Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08UNVIEVIENNA662
2008-12-19 13:39:00
CONFIDENTIAL
UNVIE
Cable title:
WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: PLENARY REPORT
how-toR 191339Z DEC 08 FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA TO SECSTATE WASHDC 8836 INFO THE WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT AMEMBASSY ABU DHABI AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI AMEMBASSY NICOSIA AMEMBASSY SANTIAGO DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC DOD WASHDC
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).
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
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