GUIDANCE FOR THE 2009 UN GROUP OF GOVERNMENTAL

UNCLAS STATE 014039

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS, GENEVA FOR CD DEL, USUN FOR POL

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM MCAP UNGA CDG MASS SIPDIS
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE FOR THE 2009 UN GROUP OF GOVERNMENTAL
EXPERTS FOR THE UN REGISTER OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS

REF: (A)06 STATE 31283, (B)STATE 106474



1. (SBU) SUMMARY: This message provides guidance for
the U.S. Expert to the 2009 UN Group of Governmental
Experts (GGE) on the Continuing Operation of the UN
Register of Conventional Arms. The 2009 GGE will meet
February 16 - 20, April 27 - May 3, and July 13-17. The
February and April meetings will be held in Geneva and
the July meeting in New York.


2. (SBU) The U.S. should continue its strong advocacy
in the GGE for increased transparency on arms transfers
and encouraging greater participation in the Register.
In addition to its traditional role as a global
confidence-building measure, the Register's equipment
categories have been increasingly looked to in recent
years as a template for international arms embargoes (as
the UN Security Council did on North Korea and Iran).
The U.S. has been a leading force in the development of
the Register, including advocating for adding MANPADS to
the Register and lowering the artillery threshold to
75mm in 2003.


3. (SBU) The overarching U.S. objective for the 2009
GGE is ensuring that the Register supports the U.S.
conventional arms transfer policy goal of increasing the
transparency of arms transfers. In pursuit of this
objective, priority U.S. objectives for the 2009 GGE
include:

-- Promoting universal participation in the Register;
-- Raising the profile of both the Register process and
the information exchanged;
-- Ensuring that the Register addresses current threats;
-- Not opposing creation of a category on transfers of
small arms and light weapons (SA/LW);
-- Increasing support for the U.S. practice of reporting
of model/type data for imports and exports;
-- Encouraging reporting of procurement through national
production (PTNP) and military holdings on the same
basis as imports and exports (i.e., "request" vice
"invite" Member States to provide such information) in a
manner consistent with existing U.S. reporting practices
but ensuring that such reporting is not required for
SA/LW);
-- Ensuring that transfers of armed unmanned aerial
vehicles are reported to the Register as a separate
category or sub-category;
-- Making other technical adjustments and/or refinements
to the existing categories; and
-- Maintaining the Register's exclusive focus on
conventional weapons.

END SUMMARY

********************************************* ***
Guidance on Continuing Operation of the Register
********************************************* ***


4. (SBU) Procedural aspects of the Register:

-- U.S. Expert should once again seek language in the
final report encouraging bilateral, multilateral,
regional, and sub-regional consultations to discuss
individual submissions of data. This step would
increase the confidence-building value of the
information annually exchanged and help promote greater
participation in all aspects of the Register. (This does
not imply assessments of the data by the UN or regional
organizations.)

-- Any measures to strengthen UN Office of Disarmament
Affairs (ODA) support of the Register and to raise the
Register's profile and accessibility should be done
within existing resources.


5. (SBU) Adjustments and refinements to existing
categories:

-- The United States supports proposals to ensure the
Register is relevant to current security concerns.
Harmonizing the Register's reporting requirements with
those contained in other regimes, such as the Wassenaar
Arrangement, may decrease the amount of work required to
fulfill the different reporting obligations. However,
this must be balanced against the different goals in the
various regimes. As such, the U.S. can support the
following:

Category IV (combat aircraft):
--------------
-- See para 7 below for discussion of either seeking a
new category for reporting of UAV transfers or, as a
fall-back, amending this category by adding a sub-
category of "Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" and
changing the category name to "Combat Aircraft and Armed
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles".

Category VI (naval warships):
--------------
-- The U.S. supports lowering the ship tonnage to the
Wassenaar level of 150 metric tons.

Category VII (missiles and missile launchers):
-------------- -
-- At the 1992, 1994, 1997, and 2000 GGEs, the U.S.
supported reducing the missile range limit from 25 km to
20 km. However, in 2003 and 2006, to ensure consistency
with Wassenaar reporting, the U.S. did not pursue a
lower range threshold. The U.S. will not seek or
support a lower range threshold this year.

-- The U.S. supports including all surface-to-air
missiles (SAMs) in the missile category. Currently this
category only includes MANPADS, which were added to the
Register in 2003. China will most likely continue to
oppose adding all SAMs.

Adjustments to other categories:
--------------

-- The U.S. continues to be unable to support the UK
proposal to adjust the definitions in the existing
categories to better track with the equipment reported
to Wassenaar. The U.S. is concerned that these changes
could have a negative impact on efforts to increase
participation in the Register by making it appear too
complex for countries with limited national capacity for
tracking transfers of defense equipment. The UK has
proposed modifying the Register definitions in:
(A) Category II (Armored Combat Vehicles) to include
observation, reconnaissance, target designator ACVs,
tank transporters, armored recovery vehicles, and
amphibious deep water fording vehicles;
(B) Category III (Large-Caliber Artillery Systems) to
include gun carriers specifically designed for towing
artillery;
(C) Category IV (Combat Aircraft) to include (1) all
aircraft (armed or unarmed) designed to perform
reconnaissance, command of troops, electronic warfare,
electronic and fire suppression of air defense systems,
refueling, or air drop missions; (2) unmanned aerial
vehicles designed to carry out the missions carried out
by combat aircraft under this category; or (3) systems
for the control and receiving of information from the
unmanned aerial vehicles; and
(D) Category V (Attack Helicopters) to include all
military helicopters designed to perform target
acquisition, communication, command of troops, or mine
laying missions as well as unarmed military helicopters
designed, equipped or modified to perform reconnaissance
or electronic warfare missions.


********************************************* **
Guidance on Further Development of the Register
(Expansion)
********************************************* **


6. (SBU) Small Arms and Light Weapons (SA/LW):

-- As the Register's categories are increasingly looked
to as a template for international arms embargoes (as
the UN Security Council did on North Korea and Iran by
referring to the Register's categories in the arms
embargo resolutions on these countries) and possible
international instruments, it is important from a
nonproliferation/export control point of view that SA/LW
be added to the Register. Greater transparency in the
licit transfer of SA/LW will reinforce efforts to curb
the illicit proliferation of SA/LW, providing direct
benefits to both the U.S. and the international
community. The SA/LW community has made clear in the UN
Program of Action (POA) to Combat Illicit Trafficking in
Small Arms and Light Weapons context that transparency
measures on SA/LW transfers are the province of the UN
Register, not the POA. SA/LW transfers are currently
reported to the Wassenaar Arrangement and the OSCE, but
this creates incomplete coverage as Wassenaar only
covers transfers to non-Wassenaar members and the OSCE
only transfers among OSCE members. Adding SA/LW to the
Register will ensure broader global coverage of SA/LW
transfers and create a norm for both exporters and
importers to report on SA/LW transfers.

-- Momentum in support of adding SA/LW has been steadily
building since 2000 to the point where there is a
realistic prospect for the 2009 GGE to reach consensus
on doing so. Failing to do so could call into question
the Register's ability to make headway in increasing
participation in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean Islands
portion of Latin America, whose GGE members have cited
the Register's failure to include SA/LW as the primary
obstacle to increasing participation in these regions.

-- Currently the Register allows Member States to report
SA/LW on a voluntary basis as optional background
information. Member States "that are in a position to
do so [are recommended to] provide data and information
on small arms and light weapons transfers to the
Register as part of additional background information on
the basis of the standardized reporting form...or any
other methods they deem appropriate". Since the door
was first opened to optional reporting of SA/LW
information by the 2003 GGE, 5 Member States reported
SA/LW transfers in 2003, 5 in 2004, 4 in 2005, 37 in
2006, and 48 in 2007. The substantial increase in SA/LW
reporting in 2006 coincided with the adoption of an
optional illustrative reporting form by the 2006 GGE.

-- Reporting SA/LW transfers dominated the GGE
discussions in 2000, 2003, and 2006, and will likely do
so in 2009 as well. Most Experts at these GGEs
supported adding SA/LW to the Register, arguing that
doing so would make the Register more relevant to the
security concerns of a broader swathe of countries, but
a few key hold-outs (including Russia, China, India,
Pakistan, and Israel) directly blocked doing so. The
U.S. supported measures to strengthen the Register's
contribution to international efforts to combat illicit
trafficking in small arms and light weapons, but stopped
short of supporting adding it as an eighth category.
The U.S. wanted to develop U.S. capacity to implement
its existing Wassenaar and OSCE reporting obligations on
SA/LW and to observe the extent to which others were
willing to report SA/LW transfers (see Ref B). Now that
the U.S. has a number of years of experience under its
belt in reporting SA/LW transfer data to Wassenaar and
the OSCE, and a steadily increasing number of Member
States have been reporting SA/LW transfers (rising from
5 Member States in 2003 to 48 in 2007),the U.S. should
not oppose adding SA/LW to the Register.

-- The United States can accept adding reporting on
transfers of SA/LW to the UN Register. U.S. Expert
should oppose efforts to include reporting of military
holdings of SA/LW or SA/LW procurement through national
production.

-- The U.S. will not begin reporting transfers of SA/LW
until the USG takes a separate internal decision to do
so.

-- In exploring options for reporting transfers of
SA/LW, U.S. Expert should avoid options that would
create an onerous reporting burden and discourage
broader participation in the Register.

-- Any definition of SA/LW in the Register should be
consistent with the OSCE and Wassenaar definitions and
should track with the Firearms Protocol and UN Program
of Action on SA/LW.


7. (SBU) Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs):

-- The United States supports reporting transfers of
armed UAVs to the Register. At the 2006 GGE, there was
substantial discussion of ensuring that UAVs are
captured by the UN Register. Some argued that the
existing categories already covered UAVs and that no
changes were needed to the existing definitions, while
others argued that the definitions to Category IV
(Combat Aircraft) and V (Attack Helicopters) needed to
be changed to include an explicit reference to UAVs.
There was also substantial discussion of whether all
UAVs should be covered or only armed UAVs.

-- The preferred U.S. approach to the UAV issue is to
add a new category of "Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles"
that would use a definition of "A reusable aerial
vehicle, specifically-designed for unmanned flight,
armed and equipped to deliver munitions that are not
integral components of the vehicle itself." These
vehicles are understood to be generally much less
capable than those currently reported under Category IV
(Combat Aircraft) or Category V (Attack Helicopters).
This definition covers fixed or rotary wing vehicles and
excludes those with warheads, which might be considered
missiles and therefore captured under Category VII
(Missiles and Missile Launchers) which explicitly
includes some remotely piloted vehicles.

-- As a fall-back, the United States can support
amending existing Category IV (Combat Aircraft) by
changing the Category to "Combat Aircraft and Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles" and adding a sub-category of "Armed
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" with the definition used
above. (Note: This definition explicitly
distinguishes armed UAVs from manned combat aircraft.)
The U.S. expert is instructed to oppose any attempt to
report UAVs that do not carry a weapons load or warhead
UAVs or to lump armed UAVs and combat aircraft in
one new definition. U.S. Expert should consult with
Washington as the definition gets negotiated during the
course of the GGE meetings.


8. (SBU) Reporting equipment by model and type:

-- The United States continues to support strongly the
universal practice of reporting model/type data on
transfers (i.e., imports and exports).


9. (SBU) Including data on military holdings and
procurement through national production (PTNP):

-- U.S. Expert should continue to support expanding the
Register to have Member States report military holdings
and PTNP on the same basis as transfers (i.e., Member
States should be "requested" rather than the current
practice of "invited") for the existing seven
categories. Reporting military holdings and PTNP on the
same basis as imports and exports would capture
additional relevant information needed to enhance
confidence building and contribute to restraint.

-- Military holdings and PTNP should be defined by the
GGE in a consistent and unambiguous way.

-- The U.S. can accept including only PTNP and not
military holdings if a consensus emerges to do so.

-- As mentioned in the SA/LW portion of the guidance,
the U.S. does not support reporting of SA/LW data on
military holdings and procurement through national
production. This would create an unacceptable reporting
burden for some states and would unnecessarily
complicate the SA/LW issue. Continued U.S. support for
requiring reporting on military holdings and procurement
through national production is contingent on such
reporting not including SA/LW data.


10. (SBU) Regional Registers:

-- The U.S. recognizes that, in order to include the
most threatening weapons in particular regions, regional
Registers could be used to achieve fuller transparency.
Such Registers could complement the UN Register by
responding to the particular needs of states in a
region. However, they should not undermine the global
Register, and any specific arrangements for regional
Registers should be developed in the region by the
states concerned.


11. (SBU) Adding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and
high technology with military applications to the
Register:

-- The 2000 GGE laid this issue to rest in concluding
that such items are clearly outside the scope of the
Register; U.S. Expert should oppose strongly any attempt
to revisit this issue.


12. (SBU) Adding ammunition, including cluster
munitions:

-- The U.S. opposes adding ammunition to the Register.
With the exception of missiles, the Register only
includes weapons and weapon systems. Adding ammunition
would change the Register from a confidence-building
measure to a military planning tool.
CLINTON