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