CWC: AUSTRALIA GROUP, TECHNICAL EXPERTS

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000876

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR,
SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP>
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (ROBERTS AND DENYER)
NSC FOR FLY
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: AUSTRALIA GROUP, TECHNICAL EXPERTS
INTERSESSIONAL MEETING, THE HAGUE, OCTOBER 8-9, 2008

REF: STATE 106875

This is CWC-48-08

--------------
SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW
--------------


1. (SBU) The Australia Group (AG) held a technical experts
intersessional implementation meeting in The Hague from
October 8-9, 2008. Discussion considered 3 proposals to
the chemical control list and one proposal for the
biological control list. Technical delegations considered
a number of revisions to these proposals and accepted the
following revised proposals:

-- Addition of ceramic valves (AG/Mar08/CL/CDN/5 and
AG/Mar08/CL/GB/32.Rev2)
-- Ensuring that the toxic gas monitoring system control
captures critical components (AG/Mar08/CL/GB/31.Rev3)
-- Export controls of software (AG/Mar08/CL/FIN/4.Rev4)
-- Updating and clarifying the control of cross
(tangential) flow filtration equipment (AG/Apr08/CL/USA/15
and AG/Apr08/CL/GB/33.Rev2)

These proposals will be circulated to the entire Plenary
under a 60-day silence procedure.


2. (SBU) Delegations supported consideration of issues for
future implementation meetings to include a systematic
review of the Control Lists. Delegations recommended
holding a further Intersessional Implementation Meeting in
the March/April 2009 timeframe. The United Kingdom offered
to host this meeting.

--------------
CHAIRS INTRODUCTION
--------------


3. (SBU) The Intersessional Implementation Meeting
considered a number of important proposals addressing gaps,
potential loopholes, changes in technology and
opportunities for greater clarity in the language of the AG
documentation. The following member states were
represented: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria,
Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, the European Commission,
Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, the Republic of
Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Sweden,
Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.

--------------
CHEMICAL CONTROL LISTS
--------------


4. (SBU) Addition of ceramic valves (AG/Mar08/CL/CDN/5 and
AG/Mar08/CL/GB/32) was considered by the delegation.
Canada provided additional clarity to the definition of
ceramics in their proposal, suggesting three specific
ceramics: silicon carbide, alumina of 99.9 percent or more
purity, and zirconia. France proposed that ceramics
related to pumps and incinerators should be considered
similarly. The US, United Kingdom and Australia proposed
that France submit individual proposals for consideration
of any additional changes to pumps and incinerators control
language. Germany questioned the need to specify a purity
for zirconia but Canada stated that such a parameter was
unnecessary. The delegation unanimously supported Canada's
revisions. An additional revision limiting silicon carbide
to a purity of 80 percent or more was agreed on the
margins.


5. (SBU) Ensuring that the toxic gas monitoring system
control captures critical components (AG/Mar08/CL/GB/31)
was considered by the delegation with an intersessional
revision by the United Kingdom. Finland suggested the
addition of software as a possible negotiation of their own
Qaddition of software as a possible negotiation of their own

software proposal. Japan provided the delegation with a
handout clarifying their concerns over controlling
replaceable sensor cartridges. The Netherlands stated that
they have had legal trouble with the phrase "especially
designed". The delegation spent considerable time debating
the terms "specially designed", "attributed to" and
"dedicated". Final revised text was agreed to use
"dedicated", where dedicated was understood to mean
"committed entirely to a single purpose or device". The
proposal was further revised to add control for sensors,
replaceable sensor cartridges and software.


6. (SBU) Export controls of software (AG/Mar08/CL/FIN/4)
was considered by the delegation. The delegation generally
expressed strong support for this proposal which sought
broad control of software on both biological and chemical
control lists. The Netherlands reiterated the need for
harmonization among export control regimes. Switzerland
stated that they already control software for AG items to
some extent in their legislation. Canada provided a
specific case of a commercial explosives and narcotics
detector that could be upgraded to a CW detector using
manufacturer software patches. Australia also provided an
example of firmware upgrades of handheld detectors that
could have AG applicability. The US had the only
dissenting opinion that software should not be broadly
applied across the entire biological and chemical control
lists. Considerable time was spent debating the issues of
regime harmonization and technical applicability of
software control to individual entries. The delegation
agreed to add software to the AG Guidelines while limiting
specific software entry to toxic gas monitoring systems.
Definitions of software, programs and microprograms were
added to the AG lists. The definitions adopted were
identical to the Wassenaar and MTCR language. The US
delegation obtained additional guidance from Washington
prior to accepting these revisions.

--------------
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL LISTS
--------------


7. (SBU) Updating and clarifying the control of cross
(tangential) flow filtration equipment (AG/Apr08/CL/USA/15
and AG/Apr08/CL/GB/33) was considered by the delegation.
Japan requested clarity on the definition of "unsuitable
due to their design" as this relies heavily on
manufacturer's catalogs or installation certificates from
the end user. The US and United Kingdom stated that
resolution to this issue would be sought intersessionally
with Japan. The revised proposal for consideration was
limited to adding single-use, disposeable cartridges.
Switzerland supported the single-use issue, but, along with
Japan, could not support the deletion of the terms "capable
of being sterilized or disinfected in-situ" at this time.
France proposed the addition of a 0.5 micron threshold but
the United Kingdom stated that BW cuts across a broad
particle range. Providing a particle size threshold would
not be appropriate.

--------------
FUTURE DIRECTION FOR THE COMMON CONTROL LISTS
QFUTURE DIRECTION FOR THE COMMON CONTROL LISTS
--------------


8. (SBU) Delegations supported consideration of the
following issues in future Implementation Meetings:

-- A more systematic and incremental review of the Control
Lists (prioritized by intelligence feeds and science and
technology developments, and also revisiting previous
thematic presentations to include synthetic biology).

-- Specific topics worthy of further consideration include:
nanotechnology (including reaching out to other export
control regimes),AG implementation in a changed
information environment (internet era),AG implementation

in a changed economic environment (cost structures and
drivers),second-hand equipment, and software.

--------------
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
--------------


9. (SBU) Delegations recommended the holding of a further
Intersessional Implementation Meeting, with March/April
2009 timing proposed. The United Kingdom offered to
host such a meeting.


10. (U) Javits sends
GALLAGHER