WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: GENERAL WORKING GROUP

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000366 STATE FOR ISN/CATR, T, PM/DTC, PM/RSAT DOD FOR OSD: PDASD/S&TR, DUSD/TSP DOD ALSO FOR DIR DTSA/ST AND DIR DTSA/STP DOD ALSO FOR USD/(A&T)/ODUSD(I&CP) AND USD(A&T)/IDA USDOC FOR BXA/EA/OAS AND BXA/EA/OSTFPC E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/26/2018 TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM PREL SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: GENERAL WORKING GROUP MEETING MAY 26-28 REF: STATE 55864 Classified By: CDA Geoffrey R. Pyatt, Reason 1.4 (d). ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The Wassenaar Arrangement General Working Group (GWG) met May 26-28 and held an Outreach meeting with Israel on May 29. Only one new initiative was proposed - Best Practices on Internal Compliance Programs (Japan). The United States used this first meeting to attempt to direct and focus future discussions towards more concrete and specific subjects. Participants appeared to generally accept the idea of focusing the October meeting's Regional View discussion on the Great Lakes region in Africa, although Russia and South Africa advised caution on this approach. END SUMMARY. General Information Exchange ¶2. (C) Several Regional View papers were submitted, with a strong focus on Iran as a result of the October 2007 request of the Chair of the Ad Hoc Group of Security and Intelligence Experts to focus that group's discussion. Australia provided two papers on Iran -- one on Iran's UAV program and the other on Iranian weapons proliferation in the Middle East. Spain's paper focused on the Iranian defense industry, noting that Iran is attempting achieve as much self-sufficiency as possible. Russia presented its annual paper on Georgia's arms build-up, while Japan presented one on the security situation in Northeast Asia. France made an oral presentation on the increasing presence of Chinese arms in Africa, noting that some of these weapons have been found in the hands of non-state actors, such as Chadian rebels. ¶3. (SBU) Russia was the only country to comment on the Regional View papers. It noted the Australian paper on Iranian proliferation covered Iranian violations of UNSCR ¶1747. However, Russia believes this issue is not appropriate for Wassenaar. Russia emphasized its view that Iran is a very sensitive issue and violations of UN resolutions should only be discussed in New York. The Russian delegation further noted that USD 100 million in arms exports should not be seen as destabilizing; there are much larger exports to the region. The U.S. responded that USD 100 million may not appear to be a lot, but the recipients of Iranian weapons are usually non-state actors or small countries where such weapons transfers are significant or are cut off from other sources. ¶4. (SBU) Participating States generally accepted the U.S. proposal to have the October GWG focus on the Great Lakes region during the Regional View discussion. Countries willing and able to do so will submit papers on the region well in advance of the meeting. This will enable Participating States to come prepared to the meeting; foster better discussion; and possibly examine aspects of the proliferation problem that have not been discussed previously in the Arrangement. Russia and South Africa expressed concern with the proposal. The South African head of delegation (Abdul Minty) noted that if Wassenaar focused on the Great Lakes, then it would need to discuss suppliers and the gray arms flows and possibly lead to naming countries that are Participating States. South Africa has in the past expressed its concern that when NATO standardized its weapons, the excess stocks from new NATO countries wound up in Africa. The U.S. noted that South Africa's comments actually made a strong case for having the focused discussion, so Participating States could look at the issue and how to prevent it from continuing. On the margins of the meeting, several representatives noted the need to focus regional view discussions, and expressed support for the U.S.-proposed concept. ¶5. (C) Ad Hoc Group of Security and Intelligence Experts: In October 2007, the Ad Hoc Group Chair suggested participants to focus presentations on Iran in an effort to generate discussion. Several Iranian papers were presented (as noted in paragraph 2),as well as other regional papers. France noted in its presentation on China that Africa was an increasingly important market for China; it also noted the presence of the Chinese FN-6 MANPADS in Sudan. The U.S. encouraged Participating States to engage with China on its exports and, where possible, demonstrate examples of best practices. ¶6. (C) Germany presented a paper on High Performance Laser Pointers. The paper noted that high-performance laser points that emit a highly concentrated light could pose a threat to airspace security, because if such lasers are targeted at aircraft they can, through scattered radiation, cause serious visual impairment to pilots. Germany noted its paper was for awareness-raising; it was not proposing additional controls on such laser pointers. ¶7. (C) The Ad Hoc Group accepted a U.S. suggestion that participants plan to focus in October 2008 on add on components (such as night sights) for weapons systems and S-5 rockets, which are being used in non-traditional roles in Iraq and Afghanistan. ¶8. (U) The U.S. and Russian delegations jointly circulated the text of the March 2008 U.S.-Russia Strategic Declaration. Both delegations delivered short remarks; the Russian remarks were positive and stressed Russia's readiness to cooperate with the U.S. on these strategic issues. Specific Information Exchange ¶9. (SBU) Ammunition: Sweden asked Participating States to respond to its questionnaire on how countries report ammunition exports. Russia and South Africa noted the questionnaire needed studying in capitals; Russia said it would be able to answer the questionnaire in the near future. The U.S. delegation did not speak to this issue again; we have privately informed the Swedish delegation that the U.S. would not be able to report on ammunition exports. ¶10. (SBU) Geographic Scope of Transparency: Russia continues to receive objections to its proposal to have Wassenaar report on arms transfers between Participating States. Japan and Poland both noted they did not feel the proposal was in line with the Initial Elements nor was it necessary. South Africa supported the Russian argument that reporting on transfers between Participating States would serve to underline to non-Participating States that the Arrangement is not targeted at any country or region. ¶11. (SBU) Arms and Dual-Use Reporting: A few countries spoke up in support of the existing proposals on Arms Denial Reporting and Consultation and Dual-Use Consultation. No consensus was reached, but the U.S. had discussed this issue with other Participating States and noted we needed to continue to raise the subjects. Controls, Licensing, and Enforcement: ¶12. (SBU) South Korea, Ireland, Spain, and Turkey all briefed on changes to their export control systems. Romania asked that the Licensing and Enforcement Officers Meeting (LEOM) include discussion of transit and transshipment documentation. ¶13. (SBU) MANPADS: The UK suggested Wassenaar start to look areas where we could do more on ensuring strong implementation of the MANPADS guidelines. Three areas for focus were outlined: transparency - are the controls capturing all items that should be captured, such as upgrades and add-ons; post-transfer checks - exchange information on how Participating States are conduction post-transfer checks; and develop generic elements for implementing the MANPADS guidelines. ¶14. (SBU) Internal Compliance Programs (ICP): Japan tabled a proposal for Best Practices on ICPs. There was general support for the proposal, but several countries expressed concern about the potential burden on small businesses with trying to develop an ICP. Russia suggested including Intangible Transfers of Technology in the ICP proposal, because academic societies should also have similar procedures in place. Participating States agreed to provide comments on the draft proposal. ¶15. (C) Re-Export Controls: Russia had tabled a questionnaire on Participating States' laws and regulations regarding re-export control procedures. The U.S. and UK met with representatives from Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Czech Republic on the margins of the GWG to discuss the questionnaire. The U.S. noted tabling such questionnaires had become a practice in Wassenaar when drafters of proposals wanted to learn more about Participating States, procedures in order to draft a better proposal. The U.S. said we intended to table a paper on its procedures as an answer to the questionnaire. We repeated that the U.S. continues to stand firm that any Wassenaar document should be forward looking and that the issue of expired foreign licenses is a bilateral issue that does not belong in the Wassenaar Arrangement. The UK expressed similar support. ¶16. (SBU) During the GWG discussion on the issue Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic all noted they still had some issues to work out, but hoped to provide concrete input as soon as possible. The Russian delegation said it recognized that their intellectual property rights and royalties discussions with some countries is not an export control issue. The Best Practices document develops guidelines for future military technical cooperation agreements. Outreach/Participation ¶17. (SBU) Bulgaria, as Plenary Chair, reported on outreach activities conducted thus far in 2008, including the offer of post-Plenary meetings made to Kazakhstan and Indonesia and possible or upcoming activities with Belarus, China, and Israel. On China, Bulgaria reported that it had met with the Chinese in May and had indicated that the WA invitation for further discussions in 2008 remains active. Bulgaria noted that the Chinese have informed Bulgaria that it will let the WA know when it has formulated a plan, including suggested times, dates, and venue, for a follow on outreach meeting. China further noted that any follow-on meeting would likely be after the Beijing Olympics. Bulgaria also reported that it had sent a letter in February to Belarus suggesting an outreach meeting on the margins of the next GWG or LEOM, but that the Belarus mission here in Vienna had initially informally informed the Bulgarians that Belarus did not have funds to send officials to participate in an outreach meeting. Bulgaria noted that it had met again with Belarus mission in order to stress that Belarus should respond to the February 29 letter officially; at that point, noted Bulgaria, the mission indicated that Belarus was preparing a formal response that would actually propose dates for an outreach meeting in September or October. ¶18. (SBU) The U.S. delegation again suggested that WA should consider annual briefings on changes or updates to the export control lists to non-Participating states that have adopted WA control lists and standards. The Korean delegation supported this suggestion. The UK and Russia both noted that they have conducted briefings for countries on updates on changes to the control lists. The Korean delegation added that the Plenary should be mandated to assess the impact of outreach activities. The Korean delegation also suggested that WA might consider opening up the EG or Plenary to outside observers in order to encourage more states to participate. While there was no objection to the U.S. proposal, in order to advance the idea we will clearly need to put forward a concrete proposal for discussion at the next local-level outreach meeting and the October GWG. ¶19. (SBU) A number of Participating States, including Japan, Australia, and the UK, briefed on outreach initiatives undertaken thus far in 2008. Japan supplemented its oral presentation with a paper circulated at the GWG. The U.S. reported that the U.S. and Croatia are organizing an annual export control conference in Zagreb in September. The Croatian delegation reported that this date might slip to the end of September or the beginning of October because a previously scheduled international soccer match was creating a hotel-room shortage. The UK updated states on plans for its September 22-23 export control conference for industry, which would have a WA focus on the morning of the first day. The UK invited Participating States to provide presentations on bilateral WA control list implementation efforts. ¶20. (SBU) The U.S. delegation suggested that Participating States consider a post-Plenary briefing in 2009 for the United Arab Emirates. A number of delegations, including Australia, Korea, and France, supported this proposal, and the proposal will be further considered for Plenary approval. France also noted that it will present a proposal on outreach to industry at the next GWG. ¶21. (SBU) The Slovenian delegation, on behalf of the EU, voiced support for Cyprus' application for participation. The U.S. delegation indicated its support for Cyprus' application. However, Turkey, not unexpectedly, delivered a long intervention on the consensus-based nature of WA and that Turkey's "informal" objections to Cyprus' latest application should have been sufficient to ensure that the EU does not raise this issue given the clear absence of consensus. In somewhat strongly worded terms, Turkey noted that the EU should "reconsider" its "attitudes" before speaking. Administrative Issues ¶22. (U) The discussions on administrative issues, including the 2007 audited financial statements and risk management were straightforward with general support for the Secretariat's proposed recommendations. The GWG supported the renewal of the term for the UK-based External Auditors and the audit as a whole for approval by the Plenary. The Secretariat updated the GWG on risk management mitigation proposals, with specific terms and procedures for the establishment and use of a contingency roster forthcoming. The GWG further supported the upgrade of the post of Administrative Assistant from G4 to the G5 level, which would be reflected in the 2009 budget proposals. ¶23. (U) With regard to the 2009 budget proposals, the Secretariat provided a general overview; no delegations had any concrete comments, proposals, or objections. The Japanese delegations did note that on principle, it supported a budget with no increases. Any Other Business ¶24. (U) The Maltese delegation indicated it would forfeit its role as GWG Chair (alphabetically-based) for 2009. The Netherlands delegation, in turn, indicated it needed to consult with its incoming ambassador, not yet in Vienna, to determine its ability to take the rotating chairmanship. The Belgian delegation raised the issue of inconsistencies in the rules of procedure with regard to assumption of chairmanships, and suggested an open-ended informal intercessional working group could review these inconsistencies and make recommendations for the Plenary on possible revisions. The Russian delegation indicated that it had no objection with Belgium undertaking this in its national capacity but that any WA group would need formal WA endorsement; the Belgian delegation, in turn, declined to constitute an informal group bilaterally. Given the Russian insistence on formalizing any rules of procedure working group, we will have to work with like-minded countries to consider next steps. PYATT NNNN End Cable Text