P3 DISCUSSES 1540 COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 5

UNCLAS USEU BRUSSELS 000248

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL AORC KPAO UNSC UK FR
SUBJECT: P3 DISCUSSES 1540 COMMITTEE FEBRUARY 5

REF: A. STATE 8246


B. USUN 93

C. USUN 1186 (07)

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED -- PLEASE HANDLE ACCORDINGLY


1. (U) Summary. UK hosted a P3 discussion on continuation
of the 1540 Committee on February 5 in response to REF A
demarche at its EU Mission with U.S. 1540 Coordinator and
French MFA reps. Both UK and Fance expressed their
appreciation for the U.S in taking the lead to draft
essential eleents, and indicated that they would strive to
have final views back to Washington and/or New Yrk before
February 13. The consultations undrscored all three share
an interest in a longer term extension, although UK and
France admitted their capitals have not devoted the same
level of policy formulation to the renewal preparation and
had no objection to the U.S. providing the initial ideas for
further delivery to Russia, China, and then the rest of the
Security Council. They suggested that the building blocks
should tactically precede a draft resolution which could be
co-sponsored by the U.S. and Russia, and other Security
Council members. See nonpaper in para 4 that was discussed.
End summary.

2 (SBU) At the P3 discussions, the following objectives were
emphasized:

-- The U.S. commitment to securing a resolution authorizing
the continuation of the Committee established for UNSCR 1540,
which is set to expire in April 2008, and that Washington had
two extensive interagency discussions among nonproliferation
experts to develop practical objectives.

-- Our desire to quickly gain UK and French support for
including additional measures designed to increase the
Committee's and Member States' ability to implement the
resolution's basic requirements.

-- In obtaining these objectives, the U.S. view that we are
seeking a consensus agreement within the Security Council to
include measures beyond simple Committee extension - and that
this would require P3 support to bring various views
together. See REF B for UN challenges among Committee
members.


3. (SBU) In general terms, both UK and France agreed with
more than a technical rollover. UK rep Nick Low, Head of the
Nuclear Issues Section in the United Kingdom's Counter
Proliferation Department, professed his view that based on
previous consultations with South African nonproliferation
experts (see REF C) the building blocks were achievable but
he sought more information on both the voluntary fund and
proliferation financing. French reps, Thomas Guibert
(Disarmament and Nonproliferation Department) and Jay
Dharmadhikari (International Organizations) were in agreement
with the majority of the nonpaper but also expressed interest
in more information regarding proliferation financing.
Neither P3 member had any strong view on who should take the
lead on drafting the resolution but indicated they would
confirm with their capital before February 13. Other key
points stressed by UK and France included:

a. A 5 year extension should not be an end state but leave
open further work. Neither UK nor France supported language
that implied the mandate for the Committee would end in 5
years - they wanted to keep all options open so States could
not theoretically wait out for 5 years the Committee being a
resource for furthering implementation.

b. Action plans and matching of donors was seen as an
important step. Although both UK and France supported road
maps or implementation plans, they agreed that we should
draft language that cites this as a useful way without making
such mandatory. France also suggested language that
concentrates outreach by region, e.g., with a 5 year renewal
the Committee could target each of the five geographic UN
regions for 6 months to create focused follow up.

c. Voluntary fund -- France has no objection and believes
the idea has merit. UK was undecided but thought details
could be worked out if the concept was agreed based on the
ideas in the outgoing 1540 Committee Chair's remarks.

d. Proliferation Financing. Both UK and France thought a
reference to ongoing Financial Action Task Force (FATF) work
could be used based on previous involvement of the 1540
Committee with the FATF. As noted in the building block
points, the specific details on ways to strengthen financial
obligations were requested as an additional paper in order to
see more details to share with their Treasury counterparts.

e. Both UK and France supported a comprehensive review in
2009 as a good midpoint objective to maintain momentum with a
longer mandate for the Committee. Although UK was concerned
that such a review could not be accomplished without
additional reporting, France opined that if countries worked
on road maps and updating matrices there may not need to be
another round of reporting.

f. There were no firm views on tactics to introduce
essential elements into P5, but UK and France suggested they
were comfortable with the U.S. efforts to develop essential
building blocks. France also reiterated its belief that if
many of these elements were reflected in the draft report
being prepared by the 1540 Committee on implementation since
2006, they may face less opposition from those calling for
simple extension of the current mandate which would mean no
new language from UNSCR 1673 that last extended the Committee
for two years.


4. (U) Text of paper used for P3 discussion.

Essential building blocks in order of general priority


A. The United States supports extension of the 1540
Committee's mandate for 5 more years.

Supporting Points:

-- A 5-year mandate would allow the 1540 Committee to make
and carry out long-term plans for activities designed to
promote states' implementation of resolution

1540.

-- For example, a longer horizon would enable the Committee
to plan, carry out, and follow up on workshops and outreach
in a more sustained and comprehensive manner. (The outreach
in 2006-2007, while outstanding, exceeded many countries'
staff capacity to effectively participate from capitals --
because of the short timeframe for planning these events, the
Committee was not always able to lay the appropriate
groundwork to ensure that the right people attended, or two
events related to UNSCR 1540 occurred in close proximity.)

-- Extending the mandate period is also important to account
for the time that, from experience, we now understand is
devoted to administrative and organizational matters
immediately after the Committee's mandate is renewed. Both
after its initial establishment and then after its first
mandate renewal, the Committee spent almost half of the
2-year extension period negotiating work programs, hiring
experts, reducing the effective implementation time.

-- Long-term extension provides sufficient time to focus on
Committee management priorities but more importantly permits
the Committee and its experts, as well as donors and
recipients, the time necessary to make plans for and to
execute activities to promote implementation of resolution

1540.

-- A five-year period would allow time for the Committee to
consolidate its most recent awareness-raising efforts in the
Middle East and Southern African States, along with previous
efforts in other regions into the critical task of
facilitating the delivery of technical assistance by matching
states with technical assistance needs to donors that can
meet them.

-- Longer extension is also beneficial because of the lead
times needed for programmatic/budgetary considerations; many
countries' budget cycles are a year or two ahead of the
actual work year, so it would be helpful to have a longer
time to plan our budgets accordingly to support 1540
activities in the out years.


B. The resolution should mandate states to prepare action
plans, where appropriate, that focus on implementation of the
key provisions of the resolution within one year (but not
longer than 2),and allow the Committee to facilitate the
matching of partner nations (i.e., donors and recipients)
with these plans to meet assistance needs.

Supporting Points:

-- This would shift the focus of the Committee and capitals
from reporting and analysis to implementation efforts that
are designed to build capacity.


-- "When appropriate" is language to indicate that action
plans are not a requirement but a national responsibility -
but without a plan to follow through on technical assistance
requests, it is unlikely that partner donor nations will be
willing to commit additional resources.

-- These plans would support the overall approach of
expanding the Global Partnership, as one example. (UK and
French nonproliferation experts are familiar with the G8
discussion on expanding Global Partnership - if needed,
Washington can provide additional background)


C. The resolution should call on the Committee to strengthen
its ties to relevant regional organizations that can promote
their members' implementation of resolution 1540; it should
compliment the work that regional organizations have already
undertaken.

Supporting Points:

-- Regional organizations are comfortable working with a UN
Committee.

-- The strengthened relationship supports the limited staff
capacity of the Committee and avoids duplication of effort.


D. The resolution should take note of the work being done in
the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as an important means
to limit nonproliferation by and to non- state actors.


E. The draft should include specific financial measures and
controls which states could elect to adopt to implement the
resolution.

Supporting points:

-- Washington is developing separately a paper outlining
these ideas.

-- Member states face challenges in determining how best to
implement the financial obligations that currently exist
under UNSCR 1540.

-- Language presenting specific financial measures and
controls that could be used to implement UNSCR 1540 would
draw on the work of the FATF in this area and resemble
financial measures and controls that Member States widely use
to implement resolutions related to counter-terrorism and
other threats.


F. The resolution should encourage the creation of an
outside voluntary fund for Committee use in supporting
implementation, e.g., tapping into cost-free experts.

Supporting Points:

-- Washington's initial thinking is that this fund would be
voluntary in nature, with agreed procedures for Committee use
- a separate paper is being prepared.

-- Donors outside of the Committee, particularly Norway and
EU, support this as an effective way to shape long- term
implementation efforts.

-- Many states see the only output of the Committee as asking
for reports with no reciprocal payback - such a fund enables
the Committee to play a more supportive role in
implementation.


G. The resolution should call for a comprehensive review of
the status of implementation by the Security Council by the
end of 2009 and seek ways to broaden stakeholder involvement
in the implementation of resolution 1540 through caucus
meetings with interested states both in capitals and within
the United Nations.

Points To Be Used As Necessary

-- Outreach should be an important element of the Committee's
mandate and should focus more on implementation of the
resolution rather than on raising awareness and encouraging
states to report to the Committee.

-- The Committee's outreach must be better coordinated with
activities being offered bilaterally and through regional
organizations.

-- The resolution should be as specific as possible in

defining the role the Committee will play in facilitating
technical assistance. Among other things, it should endorse
the four decisions the 1540 Committee has already agreed to
concerning technical assistance, as well as the remaining two
decisions that the Committee has not yet endorsed.

-- The resolution could make clear that the Committee should
not/not request any more reports.

End text


5. (U) Please contact U.S. 1540 Coordinator Tom Wuchte at
(202) 736-4275 for any further background.

MURRAY