UZBEKISTAN: U.S. CONDUCTS PATHOGEN SECURITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 TASHKENT 001050

SIPDIS
SENSITIVE

DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/CEN, ISN, UCI, T, AND L
HHS FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE LEGAL ADVISOR

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL TBIO UZ
SUBJECT: UZBEKISTAN: U.S. CONDUCTS PATHOGEN SECURITY
LEGISLATIVE WORKSHOP


1. (U) Summary: A team of scientific and legal experts from
the Department of State and the Department of Health and
Human Services conducted a Legal and Pathogen Security
Workshop September 8-9 in Tashkent. Representatives from the
Parliament, Cabinet of Ministers, Ministries of Health,
Justice, Emergency Situations, Agriculture and Water
Resources, and Foreign Affairs, as well as from the Academy
of Sciences, State Customs Committee, and State Inspection
Agency took part in the event. Defense Threat Reduction
Agency (DTRA) representatives also participated. The Uzbeks
showed themselves to be further along than we expected on
many aspects of Biological Weapons Convention implementation.
End summary.


2. (SBU) The U.S. team delivered presentations on the basic
principles of Biological Weapons Convention implementation,
pathogen security, U.S. practice in regulating the possession
and use of "select agents," as well as providing a draft of
Model Legislation to cover all these subjects. The team led
the group through each article of the Model Legislation, and
the Uzbek representatives provided extensive commentary on
Uzbek practice and legal basis, asked questions on U.S.
practice, and made suggestions on how to improve the model.
Particularly active were representatives from the Ministry of
Health, the Academy of Sciences, and the Customs Committee.
A question that arose several times was the effective
regulation of private laboratories in Uzbekistan, and the
Uzbek side indicated that it needed to explore the matter
further. What also emerged from the discussion was the high
level of personnel security measures that are already in
place in Uzbekistan for facilities that work with dangerous
pathogens, largely through DTRA efforts.


3. (SBU) During the course of the workshop, the Ambassador
took the opportunity to emphasize to the group the importance
of these issues for U.S.-Uzbek cooperation in the sphere of
counterproliferation. He noted that events over the past
year, from joint work within the framework of the
Proliferation Security Initiative to Uzbekistan's accession
to the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism, show
that the United States and Uzbekistan are close partners in
the common struggle to combat proliferation and terrorism.
He also stated that in many aspects of this effort the United
States and Uzbekistan appear to have "common language," as
evidenced by the similarities between the U.S. proposed Model
Legislation and existing Uzbek laws, directives, and other
instruments. The Uzbek side spoke favorably of the
U.S.-Uzbek relationship on several occasions during the
workshop and noted in particular U.S. support for training
regional-level laboratory personnel as well as major efforts
to provide Customs with state-of-the-art radiation detectors
for Uzbekistan's border crossing points.


4. (SBU) At the end of the workshop, when the participants
turned to next steps, the Uzbek side proposed that it would
undertake the following: the Model Legislation and the other
presentations, which had already been translated into
Russian, would be provided to all other relevant ministries
and organizations for their review and comparison with
existing Uzbek law and regulations, that comments be
solicited, and that a common view be reached within the

TASHKENT 00001050 002 OF 002


Government of Uzbekistan. The U.S. side expressed its
appreciation to the Uzbek side for its participation in the
workshop and looked forward to hearing the results of
Uzbekistan's review.

Comment:
--------------


5. (SBU) This workshop is similar in scope and content to
those conducted by this team over the past several years in
Georgia, Kazakhstan, Southeast Asia (Thailand, Malaysia,
Indonesia, the Philippines),and Libya. In many respects,
the team found that Uzbekistan appears to have in place many
of the fundamental elements of the Model Legislation but
noted that national reports provided by Uzbekistan to the
1540 Committee and to the Implementation Support Unit in
Geneva (related to Biological Weapons Convention
implementation) do not adequately demonstrate how much
Uzbekistan has already done in taking the necessary
legislative and regulatory measures, in the form of
comprehensive pathogen security measures, to prevent the
misuse of dangerous pathogens. In discussing this lack of
national reporting with some of the participants, it may be
that Uzbekistan has focused more of its international
outreach on issues related to the implementation of the
Chemical Weapons Convention, particularly given the existence
of an international organization and large secretariat in The
Hague, as well as funding by Switzerland and Norway for
practical training.
NORLAND