WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: EXPERTS GROUP JUNE 23 -

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000427 SIPDIS SENSITIVE 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: 07/28/2018 TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: EXPERTS GROUP JUNE 23 - JULY 4 INTERSESSIONAL MEETINGS REF: STATE 66874 Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Geoff Pyatt, Reason 1.4 (d). ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The U.S. Delegation to the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) Experts Group (EG) intersessional meetings had a successful round of negotiations from June 23 ) July 4, 2008. The two topics that consumed the most time were the Technical Working Groups (TWGs) on low-light level (LLL) sensors and vessels. The LLL TWG took up almost half of the time during the first week and developed a number of alternative texts to address the issues considered by the TWG. USDEL was successful in getting the Secretariat to correct a 2007 mistake in deleting certain space qualified focal plane arrays from the sensitive list. Vessels TWG took up more than half of the time during the second week, and revealed a number of inconsistencies in the current WA controls on the munitions list. Discussions in the Neural Network TWG indicated that the current controls might be an empty box. Discussions on acoustic wave devices and field programmable logic devices produced recommended text that conforms to U.S. guidance. The discussions of C3I/C4I, software, components and the General Technology Note all highlighted the problems with these proposals. USDEL expects them to be either withdrawn or significantly modified as a result of intersessional discussions. The TWG examining future topics for a WA EG dialogue with the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Technical Experts Meeting (TEM) discovered that the list of related items controlled by each of the regimes was far more extensive than anticipated. Discussions related to high temperature switching devices provided the USDEL a clearer understanding of the hurdles for this proposal and will allow more targeted guidance for achieving consensus at the fall EG. Finally, discussion of the Russian proposal on fibrous and filamentary materials (1.C.10.) shed light on Russian motivations for the proposal without providing a clear way forward. End Summary. ¶2. (SBU) Fifteen countries (Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Romania, �A;Russia, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the U.S.) participated in the WA EG,s intersessional meetings in Vienna from June 23 ) July 4. This is two more countries than in 2007. Of special note is the increased support for the work of the EG on the part of Italy, France and Japan. In the case of France and Italy the support came from their respective Ministries of Defense (MODs). Italy included Admiral Stefano Tortora for four days of discussion on vessels during the second week. The French MOD sent four representatives; two delegates each week. Japan was also more active than normal during these intersessional meetings. In preparation for the meetings, Japan tabled five discussion papers and also made a number of presentations during the meetings. Japan also chaired three of the meetings (acoustic wave devices, general technology note and software). The Japanese delegation noted that this was the first time that they had chaired EG meetings. ¶3. (SBU) Another feature of the intersessional meetings that should enhance future work of the EG was the participation of both the current EG chair and Italy,s designee to chair the EG in 2009. The current EG chair, Martina Feeney of Ireland, attended representing Ireland rather than in her capacity as the chair, but she used her presence to better prepare for the fall EG. Italy,s designee to chair the EG in 2009, Diego Martini, attended both weeks, seconded to the Secretariat. Further demonstrating Italy,s commitment to the EG, Captain Martini has been given a new assignment by the Italian military that will make him available to chair the EG through the end of 2010. Low-Light Level Sensors -------------- ¶4. (SBU) The LLL TWG produced texts on six issues for consideration at the fall EG. The TWG also discussed the idea of developing performance based controls for cameras in 6.A.3. The results of the TWG are presented in WA-EG (08) TWG 018. The six issues on which the TWG developed text were multialikali cathodes, remote sensing sensors, "direct view", space qualified focal plane arrays, software controls for cameras, and underwater cameras. -- Two texts on multialikali cathodes are being forwarded to the fall EG for consideration. Both are intended to streamline the current text without changing the scope of control. -- The TWG discussed whether remote sensing imaging sensors were cameras that should more correctly be controlled in 6.A.3. Though views differed on the placement of its control, there was agreement that the current text was written for a technology that is different from that used for remote sensing today. The dated text creates problems of interpretation when applied to today,s technology. Alternative text that would update this control was discussed and forwarded to the fall EG. -- Part of the discussion of "direct view" in the TWG was similar to that of remote sensing imaging systems. There was a debate as to whether the current control text in 6.A.2.c. would be more appropriate in 6.A.3. A second part of the discussion regarded how to clarify the differing definitions of "direct view" in 6.A.2. and 6.A.3. Two alternative texts were forwarded for consideration in the TWG during the fall EG. -- Two alternatives were also proposed for reducing the complexity in the current controls where "space qualified focal plane arrays" in the visible range are controlled in 6.A.2.e., while all other "space qualified focal plane arrays" are controlled as "space qualified solid state detectors" in 6.A.2.a.1. Both texts were forwarded for consideration in the TWG during the Fall. -- Discussion of the software controls proposed in US 016 Rev 1 were complicated by Russian insistence that references to 9 Hz be dropped from the text. The Russian objection to the reference to 9 Hz concerned the inability of a licensing officer to determine if that specific frame rate had been exceeded and to control all software that might have that capability. After much work on the text in US 016 Rev 1 that failed to remove Russian objections, an alternative text was proposed that references the current frame rate control text without mentioning 9 Hz. This text seemed to be acceptable to the Russian delegation. Both texts were forwarded for consideration by the TWG during the fall EG. -- The TWG had a detailed discussion of underwater cameras currently controlled in Category 8. The TWG initially considered a text that would have deleted some of the current controls in Category 8 on the basis that these items are controlled in Category 6, and the current controls in Category 8 represent "double coverage". The discussion evolved into a general discussion of whether there was a need to control any cameras in Category 8. The UK expressed a strong inclination to consolidate all camera controls in Category 6. Text was also discussed that would delete the note associated with 8.A.2.f. (added as a stop-gap measure in 2005) and reflect the changes made to 6.A.2. in 2007 to capture detectors that employ charge multiplication. Both this text and the text that would delete some of the items in Category 8 (that some felt are already covered in Category 6) were forwarded for further consideration by the TWG during the fall EG. -- Discussion of the idea of developing performance based controls for cameras in 6.A.3. was exploratory in nature. It was acknowledged that this would not be an easy task, but the majority of the views expressed favored further examination of the possibility. Several delegates spoke of the benefit that had derived from simplifying and clarifying the laser controls in 2006. Clarifying the controls has meant that less time is needed by licensing officers to rate lasers and thus there has been an increase in efficiency. Delegates noted that if a similar result could be achieved for the items controlled in 6.A.3., it would also be a great benefit. ¶5. (SBU) USDEL succeeded in getting the restoration to the Sensitive List of space qualified focal plane arrays after this entry was inadvertently deleted from the list in 2007. USDEL presented the evidence that item 6.A.2.e. had been inadvertently deleted from the text. After doing its own research, the Secretariat concluded that the U.S. was correct; the deletion had been inadvertent, and that, as it was a clerical error, there was no need to seek EG approval to correct the error. The EG chair announced on the last day of the intersessional meetings that she concurred with the Secretariat,s assessment and would direct that the change be made. Comment: Having the EG chair present at the intersessional meetings was very useful. Her decision means that time will not have to be spent during the fall EG correcting this omission. End Comment. Neural Networks -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The UK delegation opened the neural network discussions with a presentation. There followed a lively discussion spread over two days. Several conclusions reported in WA-EG (08) TWG 019 were drawn by the TWG. The current control language is ineffective as there is no common understanding of what, if anything, it controls. It was noted that there were parallels between neural network technology and nano technology. Both were often touted as having great promise, but to date there had been little practical result from a large amount of research effort. Another problem with the current control text is that it applies to hardware, however, almost all, if not all, current implementations of neural technology are the result of weighted algorithms that would best be described as software or technology. The idea of controlling "pattern recognition" capability was offered as possibly a more appropriate and definable way of addressing the concerns currently addressed by the controls on neural networks. There was inconclusive discussion as to whether current controls for field programmable logic devices (3.A.1.a.7) and application specific integrated circuits (3.A.1.a.10.) did not adequately control what is desired by the neural network integrated circuit (3.A.1.a.9.) control. The chair expressed the hope that with the information shared during these discussions, it would be possible to find consensus on a TWG recommendation for the EG in the fall after reflection in capitals. C3I/C4I -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The discussion of C3I/C4I during the intersessional meetings addressed two topics. The first was the Russian idea for adding command and communications systems to the ML. Several options for addressing this issue were left open for further consideration at the fall EG. These include: (1) leaving the current text unaltered and considering a definition or SOU to ensure a common understanding that communication systems are controlled, (2) adding an entry to the illustrative list in ML 11 and (3) adding a new control in ML 17. The second topic addressed was the UK proposal (GB 006) to add a dual-use control for C3I/C4I software. It appears after discussion in the TWG, with critical comments made by Japan, the USDEL and UK industry, that the UK will drop this proposal in the Fall. In its place the UK still wants to explore the idea of additional changes to ML 21. Field Programmable Logic Devices (FPLDs) -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Good progress was made during the intersessional meetings in developing a plan for agreement on US 017 and JP 005 in the fall EG. Japan agreed to delete the control parameter for basic gate propagation delay time from JP 005. This leaves US 017 as the only text under consideration for 3.A.1.a.7. The UK, Japan and Canada were all on study reserve for US 017 at the end of the Spring EG. USDEL seemed to be able to satisfy their concerns during the intersessional discussions. With respect to discussion of JP 005, there were a wide range of opinions expressed with little resolution. USDEL suggested that the basic gate propagation time should be 0.02 nanoseconds rather than 0.01. EG-TEM Dialogue -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Peter Szorenyi of Australia produced a 47 page document showing where controls in WA and MTCR controlled like items. The extent of this commonality surprised all of those present. The TWG chair,s report, WA-EG (08) TWG 016, will be considered during the fall EG with a view to having the EG chair provide this document to her TEM counterpart as a possible reference for any future dialogue. High Temperature Switching Devices (HTSDs) -------------- ¶10. (SBU) USDEL used the opportunity to expand the information that it had previously presented in support of US 004 to add new controls for high temperature switches and to better understand the concerns of others. The Japanese delegation presented a paper (WA-EG (08) JP 020) expressing Japan,s concerns about this control. The Japanese paper confirmed the justification for US 004 that 200 degrees Celsius (C) will be the maximum temperature anticipated for automotive use by the year 2010, but it also argued this temperature is likely to continue to rise and that the usage of these switches is also likely to become widespread in a variety of industries. Questions about the controllability of these switches were raised mostly by the representatives from Japan, but by representatives from Italy, Canada, France and Australia, as well. A question was raised about whether junction temperature was an adequate control parameter and whether or not device demand should also be considered. It was suggested that the illustrative note be deleted and the chapeau be changed to read "Solid state switching devices (diodes, transistors, thyristors and rectifiers) having all of the following:". It was requested that the U.S. produce a matrix that would show the performance parameters used by different applications. ¶11. (C) Comment: Some delegation,s unease that greeted the previous 2004 and 2005 U.S. proposals that failed to win consensus for controlling high temperature switches appears to remain in the EG. Other participating states appear to be willing to work with the U.S., but want to make sure that the thresholds are properly drafted. To successfully reach consensus on US 004, the U.S. should clearly identify why certain commercially available high temperature switches are militarily critical and focus on controlling those. While the Japanese data indicates that 200 degrees C will be the maximum junction temperature in use in 2010, Japan,s forecast shows this temperature rising to 250 degrees by 2020 and these devices being produced in very large quantities. To achieve consensus this year, the U.S. needs to find a satisfactory response to these concerns. End Comment. 1.C.10. -------------- ¶12. (SBU) The Russian-led discussion of RU 001 Rev 1 to decontrol certain fibrous and filamentary materials was enlightening. The Russian proposal to decontrol up to 70 kilograms of this material as a sample (Note 3) continued to meet with stiff resistance. It was noted that agreement on Note 2 would greatly reduce or eliminate the need for Note 3. It appears from discussion that Russia is mainly interested in exporting thread to be woven into fabric after export, although the chair contradicted himself on this point later in the discussion. The chair stressed the market for sail fabric as the target market, not body armor or protective clothing. ¶13. (C) Comment: The Russian head of delegation (Postnikov) struggled in chairing this meeting. His expert (Ivan Slugin) seemed unable to understand the thrust of the discussion or to clearly answer the technical questions posed. The Russian chair seemed to contradict himself on a number of points. At one point he said that Russia would mainly be exporting thread to be woven into fabric and that the manufacturer in the receiving country would have to add the surface modifiers so that it could be woven into fabric. At another point, he indicated that most of the exports would have the surface modifier applied in Russia and thus Note 2 would be adequate to meet most of Russia,s desire for decontrol. He indicated that Russia wanted to keep large quantities of this material subject to license, but if most of the exports have a surface modifier, then Note 2 would allow an unlimited quantity to be exported license free. Based on the chair,s comments, Russian motivation behind this proposal seems to be to develop a commercial export trade for items that were previously primarily produced for the military and the nuclear industry. It also seems to be driven by the differences between WA controls and NSG controls. Whatever its motivation, Russia did not make a very strong case for supporting its proposal during this meeting. End Comment. Vessels -------------- ¶14. (SBU) The Vessels TWG highlighted current inconsistencies between controls on the WA Munition List (ML) for ground vehicles, vessels and aircraft. The controls for ground vehicles (ML6) and aircraft (ML10) are not limited to vehicles with offensive or defensive capability. In the case of ground vehicles, all vehicles specially designed or modified for military use are controlled. ML6 also controls off-road vehicles with certain ballistic protection. The only components controlled are those specially designed or modified for military use. ML10 controls not only combat aircraft, but also support aircraft such as transports, training aircraft and reconnaissance aircraft. Components are controlled when specially designed for military use. Current controls in ML9 only control vessels of war with offensive or defensive capability, meaning that most naval support vessels are not controlled. Components in ML9 are also only controlled when specially designed for military use, but the wording of the chapeau is awkward. The UK proposal for restructuring ML9 has three aims: (1) to clarify the existing text (and particularly the chapeau),(2) to expand the controls to include naval support vessels, and (3) to expand the controls to include vessels that have certain characteristics that define significant military capability. Italy made a presentation the opening day of the TWG highlighting the difficulties in determining the military capability of a given vessel and focusing particular attention on the fact that a given hull is capable of a great deal of modification during the course of it existence. The TWG conducted a detailed examination of the ideas presented in CA 008 on militarily significant vessels. ¶15. (SBU) Comment: What can be achieved during the fall EG on this topic remains unclear. The current formulation being explored by the TWG of controlling both naval vessels and vessels with clear military capability in ML9 has a better chance of success than the proposals for dual-use controls, CA 004 and GB 014. Italy, Spain, Russia and Germany have all expressed reservations about expanding the current controls. Whether these objections can be overcome remains to be seen. End comment. ¶16. (SBU) Another issue assigned to the Vessels TWG for discussion was the topic of diver deterrent systems (CA 005) and diver detection sonar (GB 018). These discussions proved inconclusive. The TWG determined that moving GB 018, to 6.A.1.a.1.b. was not feasible. The TWG also agreed that it was not possible to combine GB 018 with CA 005 as had been suggested during the Spring EG. Questions were raised whether any military was known to rely on the systems proposed for control in CA 005 or had even purchased them for test of trial. Italy commented that it was actively exploring the possibility of acquiring such a system. Both of these proposals will remain on the table for resolution in the fall EG. Components -------------- ¶17. (SBU) The discussion of the Australian proposal for a Statement of Understanding (SOU) for components, WA-EG (08) AU 002, made little progress. Many delegations were sympathetic to the problems associated with licensing a component that has become &unserviceable8 or &unrepairable8, but there was no agreement that an SOU would help resolve the problems. Most delegations felt this was an issue best left to national discretion. General Technology Note (GTN) -------------- ¶18. (SBU) The Japanese-led discussion of "basic scientific research" and possible amendment of the GTN focused on possible amendments to JP 001 Rev 1. These amendments were circulated in a discussion paper, JP 021. Several delegations noted that "use" controls are not generally used in the dual-use list. With respect to a new definition of "basic scientific research", several delegations pointed out the problem with the revised Japanese definition that would rely on "intentions". It was suggested that rather than the elaborate note on publication the same objective could be accomplished by adding the phrase, "with no restriction on the published results" after "facts" in the current definition. Japan cancelled a second session on this topic, saying that the information provided in the first discussion was satisfactory for Tokyo to decide whether or not to further modify JP 001 before the fall EG. Comment: It would appear that the purpose of this proposal is to assist Japan domestically with implementing controls on technology transfers. Other delegations are therefore working with Japan to make the current controls more understandable without changing them. It may be that as Japan develops a better understanding of how other participating states implement such controls, it will come to the conclusion that it no longer needs to request changes in the current language. End Comment. Software -------------- ¶19. (SBU) The Japanese-led discussion to expand software controls focused on JP 022. Questions were raised about the first option in this paper that would modify the current control in 6.D.2. adding a reference to 6.A.2.a.3.f. It was pointed out that a reference to 6.A.2.a.3.f., microbolometers, would probably be an empty box. If the reference was changed to 6.A.3.b.4., it would catch all software used in cameras that contain focal plane arrays. The U.S. pointed out that it only aimed at controlling very specific software that would be used to upgrade a camera that was uncontrolled to one that should be controlled. Problems were also raised with the second Japanese option of modifying the General Software Note. Canada made a strong appeal for addressing software issues on a case by case basis and pointed out that this had already been done in 1.D.3., 2.D.1., and 7.D.3.a. and b., in addition to the 2.D.2. reference in JP 022. ¶20. (SBU) On the margins, the Japanese delegation continued to assure USDEL that Japan does not intend to use JP 017 to bock consensus on US 016. Other Objectives -------------- ¶21. (SBU) USDEL had the following discussion on the margins of the intersessional meetings in an attempt to prepare for the fall EG: -- US 014, Decontrol of Personal Area Network Encryption: USDEL circulated the idea of modifying US 014 Rev 1 by substituting the word "nominally" for "typically". The change was welcomed by Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan and the UK. All undertook to relay the idea to capitals for final approval by the appropriate experts. -- JP 007, Multilayer Phase Shift Masks: USDEL raised the concern that we have heard the claim that a single mask can be used for more than one device. USDEL suggested limiting the control to devices with certain feature sizes. Japan will take this idea under consideration. -- US 010, Ultraviolet Non-line-of-sight Communication Systems: Germany and Japan asked for more background information on this proposal. USDEL provided the requested information. Both delegations agreed to forward this information to capitals to inform their position for the fall EG. USDEL also provided additional information to the UK delegation. -- US 012, MMIC Amplifiers: Interaction with the German delegation on this issue was positive. As Germany was on favorable study reserve at the end of the Spring EG, this is consistent. Canada, on study reserve at the end of the Spring EG, raised a question that will need to be addressed. Canada believes that Note 3 of the MMIC entry in Category 3, that states that 3.A.1.b.2. does not apply to MMICs specially designed for telecommunications, could make it impossible to control MMICs technology in Category 5 unless the MMIC control parameters are inserted in 5.E.1. -- US 002, CMM Machines: USDEL also shared language that the U.S. is considering for use in revising US 002 using "6 percent of the longest axis" rather than the more complicated note currently in the text. This text was shared with Canada, Germany, Japan, the UK, Spain and Sweden. The initial response was favorable from all of these delegations, but all will need time in capitals to fully evaluate. PYATT