Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08UNVIEVIENNA559
2008-10-15 12:31:00
CONFIDENTIAL
UNVIE
Cable title:  

WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: SUCCESSFUL FALL EXPERTS

Tags:  ETTC KSTC PARM 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0559/01 2891231
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 151231Z OCT 08
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RUEKJCS/DOD WASHDC
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8548
INFO RUCNWSN/THE WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT
C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000559 

SIPDIS
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: 10/15/2018
TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM
SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: SUCCESSFUL FALL EXPERTS
GROUP MEETING

REF: A. STATE 098278

B. STATE 101240

C. UNVIE VIENNA 291

Classified By: Counselor Eric Sandberg, Reason 1.4 (d).

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000559

SIPDIS
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: 10/15/2018
TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM
SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: SUCCESSFUL FALL EXPERTS
GROUP MEETING

REF: A. STATE 098278

B. STATE 101240

C. UNVIE VIENNA 291

Classified By: Counselor Eric Sandberg, Reason 1.4 (d).


1. (SBU) Summary: The U.S. Delegation to the Wassenaar
Arrangement's (WA) Fall Experts Group (EG) successfully
negotiated agreement on fifteen of the seventeen proposals
tabled by the U.S. this year. The final count is likely to
be sixtenn of seventeen as Russia is the only country
blocking consensus on one of the two remaining U.S. proposals
but will request revised instructions with a view to joining
consensus by October 15. Overall, the EG agreed to
thirty-nine changes at the fall meeting, bringing the total
agreements for 2008 to fifty-two. Among the most significant
agreements were new dual-use controls for detonators as well
as explosives detecting equipment, both of which have
applications associated with Improvised Explosive Devices
(IEDs). The EG also approved recommendations for the
low-light level (LLL) sensors and associated cameras
Technical Working Group (TWG) for making four changes to the
control text. Significant progress was made in developing a
new approach to controlling Global Navigation Satellite
System (GNSS) receivers. The U.S.-chaired Technical Working
Group (TWG) on neural networks successfully completed its
work. The EG agreed to a significant expansion of the
control text for vessels on the WA Munitions List (ML)
bringing it more in line with the United States Munitions
List (USML). The EG agreed to request Plenary mandates to
continue work in 2009 on encryption, low-light level sensors,
and GNSS receivers. The working relations in the EG were
excellent, with delegations actively focused on resolving
differences. The Irish chair pushed delegations hard to
reach agreement. A full list of the agreed proposals is
included at the end of the cable. End Summary.

Agreements on National Proposals
--------------


2. (SBU) During the September 15 ) 26 WA EG meeting, USDEL
successfully negotiated agreement on eight of the remaining

ten U.S. proposals not agreed to during the spring EG. Of
the two remaining U.S. proposals tabled last February, one
was the subject of a Japanese counterproposal; the U.S.
subsequently withdrew its proposal in favor of the Japanese
counterproposal. Only Russia remains in study reserve for
this proposal, because the Russian delegation had
instructions to support the U.S. proposal, but no
instructions on the Japanese counterproposal. Russia asked
for additional time to get these instructions. USDEL
anticipates that Russia will be able to join consensus by
October 15. The other U.S. proposal not agreed to will be
carried forward to 2009. Among the U.S. proposals agreed to
by the EG in 2008 are: (1) new controls for high temperature
switches and certain oscillators, (2) closing a loophole on
software that can be used to upgrade thermal imaging cameras,
(3) decontrols of outdated software and computers, (4) a
number of clarifications of the control text, (5) a new
control for the technology associated with ultraviolet
non-line-of-sight communications and (6) a decontrol for
personal area networks that use encryption.


3. (SBU) USDEL also played a critical role in promoting and
achieving agreement on a number of other Participating States
proposals. The U.S. played a leadership role on these
proposals because in some cases the proposals represented
important U.S. interests and in other cases assisting other
delegations helped build overall good will. For example,
USDEL provided the idea and the language that solved an
impasse on the UK's proposal to control explosives detection
equipment. USDEL also provided language and then subsequent
active editing to achieve agreement on radio equipment used
to detonate or block detonation of IEDs. In addition, USDEL
played an active part in getting agreement on the Japanese
proposal on robots, the Russian proposal on automated command
and control equipment, and the German proposal to clarify
circular references in the encryption control list entries.


4. (SBU) USDEL also succeeded in removing proposals that were
not in the U.S. interests or modifying them so that they
were, in the end, acceptable. For example, USDEL helped
Russia conclude that no further action was needed on its two
decontrol notes for composite fabric (fibrous or filamentary
material). USDEL's tabling of a counterproposal led to the

withdrawal of the Japanese proposal on phase shift masks. In
addition, the USDEL's counter to the German proposal to
decontrol certain composite material components led to a much
more clearly defined decontrol.

Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs)
Technical Working Group (TWG)
--------------


5. (SBU) The UK-chaired IED TWG fulfilled the Plenary mandate
on IEDs. The results of the TWG are reported in WA-EG (08)
TWG 021 Rev 2, WA-EG (08) CRP 049 and WA-EG (08) TWG 026. It
recommended three new controls (paragraph 14.C., D. and 18.B.
below). These were all agreed in the EG. These new controls
will bring the WA dual-use list in line with current
unilateral controls on the U.S. Commerce Control List (CCL).

Low-Light Level Sensor (LLL) TWG
--------------


6. (SBU) The U.S.-chaired LLL TWG recommended four changes in
the control lists (paragraphs 20.B., C., D. and 22.B.
below). These were all approved by the EG. The results of
the TWG are reported in WA-EG (08) TWG 027. There was no
significant progress made on the issue raised by Canada
concerning direct view. There was only a preliminary
exchange of views concerning redrafting 6.A.3. to incorporate
performance-based parameters. While many delegations were in
favor, most believe that it would be a daunting task. There
was a cautionary note sounded that performance-based controls
might be less effective. The TWG also discussed possible
ways forward in addressing the issue of foreign availability
in 2009. The TWG recommended, and the EG approved, a draft
Plenary mandate for continued work in 2009. The mandates
notes that areas of special interest left open from 2008 are
(1) definitions, (2) foreign availability, (3) performance
and parameter based controls, (4) monospectral and
multispectral imaging sensors, (5) direct view and (6)
underwater cameras. USDEL noted that the actual agenda for
the TWG in 2009 will be shaped by the submission of proposals
and non-papers from Participating States and encouraged those
with ideas to submit them accordingly.

Global Satellite Navigation Systems (GNSS)
--------------


7. (SBU) After a bumpy start, the Australian-chaired GNSS TWG
made progress in defining a possible way forward for this
long-standing, contentious issue of revising the control
text related to GNSS receivers. Negotiations concerning GNSS
at the fall EG were initially stymied by a clear division
into two camps. France, Germany, and Italy all sought to
preserve that maximum future flexibility for the EU-sponsored
Galileo GNSS, while the U.S., Russia and the UK sought to
have all GNSS systems treated equally. Continued dialogue
made progress towards a possible solution. The U.S. proposed
a new positive control text to capture GNSS systems employing
encryption. After much discussion, Germany, France and Italy
all expressed an interest in exploring this text. An
alternative, a decontrol that more clearly defines commercial
services was also discussed. The EG chair pushed
Participating States to find a way to maintain the momentum
towards a solution. When a possible extraordinary EG meeting
prior to the Plenary proved unacceptable, she got agreement
on a Plenary mandate that encourages Participating States to
reach agreement not later than the spring EG in 2009. This
agreement would focus primarily on a positive control as
proposed by the U.S., but could also consider a limited
decontrol as an alternative. If text can be agreed during
the spring EG, it would be recommended to the Plenary under a
silence procedure. Plenary agreement under a silence
procedure would offer Participating States the opportunity to
include this update with those list changes approved by the
2008 Plenary. Comment: USDEL came into the discussions of
GNSS in 2008 with low expectations. Comments made by a
German technical expert at the spring EG (ref C) offered the
possibility of unanticipated progress. However, a French
non-paper tabled just before the fall EG seemed to undercut
that progress. Negotiations during the fall EG again appear
to have again opened the door for resolving this issue. The
German, French and Italian delegations all seem to engage
seriously on this issue at the EG. The fact that European
governments are again playing a larger role in the Galileo
project offers hope of progress, but only time will tell.
End comment.


Vessels TWG
--------------


8. (SBU) The UK-chaired Vessels TWG met with unexpected
success and fulfilled its Plenary mandate producing a
complete re-write of ML9. The results this TWG are recorded
in WA-EG (08) TWG 022 Rev 3. The revised text clarifies some
of the ambiguities in the current text as well as
significantly expanding the text to include vessels that were
not specially designed for the military, but nevertheless
have military capability. Comment: Strong opposition to the
revision of ML9 expressed by Russia, Italy, and Germany
against this revision dissipated in the course of
negotiation. The end result brings the WA ML much closer to
the USML in its coverage. John King from the UK who chaired
this TWG showed a doggedness that eventually bore fruit. End
comment.

Neural Networks TWG
--------------


9. (SBU) The U.S.-chaired Neural Network TWG completed its
Plenary mandate. The results of this TWG are recorded in
WA-EG (08) TWG 024. There was no consensus within the TWG on
how to change the text of the current controls on neural
network integrated circuits and neural computers. The TWG
recognized that the shift to digital technology has had an
impact on the current controls and recommended that
Participating States submit national proposal or papers to
address the adequacy of the current controls once they have
had time to study the results of the TWG.

Dialogue with Missile Technology Control (MTCR)
Technical Experts Meeting (TEM)
-------------- --


10. (SBU) The EG agreed that the EG Chair should forward to
her counterpart in the MTCR the table in WA-EG (08) 016 that
highlights potential overlaps in the controls of the two
regimes. Peter Szorenyi, the Australian chair of EG/TEM
working group, did a great deal of work to assemble this
table.

Plenary Mandates Requested for 2008
--------------


11. (SBU) In addition to the Plenary mandates requested for
the LLL TWG and the GNSS TWG described above, the EG also
agreed to request a Plenary mandate to continue work on
Category 5 Part 2 in 2009 with a goal of refining the current
lengthy decontrol note and ensuring that only products of
concern are controlled (e.g., avoiding control of ancillary
uses of cryptography). The EG also agreed to carry forward
two proposals that were not resolved in 2008. These are
US002 on coordinate measuring machines (CMM) and GB018 on
underwater diver detection systems.

EG Atmospherics
--------------


12. (C) The fall EG had a very constructive atmosphere.
Thirty-one of the forty Participating States attended at
least some part of the meeting. The following highlights are
offered:

- The Japanese delegation has continued to increase its level
of activity in the EG. Atsushi Tanazawa, although young,
speaks excellent English and is a very good assistant for
Masaaki Takabatashi, the Japanese Head of Delegation. The
U.S. had two very useful bilateral meetings with the Japanese
delegation to discuss electronics during the second week.
These meetings solidified four of the six agreements in
Category 3 and the withdrawal of the Japanese proposal for
phase shift masks. The U.S. committed to continue to work
with the Japanese delegation on Category 3 issues in
preparation for the 2009 list review.

- The Italian delegation also continue to increase its
profile in the EG. Its representation was dominated by the
Ministry of Defense and included Admiral Stefano Tortora, who
actively participated in the vessels TWG. Captain Diego
Martini will chair the EG in 2009, and Italy will nominate
him to serve again in 2010 at the December Plenary. The
Italian MoD has made the EG chairmanship Martini's primary

job for the next two years.

- Although there were fourten members on the Russian
delegation, none of them ever engaged in discussion, formal
or informal, except the Head of Delegation, Oleg Postnikov.
He is well-versed in the working of the WA EG and has
successfully screened it from political interference from
Moscow. He is scheduled to rotate back to Moscow in the New
Year, so the nature and level of future Russian engagement in
the EG is unclear.

- The UK delegation's performance continued to be uneven.
The UK delegation was energetic and made a positive
contribution to the work of the EG in that regard. However,
the UK continues to table proposals that are not very well
staffed and to rely on others (often the U.S.) to solve the
problems this creates. Poorly staffed UK proposals took up a
considerable amount of the EG's time. The UK delegation was
periodically out of step with the flow of the negotiations,
making ill-timed suggestions that at times took the
negotiations backwards. As an example, during the GNSS
negotiations when the Galileo group (Italy, Germany and
France) were moving towards the position espoused by the
U.S., the UK and Russia, the UK delegation unfortunately took
the opportunity to charge that U.S. delegation was not being
forthcoming. At another point, the UK unhelpfully suggested
that further discussion of GNSS be deferred for two to three
years pending further development of Galileo. The end result
was that the UK was sidelined through much of these
discussions, and other delegations continued trying to make
progress on this issue, resulting in the Plenary mandate to
seek agreement at the sring EG in 2009 along the lines sought
by the U.S.

- The French delegation continues to play a more active role.
All of the members of the French delegation were from the
Ministry of Defense. The French delegation was particularly
helpful in providing the USDEL with information on French
licensing practices for thermal imaging cameras.

EG Chair
--------------


13. (SBU) Martina Feeney from Ireland again did an
outstanding job of chairing the EG. She was extremely
helpful in making sure that U.S. proposals were given a fair
hearing. She pushed all delegations to reach agreement
wherever possible. Next year's EG chair, Diego Martini of
Italy, continue to understudy the current EG chair as he did
during the spring EG. Italy has set an extremely useful
precedent in committing Captain Martini to a full year of
preparation prior to assuming the role of EG chair.

Proposals Recommended
for Plenary Approval by the Fall EG
--------------


14. (SBU) Category 1 (Special Materials and Protective
Equipment) proposals agreed:


A. New Title for the Category GB013 Rev 1


B. 1.A.2. Note 3. Decontrol for certain component made of
composites and laminates. DE002/US029


C. 1.A.4.d. New control for explosive detection devices.
TWG021 Rev 2./CRP049


D. 1.A.8. New control for explosive detonators. TWG021 Rev

2.


E. 1.C.8./ 1.A.3. Deletion of one decontrol note and
clarification of another. US001


F. 1.C.10. Technical Note. Replacement of Japanese
Industrial Standard (JIS) with and International Standards
Organization (ISO) standard. JP002


15. (SBU) Category 2 (Materials Processing) proposals
agreed: None.


16. (SBU) Category 3 (Electronics) proposals agreed:


A. 3.A.1.a.7. Revised controls for Field Programmable Logic
Devices (FPLDs). US017 Rev 1



B. 3.A.1.a.10. Revised controls for custom integrated
circuits. JP005


C. 3.A.1.b.10. Oscillators and phase noise instrumentation.
US003 Rev 2 Corr


D. 3.A.1.c. Revised controls for acoustic wave devices. JP006
Rev 1


E. 3.A.1.f. Relaxation of controls on rotary absolute
position encoders. DE004/GB024


F. 3.A.1.h. New control for high temperature switches. US004
Rev 2


17. (SBU) Category 4 (Computers) proposals agreed: None.


18. (SBU) Category 5 Part 1 (Telecommunications) proposals
agreed:


A. 5.A.1.f. Addition to dual-use jammer controls. GB003 Rev 1


B. 5.A.1.h. New control for radio equipment used to detonate
or prevent detonation of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs)
TWG026


C. 5.E.1.c.6. New control for the technology for ultraviolet
non-line-of-sight communications. US010


D. 5.E.1.d. New control for the technology for Monolithic
Microwave Integrated Circuits used in telecommunications.
US012 Rev 1


19. (SBU) Category 5 Part 2 (Information Security) proposals
agreed:


A. 5.A.2.a.7. A new control for high security Information and
Communications Technology (ICT) security systems and devices.
AU002 Rev 2


B. 5.A.2. Revised definition for personalized smart cards.
DE001 Rev 1.


C. 5.A.2. Note h. New decontrol for special equipment
designed to service mobile devices that employ encryption.
FI001 Rev 1.


D. 5.A.2. Note i. New decontrol for personal area network
encryption. US014 Rev 2


E. 5.B.2., D.2. and E.2. Clarification of the scope of
control. DE008 Rev 1


20. (SBU) Category 6 (Sensors and Lasers) proposals agreed:


A. 6.A.1.c. New control for diver deterrent acoustic
systems. CA005


B. 6.A.2.a.1. Consolidation of the controls for space
qualified detectors. CRP055


C. 6.A.2.a.2.a.3.c. and 6.A.2.a.2.b.3. Conversion of
decontrol notes to positive control text. CRP055


D. 6.A.2.b. New decontrol note for certain mono-spectral
sensor systems. DE005/CRP055


E. 6.A.6. New definition for sensitivity and clarification of
the controls for magnetometers. CA001 Rev 1


F. 6.A.8.j.3. New control for LIDAR coastal surveying
equipment. GB011 Rev 1


G. 6.D.3. New control for camera software. US016 Rev 2


21. (SBU) Category 7 (Navigation and Avionics) proposals
agreed: None.


22. (SBU) Category 8 (Marine) proposals agreed:


A. 8.A.1.b. Revised control for submersibles. GB001 Rev 1.


B. 8.A.2.f. Revised control for certain underwater cameras.
CRP055



23. (SBU) Category 9 (aerospace and propulsion) one proposal
agreed:

- 9.A.12.b.2. Clarification of controls on components for
UAVs. DE006/CA010


24. (SBU) Sensitive List (SL) proposals agreed:


A. 3.A.2.g.1. Correction of Sensitive List to correspond to
changes made in 2007 for atomic clocks. GB008 Rev 1


B. 6.A.6.c.1. Added certain magnetic gradiometers to the
Sensitive List. CA002 Rev 1


25. (SBU) Munitions List proposals agreed:


A. ML2.a. Note 3. Added a decontrol for &line throwers8.
GB016 Rev 1


B. ML7. e., f., and g. Clarification of NBC equipment
controls. GB009 Rev 2


C. ML9. Restructured and expanded the controls for vessels
with military capability. GB007 Rev 1/TWG022 Rev 3


D. ML11 j. Added Automated Command and Control Systems to the
illustrative list of controlled electronic equipment. RU002
Rev 1


E. ML17. e.3. Added a Technical Note clarifying the control
for robots designed to withstand EMP. JP008 Rev 2.


F. ML21. Clarification of the controls on military software.
GB006 Rev 1
PYATT