Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08BRUSSELS1649
2008-10-24 16:05:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Brussels
Cable title:
BELGIUM LIKELY TO VOTE YES ON DE-ALERTING, ABSTAIN
how-toVZCZCXYZ0000 RR RUEHWEB DE RUEHBS #1649 2981605 ZNY CCCCC ZZH R 241605Z OCT 08 ZDK FM AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8157 INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0265
C O N F I D E N T I A L BRUSSELS 001649
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EUR/WE, EUR/RPM AND ISN
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/23/2018
TAGS: PARM MNUC UNGA PREL BE
SUBJECT: BELGIUM LIKELY TO VOTE YES ON DE-ALERTING, ABSTAIN
ON DEPLETED URANIUM IN UN FIRST COMMITTEE
REF: A. STATE 111744
B. STATE 107247
Classified By: Political Economic Counselor Richard Eason, reason 1.4(b
) and (d)
C O N F I D E N T I A L BRUSSELS 001649
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EUR/WE, EUR/RPM AND ISN
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/23/2018
TAGS: PARM MNUC UNGA PREL BE
SUBJECT: BELGIUM LIKELY TO VOTE YES ON DE-ALERTING, ABSTAIN
ON DEPLETED URANIUM IN UN FIRST COMMITTEE
REF: A. STATE 111744
B. STATE 107247
Classified By: Political Economic Counselor Richard Eason, reason 1.4(b
) and (d)
1. (C) Summary: Belgium intends to vote yes on the UN First
Committee resolution on de-alerting after abstaining in 2007.
It will not co-sponsor the resolution, but it does want to
increase pressure on nuclear weapons states to disarm. It
would like to see more attention paid to targeting of nuclear
weapons as well. The GOB will continue to abstain from the
depleted uranium (DU) resolution. That position may change
to support of the resolution if scientific study cannot
produce sufficient evidence of safety before a 2007 Belgian
law banning DU weapons takes effect in 2009. End Comment.
DE-ALERTING
--------------
2. (C) On October 23 Poloff discussed Belgium's position on
potential resolutions in the UNGA First Committee with Werner
Bauwens, Director of the MFA Office of Non-Proliferation and
Export Controls. Bauwens said that Belgium is likely to vote
yes on the de-alerting resolution. Bawuens was aware of U.S.
opposition to the resolution and of discussion of the issue
in the NATO Council. However, Bauwens said, the significance
of the First Committee and disarmament exceeds the NATO
Council's mandate. Since last year, he said, the tide of
public debate has been turning in favor of renewed efforts
for greater disarmament. He sees a potential for additional,
actual de-alerting in the future and expects there will be a
lot of diplomatic action around the issue. As a result, he
said, the de-alerting resolution is "a useful signal with
which Belgium would want to be associated." It may
facilitate progress at the next NPT conference and put
pressure on nuclear weapon states to further disarmament, he
said.
3. (C) Bauwens continued that there is still language in the
resolution with which the Belgians are not satisfied. He
does not want the discussions in the First Committee to "get
emotional", either. Bauwens recognized that NATO has already
significantly de-alerted its tactical nuclear arsenal and
decreased its stockpile of weapons. When talking about
de-alerting, UN members must not forget that de-targeting is
important as well, he said. Russia in particular can be
criticized about its ambiguous position on targeting, as some
Russian officials have made rash statements linked to missile
defense in the Czech Republic and Poland. On the other hand,
he said, Russian MFA and MOD officials had disavowed such
intentions when the EU protested, which he considered a
responsible action. Bauwens said that the Belgians will not
co-sponsor the de-alerting resolution, as such vigorous
support of the resolution would not be consistent with
Belgium's status as a NATO ally.
DEPLETED URANIUM
--------------
4. (C) Bauwens noted that the Belgian Parliament passed a law
in 2007 banning DU weapons from its territory. However, he
said, the government has succeeded in delaying implementation
of the law until 2009 to allow time for more study of the
health risks of the substance. He said IAEA and WHO reports
have been submitted to the Secretary General which do not
show clear evidence of a danger to public health, in his
opinion. Because of the 2007 law, Belgium would like to see
evidence that will establish the risks one way or the other.
Since the First Committee resolution calls for such research,
as it did last year, Belgium will stick to its abstention
despite accusations by domestic politicians that abstention
is inconsistent with the 2007 law. Bauwens hopes that future
reports to the Secretary General and other international
organizations will establish an absence of health risks, so
that implementation of the 2007 law can be headed off and
Belgium can continue at least to abstain from future UN
resolutions on the issue.
.
SIPDIS
STATE FOR EUR/WE, EUR/RPM AND ISN
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/23/2018
TAGS: PARM MNUC UNGA PREL BE
SUBJECT: BELGIUM LIKELY TO VOTE YES ON DE-ALERTING, ABSTAIN
ON DEPLETED URANIUM IN UN FIRST COMMITTEE
REF: A. STATE 111744
B. STATE 107247
Classified By: Political Economic Counselor Richard Eason, reason 1.4(b
) and (d)
1. (C) Summary: Belgium intends to vote yes on the UN First
Committee resolution on de-alerting after abstaining in 2007.
It will not co-sponsor the resolution, but it does want to
increase pressure on nuclear weapons states to disarm. It
would like to see more attention paid to targeting of nuclear
weapons as well. The GOB will continue to abstain from the
depleted uranium (DU) resolution. That position may change
to support of the resolution if scientific study cannot
produce sufficient evidence of safety before a 2007 Belgian
law banning DU weapons takes effect in 2009. End Comment.
DE-ALERTING
--------------
2. (C) On October 23 Poloff discussed Belgium's position on
potential resolutions in the UNGA First Committee with Werner
Bauwens, Director of the MFA Office of Non-Proliferation and
Export Controls. Bauwens said that Belgium is likely to vote
yes on the de-alerting resolution. Bawuens was aware of U.S.
opposition to the resolution and of discussion of the issue
in the NATO Council. However, Bauwens said, the significance
of the First Committee and disarmament exceeds the NATO
Council's mandate. Since last year, he said, the tide of
public debate has been turning in favor of renewed efforts
for greater disarmament. He sees a potential for additional,
actual de-alerting in the future and expects there will be a
lot of diplomatic action around the issue. As a result, he
said, the de-alerting resolution is "a useful signal with
which Belgium would want to be associated." It may
facilitate progress at the next NPT conference and put
pressure on nuclear weapon states to further disarmament, he
said.
3. (C) Bauwens continued that there is still language in the
resolution with which the Belgians are not satisfied. He
does not want the discussions in the First Committee to "get
emotional", either. Bauwens recognized that NATO has already
significantly de-alerted its tactical nuclear arsenal and
decreased its stockpile of weapons. When talking about
de-alerting, UN members must not forget that de-targeting is
important as well, he said. Russia in particular can be
criticized about its ambiguous position on targeting, as some
Russian officials have made rash statements linked to missile
defense in the Czech Republic and Poland. On the other hand,
he said, Russian MFA and MOD officials had disavowed such
intentions when the EU protested, which he considered a
responsible action. Bauwens said that the Belgians will not
co-sponsor the de-alerting resolution, as such vigorous
support of the resolution would not be consistent with
Belgium's status as a NATO ally.
DEPLETED URANIUM
--------------
4. (C) Bauwens noted that the Belgian Parliament passed a law
in 2007 banning DU weapons from its territory. However, he
said, the government has succeeded in delaying implementation
of the law until 2009 to allow time for more study of the
health risks of the substance. He said IAEA and WHO reports
have been submitted to the Secretary General which do not
show clear evidence of a danger to public health, in his
opinion. Because of the 2007 law, Belgium would like to see
evidence that will establish the risks one way or the other.
Since the First Committee resolution calls for such research,
as it did last year, Belgium will stick to its abstention
despite accusations by domestic politicians that abstention
is inconsistent with the 2007 law. Bauwens hopes that future
reports to the Secretary General and other international
organizations will establish an absence of health risks, so
that implementation of the 2007 law can be headed off and
Belgium can continue at least to abstain from future UN
resolutions on the issue.
.