WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: PLENARY REPORT

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000662 DEPARTMENT 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: 12/18/2018 TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM RU SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: PLENARY REPORT REF: A. STATE 098278 ¶B. STATE 101240 ¶C. UNVIE VIENNA 291 Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Geoffrey Pyatt, Reason 1.4 (d). ¶1. (C) Summary: The December 2-3 Wassenaar Arrangement Plenary was notable for its smooth pace and lack of controversy. The U.S. was successful in thwarting Russian efforts to use the Plenary as a venue to decry Georgian "aggression." The Plenary adopted the 53 list changes proposed by the Experts Group (EG) and all of the General Working Group (GWG) recommendations were supported. The Plenary also agreed to new outreach programs with UAE and Chile. Russia came up with a last minute request to add to the agenda the topic of "Destabilizing Accumulations of Arms in Conflict Zones". However, the U.S. worked with other Participating States to come up with an acceptable resolution to the Russian proposal so that even the discussion on this item was non-controversial. Russia's role overall was unexpectedly cooperative. End Summary. -------------- Destabilizing Accumulations of Arms -------------- ¶2. (C) The 2008 Wassenaar Plenary progressed unusually smoothly, despite concerns about last-minute (on the eve of Plenary Day 1) Russian proposals to add one discussion topic to the meeting agenda and remove two others. The Russians initially proposed to add an item to the 2008 Plenary agenda on "Destabilizing Accumulations of Arms in Conflict Zones" - an obvious attempt to advance the Russian government's perspective on the conflict in South Ossetia. However, as the agenda for each Plenary is preliminarily agreed to at the preceding Plenary, any changes must be approved by consensus. A special heads of delegation meeting convened the day before the Plenary reached no decisions on the Russian proposal, and at the Plenary, no Participating State blocked it. U.S. side discussions resulted in agreement that it was appropriate to discuss destabilizing accumulations of arms at the GWG (without reference to the undefined "conflict zones"); this issue was later added to the GWG's 2009 program of work. ¶3. (C) During the Heads of Delegation meeting, Ukraine had asked that Russia provide a written description of how it defined "destabilizing accumulations" and "conflict zones." The Russian delegation responded that these questions were the very reason for needing the discussion; there was no Wassenaar consensus on the definitions of those terms. In further discussing the issue during the Plenary, Russia said it would use Georgia as an example of how Wassenaar did not work to prevent destabilizing accumulations. Russia hoped the discussion would lead to preventing further destabilizing accumulations. The Russian delegation noted that Russia did not call into question national authorities' right to make exports, but reminded Participating States of their commitments under the Initial Elements, such as: to focus on threats to international peace and security which may arise from transfers of armaments where the risks are judged greatest; and, to prevent the acquisition of armaments for military end-uses if the situation in a region or the behavior of a state is, or becomes, a cause for serious concern. ¶4. (C) The Russian delegation repeated its comments from the October GWG that it had warned Participating States several times that arms sales to Georgia were destabilizing, but several Participating States (including the U.S., Poland, Ukraine, and the Czech Republic) "decided to increase arms sales to Georgia in "excessive" amounts." The only explanation given for these transfers, maintained Russia, was that Georgia was not subject to UN sanctions. The Russian delegation highlighted the Polish MANPADS transfer to Georgia, noting Russia believed the systems contained Russian components but that Russia was not consulted about the transfer in advance, and Russian queries to Poland went unanswered. (Poland later rebutted this Russian assertion by reporting that it was a Polish system and Russian consultation was not required.) Russia concluded its Georgia remarks by emphasizing that the situation in Georgia remained unstable and more sales to Georgia could cause further instability. ¶5. (C) The Russian delegation proposed that Wassenaar permanently add to the GWG and Plenary agendas the discussion of "Destabilizing Accumulations of Arms in Conflict Zones." It also proposed establishing an Open-Ended Working Group to discuss the topic. On the margins of the Plenary, the U.S. met with key Participating States to develop alternative language to the Russian proposal. The U.S. head of delegation then conveyed these changes with the Russian head of delegation. These efforts resulted in Plenary agreement that there was no need to establish a separate working group. The topic of "Destabilizing Accumulations of Conventional Arms" would be added to the GWG agenda and, later, the Plenary agenda if warranted. Interested parties could meet on the margins for further discussions on the topic as necessary. On the margins, the U.S. head of delegation obtained Russian commitment to table a paper on destabilizing accumulations, and agreed the U.S. would table a paper in response, discussing how the U.S. approaches the issue. Russia offered to work bilaterally; the U.S. head of delegation suggested that was not necessary and suggested that Russia could formally table a paper. -------------- GWG Report -------------- ¶6. (SBU) All GWG recommendations were for continued study in 2009 of issues raised in 2008; the Plenary agreed with the recommendations. The GWG items discussed at the Plenary were MANPADS and Re-Export Controls. Under the discussion of implementing the MANPADS control guidelines, Poland noted that its sale of Grom MANPADS to Georgia were legitimate and in accordance with strict export control procedures. No consultation with a third party was necessary, clarified Poland, because the Grom was completely of Polish design. The Russia delegation asked what control procedures were in place, noting that retreating Georgian forces has left behind many items, including MANPADS. Russia also said it had information that MANPADS had found their way into the hands of non-state actors. Poland did not respond to Russia's statements. ¶7. (SBU) On Re-Export Controls, Poland had submitted changes to a Russian proposal under discussion since 2005. Differences are related to the production of Soviet-era military equipment in former Warsaw Pact states, and whether Russia holds rights to such technology and production. Poland removed references to producing items under license, stating it believed the phrase was redundant as that aspect was covered by existing language. Russia noted Georgia possession of arms that were re-exported without the original exporter's permission, and stressed the need to ensure goods produced under license were included in re-export controls. Russia would not accept Poland's proposed changes (supported by other countries discussing unlicensed production with Russia bilaterally). The Plenary agreed to continue discussing the topic in 2009. -------------- EG Report -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The Plenary agreed to the EG's recommendations on 53 list changes this year. Two of the proposals not agreed this year were approved for further work in 2009. These two proposals are a U.S. proposal on Coordinate Measuring Machines and a UK proposal on underwater diver detection systems. The Plenary also supported the EG recommendation for continued mandates in 2009 for the Technical Working Groups (TWGs) on Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS), Low-light Level (LLL) and Infrared Sensors and Associated Cameras, and revision of Category 5 Part 2. Diego Martini from Italy was approved for continuation as chair of the EG in 2010. -------------- Participation -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Cyprus' application for membership was raised as France, speaking on behalf of the EU, made the EU's traditional argument for supporting Cyprus' application. Turkey again noted it did not support the application. Greece called upon the one Participating State objecting to Cyprus' application to join consensus or explain its position. Turkey did not respond to the Greek statement; once again, Cyprus did not get into Wassenaar. -------------- Outreach -------------- ¶10. (SBU) The Outreach agenda for 2009 was approved with no changes. This included two new outreach targets, the United Arab Emirates and Chile. The U.S. noted it had not reached consensus on its proposal for an annual seminar to discuss changes to the control lists with non-Participating States, but it would continue to work on this with Canada in 2009. (Note: ) several Participating States approached the U.S. delegation on the margins of the Plenary to ask the status of the proposal; there appears to be general support for the concept, but technical details need to be discussed. End Note.) With regard to a Head of the Secretariat proposal to establish a roster of experts from Participating States that could be called upon to support the Secretariat in the event that a particular member of staff is unavailable to perform his/her functions, the U.S. clarified that such support is contingent on concurrence of the expert's Government. -------------- Head of Secretariat -------------- ¶11. (SBU) The contract for the current Head of the Secretariat ends in June 2010 and he has asked for a one-year extension. The 2008 Plenary chair was unable to achieve consensus on this request, so Canada, as 2009 Plenary Chair, will manage the process. Russia and Australia sought the establishment of a formal process for keeping Participating States informed of the status of negotiations. -------------- Comments -------------- ¶12. (C) In marked contrast to previous years, this Plenary was notable for its lack of extensive discussions over minor issues and difficult behavior on the part of the Russian delegation. Participating States decided (on a national basis) not to respond to Russian provocations, having determined many of the points raised by Russia were not relevant to Wassenaar and the ones that were relevant would be discussed without reference to outside political arguments. As a result, the meeting ran smoothly and the Russian head of delegation Gregory Mashkov made a point of privately thanking the U.S. head of delegation for working cooperatively. SCHULTE NNNN End Cable Text