Promoting Support for UNSCR 1540 Voluntary Fund: Canadian

C O N F I D E N T I A L OTTAWA 000885 SENSITIVE SIPDIS NOFORN STATE FOR WHA/CAN AND ISN/CPI (TWUCHTE) AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PASS TO AMCONSUL QUEBEC E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/12/21 TAGS: PREL AORC KPAO PTER UNSC EUN CA SUBJECT: Promoting Support for UNSCR 1540 Voluntary Fund: Canadian Responses REF: STATE 122725 CLASSIFIED BY: Scott Bellard, Political Minister Counselor, Department of State, Political Section; REASON: 1.4(B),(D) ¶1. (SBU) Summary. Canada is concerned that the creation of a UN-based 1540 fund might deplete other nonproliferation resources and be subject to additional administrative costs. Canada supports a G-8 led, states-based approach in which donors would provide support on a bilateral basis. A needs assessment is important, as is a threat assessment, to demonstrate to states why it is in their interest to implement the provisions of UNSCR 1540. Canada is interested in possibly hosting a G-8 1540 experts' meeting on March 18, just after the G-8 Nonproliferation Directors' meeting in Canada on March 17. End summary. ¶2. (C/NF) In discussions with polmiloff on reftel non-paper, Senior Policy Officer David McDuff in the Division of Non-Proliferation and Disarmament at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade reiterated Canadian support for UNSCR 1540, and emphasized that Canada has made nonproliferation a priority for its upcoming G-8 Presidency. With specific reference to the 1540 voluntary fund, he nonetheless expressed worries that the Global Partnership program funds might be redirected to support 1540 Committee activities, as well as some concern over the challenges of a UN-based fund. He commented that such developments might constitute a "biting away at the apple" of nonproliferation resources. McDuff argued that a UN-based fund would be subject to additional administrative costs, and might result in a draw-down of resources from other nonproliferation programs. He questioned whether the UN is the ideal mechanism for building capacity to implement the goals of UNSCR 1540, and suggested that existing mechanisms might offer a better likelihood of maximizing funding. One alternative might be a G-8 led, states-based approach, in which donors provided funding on a bilateral basis. He proposed working through the Global Partnership network, given that some states prefer multilateral funding sources. ¶3. (C/NF) McDuff underscored the necessity of a needs assessment, which should also include an assessment of the threat. McDuff contended that "we must show states why they should care." He cited the desirability of a roster of 1540 experts, noting that Canada has 15-20 1540 experts, who could contribute to technical workshops, training, and education. With respect to the stated goal of increasing domestic capacity and implementing 1540 provisions, McDuff pointed out that national legislators and political leaders may not be engaged on nonproliferation efforts because there is little public interest in the issue. He urged a distinction between individual legislators, who may not be expert interlocutors on these subjects, and legislatures, which must be persuaded to pass required legal authority for implementing steps. ¶4. (C/NF) McDuff urged that nonproliferation and WMD work be concentrated at the technical and professional levels rather than in the public arena. In response to other informal ideas concerning the fund's modalities, McDuff voiced concern that the use of the word "embed" in referring to a plan to place dedicated 1540 staff in regional organizations risked creating the impression that these experts might be "co-opted" by the organizations upon which they would depend. At the same time, he was supportive of pilot counter proliferation financing plans. ¶5. (C/NF) McDuff also expressed concern that a study of the financial costs of implementation might lead to "sticker shock" among states, despite the fact that 1540 contains binding obligations that states are expected to fulfill. He proposed a careful sequencing among the needs assessment, the release of the financial study, and the creation of the fund. In his view, the study should be accompanied by the fund, in order not to deter states from tackling needed changes. ¶6. (C/NF) McDuff wondered if the U.S. had seen an advance copy of the outcome of the Comprehensive Review, asking if the USG could share any set of recommendations with Canada, especially as it undertakes its G-8 planning. He also sought additional U.S. insights on Russian views on UNSCR 1540, given that Moscow has a self-interest in promoting the Global Partnership. McDuff floated the idea of Canada could host a meeting of G-8 1540 experts as an add-on to the Nonproliferation Director's Group meeting scheduled for March 17, 2010. Such an experts meeting could then take place on March 18. McDuff sought U.S. thoughts on possible agenda items. He also would like to build on the experts list and to convene a "fine grained" meeting of the 1540 Committee. JACOBSON