GUIDANCE FOR CONSULTATIONS ON UNSCR 1540

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 STATE 127434 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL AORC KPAO PTER UNSC SUBJECT: GUIDANCE FOR CONSULTATIONS ON UNSCR 1540 COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW REPORT REF: A. STATE 17394 ¶B. USUN 964 (C) ¶C. STATE 122725 ¶D. STATE 26339 ¶E. COMMON STRATEGY PAPER SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED -- PLEASE PROTECT ACCORDINGLY ¶1. (U) This is an action request, see para 3. USUN may also leave para 6 points as a non-paper. ¶2. (U) Background: Security Council member Mexico, in its capacity as Vice Chairman of the 1540 Committee, is leading the Committee Working Group currently focused on finalizing an outcome document from the September-October 1540 Comprehensive Review (CR),a review that was a major U.S. objective connected to the extension of the 1540 Committee's mandate (see REFs A and B). The Working Group is deliberating on 68 recommendations generated by Committee Experts and national delegations. These recommendations will ultimately form the basis for the Committee's work in the short- and medium-term, including possible extension of the Committee's mandate beyond 2011. The Working Group seeks to report to the Committee on the results of its consideration and the way ahead by January 2010. A paramount U.S. concern will be the provision of sustained resources for the Committee's functioning (see REF C on U.S. proposal for a new voluntary fund). End background. -------------- OBJECTIVES FOR WORKING GROUP CONSULTATIONS -------------- ¶3. (SBU) USUN should emphasize the provision of sustained resources as the most important meeting outcome and to press for the inclusion of substantive findings and recommendations in the outcome document. While the current Chair wants to present final recommendations prior to his departure, USUN should remind Working Group members that the review modalities set a reporting deadline of January 31. In particular, Working Group findings/recommendations should include these USG redlines which are to be circulated in writing to the entire Committee -- see also REFs D and E and para 6. Begin text The review outcome should: -- Point out at least three-four accomplishments that speak to what the Comprehensive Review has revealed about the effect of UNSCR 1540 in quantifiable terms (apart from outreach). -- Assess implementation challenges specific to the Security Council, UN Office of Disarmament Affairs (ODA),the Committee's Panel of Experts, and UN delegations in general. -- Discuss possible extension of the Committee's mandate in specific terms. -- Articulate the 1540 funding landscape (i.e., future activities for planning and what are the personnel and budget constraints under which UN ODA is operating to support the work of the Committee and its 8-member Panel of Experts). -- Establish modalities for Committee cooperation with relevant Inter-governmental Organizations (IGOs) (e.g., IAEA, OPCW, BWC ISU, WCO, EU, OSCE, OAS, NATO, CIS, ARF, African Union, Arab League, etc. as included in Comprehensive Review). STATE 00127434 002 OF 004 -- Outline the need for a clear role for 1540 non-proliferation issues in the Common Strategy paper for the Security Council committees established pursuant to resolutions 1267, 1373, and 1540 committees. -- Stress the linkage between Committee analysis and the assessment matrix and note the benefits of the Committee providing periodic updates of data it has collected for use by national agencies (e.g., to inform such areas as export control dialogues). -- Include recommendations that encourage the use of national penalties and both national and regional preventive enforcement measures against violators of export control laws or other 1540 obligations, as well as efforts to develop models of regional cooperation such as the EU-control lists. -- Refrain from linking improving export controls or other 1540 obligations with a humanitarian assistance or human rights agenda. -- Provide reference to and support for work with civil society, especially industry and nongovernmental organizations that provide 1540-related expertise and assistance. End text ¶4. (U) Reporting deadline. Post is requested to deliver para 3 points during informal working group meetings and report results NLT December 18, 2009. -------------- ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Washington's assessment of the comprehensive review stresses the following: -- The Comprehensive Review gave states and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs) the opportunity to present views on the future of UNSCR 1540. The process has laid a good foundation but we remain largely the only state providing both ideas and significant funding, aside from the European Union, Norway, and Canada (who unfortunately do not sit on the Council Committee). -- The results of outreach and initiatives since the adoption of UNSCR 1540 demonstrated international commitment to the non-proliferation goals of the resolution, and commitment to developing the broadest ideas for the Comprehensive Review outcome. -- Capacity building and encouragement of further implementation of resolution 1540 ) not sanctions ) is the clear way forward. Moreover, the United States recognizes that a "one size fits all" approach is not suitable for the various requirements unique to each state. -- UN Member States strongly support the Committee because they view the United Nations as a vehicle for ensuring that infrastructure is in place to implement Security Council resolutions. -- States see regional efforts as important to complement and support the work of the 1540 Committee and its recommendations. Effective nonproliferation cooperation is now imbedded in over two-dozen regional and intergovernmental organizations because of UNSCR 1540. -- The Stanley Foundation and UN ODA co-sponsored a conference of civil society organizations on the sidelines of the UNSCR 1540 Comprehensive Review, focusing on the challenges of implementation. Several dozen NGOs STATE 00127434 003 OF 004 participated, along with some industry groups. The EU intervened with a call for more civil society involvement in 1540 implementation, which we support. -- This committee apparatus is potentially a powerful policy tool, yet some broader UN membership still sees these structures imposing burdensome requirements (particularly reporting requirements) and other legal obligations without the benefit of tangible capacity-building. -- There is support for yet another Committee extension provided we work toward an even better coordinated, better funded, and more inclusive approach toward the work of the 1540 Committee. -------------- -------------- TEXT TO USE IN EXPLAINING USG VIEWS ON COMMON STRATEGY -------------- -------------- ¶6. (U) USUN should draw from the following non-paper which was previously shared with P3 capitals. Begin non-paper: The Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540, stemming from the wake of the unraveling of the elaborate black market nuclear network of AQ Khan, is directed against the proliferation of WMD, their means of delivery, and related items. While the scope of the resolution includes terrorist activities, the resolution was designed to address the full range of proliferation activity, including any non-state actor providing proliferation-related services. The resolution also places requirements on states to ensure they do not in any way contribute to or support proliferation activities. A robust outreach program has energized a broad nonproliferation dialogue in our community that encompasses both Treaty-based activities (NPT, CWC) as well as the nonproliferation dialogue in such regimes as Missile Technology Control Regime, Wassenaar Arrangement, Australia Group, and others. We have not objected to efforts to refine/coordinate the two CT (1267/1373) Committees and such efforts should proceed. However, the nonproliferation community in nearly all aspects is a different group with a core set of assistance programs and less direct overlaps. We have supported joint briefings, workshops. and presentations for late-reporting states, but have not viewed efforts to consolidate reporting requirements or technical implementation workshops as needed. Each committee features legally binding obligations imposed under Chapter VII of the Charter, together with mechanisms for capacity building and technical assistance to encourage more robust Member State implementation of these obligations. This committee apparatus is potentially a powerful policy tool, yet broader UN membership often sees these structures imposing burdensome requirements (particularly reporting requirements) and other legal obligations in which all but 15 Member States have no real say. We have been constantly vigilant against attempts to shift the center of gravity within the UN system from the UNSC to the UNGA. We seek views to ensure the Security Council carefully addresses efforts designed to rationalize the work of all three Committees. Carefully addressing such efforts does not reflect opposition to improving efficiencies but does support the need to maintain the independence and uniqueness of the nonproliferation treaties and regimes. We are interested in your thoughts on how, as the UNGA proceeds to implement the CT Strategy, and the UNSC continues its implementation of the CT and NP-related resolutions, there is coordination and cooperation between these principal organs as they go down their separate, mandated tracks together. STATE 00127434 004 OF 004 End non-paper. ¶7. (U) Further questions or information on UNSCR 1540 can be directed to Tom Wuchte, U.S. 1540 Coordinator. Basic background can be found on http://www.un.org/sc/1540. Washington appreciates Post's assistance. CLINTON