1540: INDONESIA EXPRESSES RESERVATIONS ABOUT U.S.

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000323 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL AORC KPAO PTER UNSC KNNP SUBJECT: 1540: INDONESIA EXPRESSES RESERVATIONS ABOUT U.S. PROPOSALS FOR MANDATE RENEWAL RESOLUTION REF: A. STATE 34968 ¶B. STATE 8246 ¶1. (SBU) Indonesia's representative to the Security Council's 1540 Committee told USUN on April 8 that Indonesia will support Russia's technical resolution to renew the 1540 Committee's mandate, arguing that the Council should not seek to expand the Committee's mandate or introduce "controversial" proposals. While agreeing that language emphasizing technical assistance might be acceptable, he expressed concerns about the U.S. proposal to invite states to submit action plans relating to the implementation of the key requirements of resolution 1540 (2004). He also questioned the need for a five-year renewal, noting that the Security Council's 1267 Monitoring Team (al Qa'ida/Taliban sanctions) and the Counter-Terrorism Executive Directorate have shorter mandates. A five-year renewal would be too long and could unduly delay reforms which could improve efficiency, he said. Finally, he expressed unease that the Permanent Members of the Security Council had not yet been able to reach consensus among themselves on the draft resolution. ¶2. (SBU) USUN responded with points consistent with ref B, noting that the proposal for states to prepare action plans on their 1540 implementation is not new but rather reflects a recommendation in the 1540 Committee's 2006 report to the Security Council. Questioning the assertion that requesting action plans would be controversial, USUN stressed that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (with Russia's consent),the Organization for American States, and the ASEAN Regional Forum all have committed their members to prepare such action plans, "as appropriate." USUN also noted that action plans would provide the Committee with an important tool to facilitate the delivery of technical assistance to states that need it, and are not envisioned as a means for the Committee to impose new obligations on states or to penalize non-compliant states. ¶3. (SBU) With respect to the duration of the mandate, USUN raised points consistent with reftel, arguing that a longer timeframe is needed to reflect the pace of states' implementation of resolution 1540 and to permit the Committee to better plan and carry out outreach activities. USUN also noted that the work of the 1540 Committee is different from that of the 1267 Committee and the Counter-Terrorism Committee and so the Security Council does not need to be bound by those precedents. USUN stressed the U.S. view that resolution 1540 is an instrument that concerns nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery, and related materials and stressed that resolution 1540 defines "non-state actors" to include actors other than ones with a terrorist motive. USUN stressed the U.S. view that while the counterproliferation objectives in resolution 1540 can be complementary to the counterterrorism objectives of resolution 1267 and 1373, the 1540 Committee should maintain its distinct character and implementation activities. ¶4. (SBU) BEGIN COMMENT: Indonesia's comments and concerns reflect the consistent positions it has taken in the 1540 Committee since Indonesia joined the Security Council. Although Indonesia did not mention the U.S. proposal to refer to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF),USUN expects Indonesia would oppose that language. As long as Russia holds firm in seeking a technical rollover resolution, USUN expects that Indonesia will have little incentive to seek more. EMD COMMENT. Khalilzad