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