement there would help
remove excuses by countries in other regions for not
improving controls due to lack of universality. Both Church
and Wuchte underscored the importance of close coordination
between the U.S. and EU as we move forward.

--------------
Workshop III -- Scientist Redirection
--------------


9. (U) The third day's workshop on June 26th focused on
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Scientist Redirection.
Robin Copeland gave the U.S. Department of State's
presentation and highlighted the multiple programs underway
to facilitate the redirection of former WMD scientists and
also to work with scientists in the biological and chemical
communities that have valuable dual use knowledge. She
reviewed projects underway in Russia and the Former Soviet
Union (FSU),including ISTC/STCU, Bio Industry Initiative and
Biosecurity Engagement Program. She also provided overviews
of the Iraq and Libya Scientist Engagement Programs, as well
as the bio and chemical security engagement programs (CSP)
underway outside the former Soviet Union. She highlighted
programs which could benefit from EU involvement, such as
those in Iraq, and outlined specific projects within program
categories where the EU might be able to contribute funding
and expertise.


10. (U) Other speakers included Maurizio Martellini, Landau
Center, on a theoretical model for identifying new
communities of scientists and the best ways to engage them,
as well as how to measure success; Uve Meyer, German Embassy
on the benefits of using the ISTC as the vehicle for all
future EU scientist engagement; Greg Kaser, HTSPE, on behalf
of the UK government about their WMD scientist engagement
programs in Russia and the FSU and their new initiative to
assist Libya with isotope production; and Ian Anthony from
SIPRI presenting on some of the broad issues and questions
that provided a good framework for the afternoon discussion.


11. (SBU) It was widely held that the nonproliferation
community needs to move away from the use of the word
redirection and begin to use the word engagement. There was
consensus that individuals with significant dual use
knowledge, especially from the chemical and biotechnology
industries, represent a new challenge and need to be engaged.
There was some debate about whether the ISTC is the best
vehicle to use as an umbrella organization for future
engagement in places such as the DPRK. Several participants
strongly advocated for the ISTC, although the general view
was that the ISTC is overly bureaucratic, has managerial
challenges and may not be the best vehicle to take
cooperation forward into new geographic locations and with

BRUSSELS 00001034 004 OF 004


new communities, especially where young scientists are
involved. Another topic that was consistently highlighted
was the development of civilian nuclear power in the Middle
East and the need for this work to be done in a transparent,
safe and secure manner with a cadre of well trained
scientists and engineers.


12. (SBU) Currently, the EU's entire budget for WMD
scientist redirection goes through its Research Division,
which in turn sends one hundred percent of the funds to the
ISTC and STCU. The EU representatives recognize this may
need to change if the EU is going to respond with flexibility
to new challenges but the bias towards the ISTC that some
member countries have will continue to make the routing of
the funding a contentious issue.

--------------
Comment
--------------


13. (U) The EU's Stability Report is due to be considered
after July 3rd and its recommendations will be discussed in
September. Such projects that the EU are likely to sponsor
include the aforementioned regional CBRN training centers
located in perhaps the Middle East/North Africa or Southeast
Asia. Very few details were provided on the centers except
that they were presented as a training institution that could
be utilized by non-member countries. Overall, the increased
coordination through UNSCR 1540 and the desire to facilitate
better deconfliction of 3rd country assistance set a positive
way forward. USEU welcomes this effort and will work closely
with key Washington offices to continue the efforts and
prepare for the expected next step in early 2009.


14. (U) This cable was cleared by the U.S. 1540 Coordinator
Tom Wuchte and program officers in attendance.

WOHLERS
.