MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR) --

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 034976 SIPDIS PARIS FOR EST:H.SMITH E.O. 12958: DECL: (1.6, X5, X6) TAGS: PARM MTCRE PREL MNUC TSPA KSCA FR SUBJECT: MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR) -- GUIDANCE FOR THE APRIL 10-11, 2008 RPOC MEETING (C) REF: A) STATE 26726 (SMALL GROUP) B) STATE 27694 (IE) C) STATE 633 (POC GUIDANCE) D) STATE 2929 (ATHENS) E) 04 STATE 070819 F) 07 STATE 151182 G) DURHAM-CONWAY E MAIL OF 02-21-08 Classified by ISN Acting DAS Ambassador Donald A. Mahley. Reasons: 1.4 (B) and (D). ¶1. (C) This message provides guidance for the U.S. delegation to the MTCR Reinforced Point of Contact (RPOC) meeting in Paris on April 10-11, 2008, and the small-group meeting on April 9. /////////////////// Small Group Meeting /////////////////// ¶2. (C) Per REF A, on April 9, France will host a meeting of the MTCR Small Group members (the U.S., the UK, Japan, Germany, France and Australia) to assess lessons learned from 2007 and to consider initiatives for 2008. The U.S. objectives for this meeting are to discuss the specific U.S. proposals for 2008 outlined in REF A, as well as ideas for additional or alternate proposals group members might have, and agree on a way forward consistent with the approach outlined in REF A. ////////////////////////// Specific RPOC Agenda Items ////////////////////////// (C) In discussing RPOC agenda items, the delegation should pursue courses of action that are consistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy objectives. ¶3. (C) Operations of the Point of Contact (POC) ///////////////////////////////////////////// //// (A) As appropriate, the delegation should indicate that the U.S. believes the Regime's intersessional decision- making process generally works well and should be continued. The delegation also should note that, consistent with long-standing Regime practice, all requests to initiate the intersessional decision-making process must be made via the POC. (B) 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. (C) 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 any 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. (D) The delegation should seek to ensure that the French MTCR POC continues to update and distribute the Compendium of Regime Decisions and that the POC continues to maintain and distribute to MTCR Partners updates lists of Annex- item denials and catch-all denials. ¶4. (C) Activities 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 also may 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. ¶5. (C) Regional Nonproliferation/Outreach to Non-members ///////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////// (A) 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. (B) The delegation also should urge other Partners to continue to report on their activities to implement previous Regime decisions, as agreed at previous plenaries. (C) The delegation should encourage further discussion of regional nonproliferation/outreach at the 2008 Plenary. As appropriate, the delegation may note that the U.S. plans to circulate a report on its outreach to non- Partners prior to the 2008 Plenary. (D) The delegation should indicate general support for efforts to enhance transparency of MTCR activities and promote increased dialogue with non-members, and may support new outreach and transparency measures that support U.S. interests. As appropriate, and consistent with U.S. nonproliferation goals, the delegation may join consensus to hold MTCR-sponsored workshops and/or roundtables, provided such events have specific mandates that are consistent with U.S. policy objectives, e.g., on enforcement. In addition, the delegation may join consensus on targeted outreach strategies to key countries, consistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy objectives. (E) The delegation may support other initiatives in this area consistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy and U.S. counterproliferation policy. ¶6. (C) Membership /////////////////// (A) The delegation should express views consistent with the positions on specific countries outlined in REF E and U.S. national criteria for MTCR membership. (B) 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. 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. (C) 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. ¶7. (C) Export Control Issues ////////////////////////////// (A) 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. (B) As appropriate, the delegation may 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. (C) The delegation 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. Changes to U.S. regulations to incorporate MTCR Annex changes agreed in Athens are in final review and the USG expects them to be implemented by the end of May 2008. (D) The delegation may support further action on the German Proposal on end use controls consistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy and the views conveyed in REF G. (E) The delegation may support other initiatives in this area consistent with U.S. nonproliferation policy. ¶8. (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. ¶9. (C) Information Exchange ////////////////////////////// In discussions relating to the Information Exchange (IE), the delegation should: --encourage more countries to make presentations and share information during the IE; --seek agreement on a draft agenda for the Plenary IE meeting (delegation should use U.S. proposal in REF B as a guide, but can agree to other proposals that it believes to be consistent with U.S. interests and objectives); --foreshadow U.S. papers/presentations for the 2008 IE, as outlined in REF B; --urge all Partners to share national experiences and present case studies of actual interdiction activities; --encourage countries to circulate IE papers one month in advance of the 2008 Plenary; --remind Partners to include brief executive summaries in their papers and that the Plenary IE report will consist of the summaries of all the papers presented, with no characterization of the IE discussion and no conclusions drawn; --recommend that IE meetings do not begin any earlier than the afternoon (vice the morning) of the first day of Plenary week; and --oppose proposals to hold intersessional IE meetings. ¶10. (C) Law Enforcement Officers Meeting ///////////////////////////////////// In discussions relating to the Law Enforcement Experts Meeting (LEEM),the delegation should: --encourage more countries to make presentations and share information during the LEEM, and to present case studies of actual enforcement activities; and --encourage countries to send actual licensing and enforcement officers to the LEEM, and to circulate LEEM papers one month in advance of the 2008 Plenary. ¶11. (C) Technical Experts Meeting (TEM) /////////////////////////////////////////// (A) As necessary and appropriate, the delegation should confirm U.S. support for the intersessional TEM scheduled for June 4-6, 2008 in Bonn. The delegation also may indicate that the U.S. expects to present several new U.S. proposals and white papers concerning potential changes to the MTCR Annex. (B) The delegation should encourage support for the U.S. UAV/CM proposal, making clear that it continues to enjoy support at a high political level from our government, and we attach high priority to having it adopted by the MTCR. The delegation should note 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 MTCR needs to address this issue now. ¶12. (SBU) Future Plenary Meetings /////////////////////////////////// The delegation should cooperate with other Partners in achieving consensus on the dates and host for the next Plenary. The delegation also should encourage Partners to identify a Plenary host/venue for 2009 in advance of the 2008 Plenary. END GUIDANCE. RICE NNNN End Cable Text