MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR) --

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 099131


E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/30/2033
TAGS: MTCRE ETTC KSCA PARM PREL

SUBJECT: MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR) --
PREVIEWING MTCR PLENARY PROPOSALS WITH BRAZIL AND SOUTH
AFRICA (C)

Classified By: ISN/MTR Director Pam Durham.
Reason: 1.4 (B),(D),(H).


1. (U) This is an action request. Embassies Brasilia and
Pretoria, please see paragraphs 3-6.


2. (C) BACKGROUND/PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: Paragraphs 5 and 6
below contain proposals on Outreach and Machine Tools that
the U.S. plans to put forward for adoption at the November
2008 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in Canberra.
In keeping with established practice, we want to preview
these proposals with Brazil and South Africa for their
input/feedback prior to distributing to all MTCR Partners via
the French MTCR Point of Contact in early October.
Experience indicates that giving these countries an early
alert on MTCR Plenary proposals -- and an opportunity to work
out language in advance on areas that otherwise could be
problematic for them - generally increases the prospects for
consensus adoption of the proposals at the Plenary.


3. (C) ACTION REQUEST: Drawing as appropriate on the
suggested talking points in paragraph 4, request Embassies
Brasilia and Pretoria provide the draft proposals in
paragraphs 5 and 6 to appropriate host government officials
at the earliest available opportunity and request feedback
and/or preliminary reactions by September 29.


4. (C) SUGGESTED TALKING POINTS:

(C/REL Brazil/South Africa)

--In preparation for the November 2008 Missile Technology
Control Regime (MTCR) Plenary in Canberra, the United States
would like to preview with your government two proposals we
plan to put forward for Plenary consideration.

--These proposals involve technical outreach to non-MTCR
Partners and machine tools. We strongly hope that they can
be adopted in Canberra.

--As has been the case in previous years, we would greatly
appreciate receiving any preliminary reactions, feedback, or
suggestions relating to the proposals prior to our
circulating them to all MTCR Partners via the French MTCR
Point of Contact.

--We greatly appreciate your ongoing support for missile
nonproliferation and look forward to hearing from you.

--We intend to circulate the proposals to all Partners in
early October, and therefore would appreciate your feedback
by September 29.


5. (C) DRAFT U.S. PROPOSAL ON MACHINE TOOLS:

(C/REL Brazil/South Africa)

Changes to technologies for the development and manufacture
of missiles require Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)
countries to think about emerging technologies and how they
impact the Regime's efforts to address the missile
proliferation threat. Some of these changes have been
subtle, relying on improvements to materials or methods of
manufacture, while others have been more dramatic. As
technological advances occur, and advanced materials and
products become more commercially available, MTCR Partners
need to take steps to ensure that the Regime keeps pace with
new technologies and changes in proliferant procurement. One
such area is machine tools.

As has been discussed on several occasions by the MTCR
Partners in the Information Exchange (IE),there is a
continuing demand for high-precision machine tools to support
indigenous missile development programs in regions of
tension. Given the potential impact of proliferant
procurement of machine tools, the MTCR Partners should
consider giving greater attention to this issue. In
particular, the MTCR Partners should agree that when
reviewing licenses to export machine tools, they will
consider the potential missile-related application of such
equipment during their risk assessment process, taking into
consideration that MTCR Partners' national catch-all controls
are available to use in addressing concerns about
non-controlled machine tools destined for programs of
concern. Partners might also want to consider sharing best
practices for addressing potential proliferation concerns
posed by machine tools. This effort could be supplemented by
IE and Licensing and Enforcement Experts (LEEM) papers on
machine to
ols and related procurement and/or interdiction efforts.

In light of the above, it would be prudent to have the
Plenary direct the Technical Experts Meeting (TEM) to begin
discussing what types of machine tools are useful in missile
proliferation with a view to further informing IE and LEEM
discussions and to aide Partners in their implementation of
catch-all controls.


6. (C) DRAFT U.S. PROPOSAL ON TECHNICAL OUTREACH:

(C/REL Brazil/South Africa)

At the 2007 Athens MTCR Plenary, the MTCR Partners
acknowledged the growing risk of proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery.
Additionally, as noted in the Athens press release, they
welcomed the growing awareness of the need for export
controls and the expressed interest by many states in
cooperating with the MTCR. They also confirmed their
intention individually and through the outreach activities of
the Chair to consult and cooperate with non-members to
promote effective export controls over missiles and missile
technology. In particular, they agreed:

"(that the MTCR Chair, assisted by the TEM Chair, as
appropriate, will inform, following Plenary decisions,
non-member states, as well as the 1540 Committee, of changes
to the Guidelines and Annex for their information and use
with a view to facilitating the widest possible application
of the latest versions of these instruments and enabling
interested non-member states to harmonize their controls with
those of MTCR Partners. Contacts with non-member states may
also include information on the rationale for changes to the
Annex, while respecting the principle of confidentiality
within the MTCR."

The United States strongly supports the MTCR Partners'
commitment to outreach and cooperation with non-members on
missile nonproliferation issues. We believe that in view of
the ongoing global missile proliferation threat, MTCR
Partners need to work side-by-side with non-Partners to
actively encourage their support for the Regime's missile
nonproliferation efforts, including by implementing the MTCR
Guidelines and Annex on a national basis.

Accordingly, we think the Regime should build on the decision
taken at the Athens Plenary to promote the widest possible
application of MTCR controls by creating a specific
opportunity to explain to interested non-member countries the
rationale for changes made to the MTCR Guidelines and Annex.
In particular, we believe it would be extremely valuable for
the Regime to hold a meeting for representatives of
interested non-Partner countries immediately following the
conclusion of the MTCR Reinforced Point of Contact (RPOC) in
Paris. The purpose of this meeting would be to brief
interested non-Partners on any changes to the MTCR Guidelines
and Annex agreed at the previous MTCR Plenary, including by
explaining why the changes were made, what they entail from a
technical perspective, and the potential impact on licensing
reviews.

If such a meeting were held following the 2009 MTCR RPOC
meeting in Paris, the main agenda item would be any changes
agreed to the MTCR Guidelines and Annex at the 2008 Canberra
Plenary. Of course, other questions, including changes from
previous years, also could be entertained.

Holding such an outreach activity immediately following the
RPOC would be a way to increase MTCR Partner participation in
Regime outreach activities and an opportunity for Partners to
reach a broader audience. This meeting could include experts
from all MTCR countries, as well as the MTCR Chair and the
TEM Chair, and would be a way to complement outreach
activities undertaken by the MTCR and by the MTCR Partners on
a national and regional basis

If Partners agree to host such an outreach event, the French
POC could organize the meeting to take place immediately
following the 2009 MTCR RPOC meeting in Paris. Additionally,
the Partners could consider inviting to this meeting the
countries that have membership applications pending with the
Regime and the non-Partner countries that have been agreed as
possible destinations for MTCR outreach visits at the 2007
Athens Plenary and the 2008 Canberra Plenary.

At the 2009 MTCR Plenary, we would expect the Partners to
evaluate the results of this outreach meeting, and then
decide whether to hold another meeting in 2010 and whom to
invite.


7. (U) POINT OF CONTACT: Please contact ISN/MTR Director
Pam Durham with any questions or follow-up related to this
issue (202-647-4931; durhampk@state.sgov.gov).


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


NNNN




End Cable Text