Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08STATE112544
2008-10-22 17:59:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Secretary of State
Cable title:  

MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR):

Tags:  MTCRE PARM MNUC KSCA ETTC TSPA AS 
pdf how-to read a cable
O 221759Z OCT 08
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO AMEMBASSY CANBERRA IMMEDIATE
MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME COLLECTIVE
C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 112544 


E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/31/2033
TAGS: MTCRE PARM MNUC KSCA ETTC TSPA AS

SUBJECT: MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR):
GUIDANCE FOR THE U.S. DELEGATION TO THE
NOVEMBER 2008 MTCR PLENARY (U)

REF:
A) STATE 106288 (PLENARY PROPOSALS)
B) STATE 67437 (SMALL GROUP)
C) STATE 26726 (SMALL GROUP)
D) STATE 34976 (RPOC GUIDANCE)
E) 04 STATE 070817 (MEMBERSHIP)
F) STATE 106631 (IE MACHINE TOOLS)
G) STATE 107020 (IE SHIPPING)
H) STATE 104882 (IE PERCHLORATES)
I) STATE 105029 (IE DPRK)
J) STATE 105103 (IE IRAN)
K) STATE 105132 (IE CHINA)
L) STATE 105464 (IE SYRIA)
M) STATE 112061 (IE CASE STUDY)
N) STATE 109138 (IE RISK TECHNOLOGIES)
O) STATE 109845 (IE BROKERING)
P) STATE 88861 (LEEM PLANS)
Q) STATE 112053 (LEEM MACHINE TOOLS)
R) LEEM OEE PRESENTATION
S) LEEM ICE PRESENTATION
T) LEEM CASE STUDIES
U) 07 STATE 132312 (TEM UAV/CM PROPOSAL)
V) STATE 110013 (NON-PARTNER REPORT)


Classified by ISN Acting DAS Eliot Kang.
Reasons: 1.4 (B),(C),(D),and (H).

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 112544


E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/31/2033
TAGS: MTCRE PARM MNUC KSCA ETTC TSPA AS

SUBJECT: MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR):
GUIDANCE FOR THE U.S. DELEGATION TO THE
NOVEMBER 2008 MTCR PLENARY (U)

REF:
A) STATE 106288 (PLENARY PROPOSALS)
B) STATE 67437 (SMALL GROUP)
C) STATE 26726 (SMALL GROUP)
D) STATE 34976 (RPOC GUIDANCE)
E) 04 STATE 070817 (MEMBERSHIP)
F) STATE 106631 (IE MACHINE TOOLS)
G) STATE 107020 (IE SHIPPING)
H) STATE 104882 (IE PERCHLORATES)
I) STATE 105029 (IE DPRK)
J) STATE 105103 (IE IRAN)
K) STATE 105132 (IE CHINA)
L) STATE 105464 (IE SYRIA)
M) STATE 112061 (IE CASE STUDY)
N) STATE 109138 (IE RISK TECHNOLOGIES)
O) STATE 109845 (IE BROKERING)
P) STATE 88861 (LEEM PLANS)
Q) STATE 112053 (LEEM MACHINE TOOLS)
R) LEEM OEE PRESENTATION
S) LEEM ICE PRESENTATION
T) LEEM CASE STUDIES
U) 07 STATE 132312 (TEM UAV/CM PROPOSAL)
V) STATE 110013 (NON-PARTNER REPORT)


Classified by ISN Acting DAS Eliot Kang.
Reasons: 1.4 (B),(C),(D),and (H).


1. (U) The following guidance is provided to the U.S.
delegation participating in the November 3-7, 2008,
Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Plenary in
Canberra.

OBJECTIVES
//////////


2. (C) The delegation should seek adoption during this
Plenary of the U.S. proposal to modernize the Regime's
technical criteria for controlling exports of UAVs and
cruise missiles. The delegation also should remind the
MTCR Partners of the importance of Regime members giving
priority attention to regional missile proliferation
issues and seek support for the U.S. proposals on MTCR
Technical Outreach and Machine Tools, as well as other
proposals developed by "small group" members to help the
MTCR focus on specific areas of priority proliferation
concern. In addition, the delegation should support
efforts to enhance transparency of MTCR activities and
promote dialogue with non-members, especially activities

involving practical cooperation on key nonproliferation
issues.

DISCUSSION OF PLENARY AGENDA ITEMS
//////////////////////////////////


3. (C) In discussing Plenary agenda items, the
delegation should lead the MTCR Partners to courses of
action that are consistent with U.S. foreign policy
objectives, including nonproliferation and national
security policy considerations. In particular, the
delegation should be prepared to engage in a discussion
of the following issues:

A) (C) OPERATIONS OF THE POINT OF CONTACT (POC)
///////////////////////////////////////////// //

(1) The delegation should indicate that the U.S.
believes the Regime's intersessional decision-making
process generally works well and should be continued.
As appropriate, the delegation should note that,
consistent with long-standing Regime practice, all
requests to initiate the intersessional decision-making
process must be made via the POC.

(2) If questions are raised concerning the monthly POC
meetings in Paris, the delegation should seek to ensure
that monthly POC meetings remain primarily informational
and administrative sessions.

(3) The delegation should applaud the success of the
April 2008 Reinforced Point of Contact (RPOC) meeting
and indicate strong support for holding at least one
policy-level RPOC meeting in 2009.

(4) The delegation should express appreciation for the
continued success and evolution of the French-funded
ePOC computerized information sharing system. The
delegation also should ensure that discussion of the
implementation and further development of the ePOC does
not result in a financial or administrative burden on
the U.S. and that any issues relating to information
security are resolved in a manner consistent with U.S.
national policy.

(5) The delegation should seek to ensure that the
French MTCR POC continues to update the Compendium of
Regime decisions on an annual basis and that the POC
continues to maintain and distribute to MTCR Partners
updated lists of Annex-item denials and catch-all
denials.

(6) The delegation also should support and encourage
the POC's efforts to provide Partners with an analysis
of trends in denial notifications, lists of end-users of
concern, and other relevant information gleaned from
past denial notifications and Information Exchange (IE)
papers.

B) (C) ROLE OF THE MTCR CHAIR
///////////////////////////////

The delegation should support a role for the MTCR Chair
that includes informing key non-members of missile
nonproliferation developments, the results of Plenary
meetings, and the purpose and activities of the MTCR.
The delegation may also support a role for the Chair in
leading outreach activities and other contacts mandated
by previous MTCR decisions. The delegation also may
support a mandate for the Chair (or Partner countries
specifically designated by the Chair) to engage with
appropriate regional organizations to promote the MTCR's
missile nonproliferation objectives and underscore the
need to implement and effectively enforce missile-
related export controls. However, the role of the Chair
should continue not to include issuing membership
invitations without prior approval of the MTCR Partners.

C) (C) MTCR AND PREVENTION OF TERRORISM
/////////////////////////////////////////

The delegation should continue to support efforts to
strengthen the MTCR to address issues related to
terrorists attempting to acquire missiles and related
equipment and technology. In this context, the
delegation may join consensus to mandate the Law
Enforcement Expert's Meeting (LEEM),the IE, and/or the
Technical Experts Meeting (TEM) to give further
attention to terrorism-related issues in their
respective areas of expertise.

D) (C) REGIONAL MISSILE PROLIFERATION
///////////////////////////////////////

(1) The delegation should urge the MTCR Partners to
build on previous Plenary and RPOC discussions of
regional proliferation issues, and to take steps to
increase awareness of the missile proliferation threat
and address ongoing missile-related activities of
concern.

(2) The delegation also should urge the MTCR Partners
to agree to focus on concrete actions to further
operationalize the decisions Partners have taken since
1995 on regional issues. In particular, the delegation
should seek support for, and adoption of, measures
consistent with the proposals outlined in POC-154-08
(U.S. Proposal on Technical Outreach to Non-Partners)
and POC-155-08 (U.S. Proposal on Machine Tools) (REF A).
The delegation also should promote adoption of measures
consistent with the other proposals agreed by the "small
group," including on risk assessment in licensing,
outreach to Gulf Cooperation Council countries, and
outreach to Indonesia and Malaysia (REF B).

(3) The delegation also should urge other Partners to
continue to report on their activities to implement
previous Regime decisions, as agreed at previous
Plenaries.

(4) The delegation should encourage further discussion
of regional nonproliferation/outreach at the 2009 RPOC
meeting.

(5) The delegation may support other initiatives in
this area consistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy
and U.S. counterproliferation policy.

E) (C) TRANSPARENCY AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
/////////////////////////////////////////////

(1) The delegation should indicate support for efforts
to enhance transparency of MTCR activities and promote
increased dialogue with non-members. In this context,
the delegation should seek support for the U.S. proposal
on outreach (REF A). The delegation also may support
other outreach and transparency measures that support
U.S. interests.

(2) As appropriate, and consistent with U.S.
nonproliferation goals, the delegation may join
consensus to hold MTCR-sponsored workshops and/or
roundtables in 2009, provided such events have specific
mandates that are consistent with U.S. policy
objectives, e.g., on risk assessment in licensing (REF
C). In addition, the delegation may join consensus on
targeted outreach strategies to key countries,
consistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy objectives.

(3) As appropriate, the delegation should report on
U.S. contacts with the two non-Partners for which the
U.S.has been assigned responsibility by the MTCR Partners
for maintaining Regime contact -- Kuwait and Taiwan. The
delegation also may report on U.S. contacts with other
non-Partners since the Athens Plenary, drawing from REF

V.

(4) The delegation may support efforts to update and
modernize the MTCR website consistent with U.S.
interests. However, the delegation also should ensure
that discussions on the further development of the
website do not result in a financial or administrative
burden on the U.S.

F) (C) MEMBERSHIP
///////////////////

(1) The delegation should express views consistent with
the positions on specific countries outlined in REF E
and U.S. national criteria for MTCR membership.

(2) With regard to China, the delegation should
continue to support the Regime's 1994 decision to admit
China to the MTCR once it meets the specified membership
criteria. But the delegation should also stress that
China does not meet these criteria and that the U.S.
will not agree to Chinese membership until those
criteria are met. In this context, and consistent with
REF K, the delegation should stress that Chinese
entities continue to export to programs of missile
proliferation concern and that China has some important
export control deficiencies.

(3) As necessary and appropriate, the delegation should
reiterate how the U.S. national criteria for Regime
membership are intertwined with the U.S. view of the
future of the Regime.

G) (C) EXPORT CONTROL ISSUES
////////////////////////////

(1) The delegation should stress the importance of the
Partners giving continued high priority attention to
export control issues, particularly catch-all controls,
controls over the intangible transfer of MTCR-controlled
technology, and controls over transit, transshipment,
and brokering activities.

(2) The delegation also should suggest that Partners
continue to report, on a voluntary basis, on their
experience implementing intangible-technology and catch-
all controls and, for those countries not having catch-
all controls, on their efforts to put such controls in
place.

(3) The delegation also should urge Partners to
continue to report, on a voluntary basis, on national
enactment of changes to MTCR controls and information on
their national export controls, as agreed at the 2003
Buenos Aires Plenary.

(4) As previously agreed by the interagency, the
delegation may support action on Germany's proposal
(POC-134-08) on end-use controls consistent with U.S.
nonproliferation and export control policy.

(5) The delegation may support action on France's
proposal on visa screening (POC-150-08) consistent with
U.S. nonproliferation and export control policy.

(6) The delegation may support other initiatives in
this area consistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy.

H) (C) SELF ASSESSMENT
///////////////////////

In any discussion of MTCR self-assessment activities,
the delegation should seek to ensure that the Regime
does not engage in introspective activities that divert
resources away from real world proliferation problems
emanating from non-members like Iran and North Korea.

I) (C) INFORMATION EXCHANGE
////////////////////////////

(1) As previously agreed by the interagency, the
delegation should be prepared to make presentations on
the following issues (REFS F-O):

--China.
--Iran.
--North Korea.
--Syria.
--Brokering.
--Interdiction Case Study.
--Machine Tools.
--Perchlorate Family of Chemicals.
--Risk Technologies.
--Shipping Operations/Trends.

(2) Consistent with established practice, the
delegation should support an IE report that consists
exclusively of a co-chairman's factual summary of the
discussion and a compilation of the 10-line summaries
submitted by each country on the presentations it made.

(3) In keeping with established practice, the
delegation also should recommend that, for future
Plenaries, IE meetings do not begin any earlier than the
afternoon of the first day of Plenary week. Having the
IE begin in the afternoon (vice the morning) of the
first day facilitates a more productive exchange of
information by giving IE participants time to review and
study all of the IE papers and presentations. The
delegation should oppose proposals to hold
intersessional IE meetings.

(4) Finally, consistent with previous Regime decisions,
the delegation should recommend that the Partners seek
to agree on the draft agenda for the 2009 IE at the 2009
RPOC meeting.

J) (C) TECHNICAL EXPERTS MEETING (TEM)
///////////////////////////////////////

(1) The delegation should seek consensus for the U.S.
proposals outlined in POC-171-07 (REF U),POC-059-08,
and POC-123-08. With regard to the UAV/CM proposal, the
delegation should hold bilateral discussions with
Partners that remain on reserve, stress that we continue
to attach high priority to the proposal, and seek to
have it adopted in Canberra. The delegation should
remind Partners that the goal of the proposal is to
adapt and expand the focus of the MTCR to take into
account technological changes to the threat picture. To
do so today, we believe the MTCR should strengthen
controls on cruise missiles while permitting greater
flexibility on UAV exports. In view of ongoing
technological advances and the underlying trend lines in
both cruise missiles and UAVs, we are convinced the MTCR
needs to address this issue now. NOTE: While some
editorial changes to our proposed text may be required
to obtain consensus from MTCR members, the delegation
may not agree to changes that will alter the substance
or effect of the proposal. END NOTE.

(2) If TEM consensus to recommend adoption of the UAV/CM
proposal by the Plenary does not emerge, the delegation
is authorized to request that a Technical Working Group
(TWG) be held on the proposal at the next TEM. If
Partners object to such a narrowly focused TWG, the
delegation may support a TWG on the general topic of UAV
and cruise missile controls. Additionally, if Partners
should object to a TWG that includes discussion of
cruise missile controls, the delegation also may support
a TWG on the general topic of UAV controls only.
However, the delegation may not support a TWG (or other
type of meeting) to conduct a fundamental review of the
MTCR and all of its control parameters.

(3) In responding to proposals from other MTCR Partners
to amend the Annex, the delegation should be guided by
the decisions of the Missile Annex Review Committee
(MARC).

(4) As agreed at the 2003 Buenos Aires Plenary, the
delegation should continue to insist that all TEM
documents be circulated via the French MTCR POC, with
additional copies being sent to the national TEM POCs.

(5) With regard to any proposal to hold an
intersessional TEM in 2009, the delegation should
request that Partners follow procedures adopted at the
2002 and 2003 Plenaries, making appropriate allowances
in the agreed timeline to account for a November Plenary
vice a September or October Plenary, i.e., that a
Partner should volunteer to host an intersessional TEM
by mid-December; the Partners then would decide by the
time of the January POC meeting in Paris whether to go
forward with such a meeting; the agenda for the
intersessional meeting would be circulated four weeks in
advance of the meeting via a 10-day silence procedure;
and the only topics to be discussed would be outstanding
issues from the 2008 Plenary and any new proposals
submitted six weeks in advance of the intersessional
meeting.

K) (C) ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS MEETING
/////////////////////////////////////

The delegation should participate actively in the MTCR's
Enforcement Officers Meeting and seek to use this forum
as a means to complement and reinforce Plenary and
Information Exchange discussions on ways to address key
proliferation problems. The delegation also should be
prepared to make presentations on enforcement
authorities and case studies, as well as on issues
relating to brokering and machine tool licensing per REF

P.

L) (C) FUTURE PLENARY MEETINGS
////////////////////////////////

The delegation should cooperate with other Partners in
achieving consensus on the dates and host for the next
Plenary.

M) (C) PRESS RELEASE
////////////////////

The delegation should assist in achieving consensus on a
press release, consistent with U.S. policy, which
highlights the Canberra Plenary's achievements.

END GUIDANCE


4. (U) Please slug any reporting on this or other MTCR
issues for ISN/MTR.
RICE


NNNN




End Cable Text