MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR):

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 017183 PARIS FOR POL E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2009 TAGS: MTCRE PARM MNUC KSCA TSPA ETTC SUBJECT: MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR): RESPONDING TO THE CHAIR'S REQUEST FOR VIEWS ON INFORMAL BRAINSTORMING SESSION (C) REF: A. STATE 4690 ¶B. 08 STATE 129729 ¶C. STATE 11102 ¶D. 2009 MTCR POC DOC 008 Classified By: isn/mtr director Pam Durham. Reason: 1.4 (B),(D). ¶1. (U) This is an action request. Embassies Canberra and Paris please see paragraph 4. ¶2. (C/REL MTCR) BACKGROUND: At the 2008 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Plenary in Canberra, the MTCR Partners agreed &to the idea of an informal brainstorming process in 2009, initially with time to be devoted at RPOC, on the challenges facing the MTCR provided this process did not interfere with the work of the MTCR or create a need for new structures or impose additional financial burdens8 (REF B). Inasmuch as the MTCR is scheduled to hold the 2009 Reinforced Point of Contact (RPOC) in Paris on April 29-30, 2009, the Australian MTCR Chair has requested Partner views, by February 27, on how to manage the informal brainstorming process(REF D). In particular, the Chair has asked whether there should be an agenda for the brainstorming session at the RPOC and whether Partners envision developing papers to facilitate discussion. ¶3. (C/REL MTCR) PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: In response to the Chair,s request, we want to advise both the Australian MTCR Chair and the French MTCR Point of Contact (POC),which will host the RPOC, that we do not believe we need a formal agenda for the brainstorming discussion. The brainstorming session is intended to be informal and should be a reflection of the issues individual Partners believe merit discussion. If Partners have specific topics they would like to raise as part of the brainstorming process, they should be encouraged to circulate a short paper well in advance of the RPOC (ideally by April 1) outlining their ideas and inviting Partner reaction. This will help stimulate discussion and also facilitate delegations, preparation for the brainstorming discussion. NOTE: We understand informally that some Partners would like the MTCR Chair to prepare a Chair,s paper for the brainstorming discussion. The United States would not support such a proposal as that would be inconsistent with the Canberra decision. END NOTE. ¶4. (U) ACTION REQUEST: Drawing on the talking points provided in paragraph 5 below and the information in paragraphs 2-3 above, request Embassy Canberra advise the MTCR Chair (and other appropriate GOA staff) of U.S. views on the MTCR,s informal brainstorming session. Also request Embassy Paris advise the MTCR POC of U.S. views. Talking points may be left as a non-paper. Info addressee posts also may share talking points with host government officials as appropriate. Embassies Canberra and Paris should deliver message to the MTCR Chair and POC on or before February 27, ¶2009. ¶5. (C) TALKING POINTS: U.S. Views on Informal Brainstorming Session at the 2009 RPOC (C/REL MTCR) --As agreed at the Canberra Plenary, the United States supports an informal brainstorming session at the 2009 Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Reinforced Point of Contact Meeting (RPOC),provided this effort does not interfere with the work of the MTCR. --Consistent with the Canberra agreement, our understanding is that this brainstorming session will be an informal discussion that reflects issues that individual Partners believe merit discussion. Accordingly, we do not believe we need to establish a formal agenda for this discussion. --However, if Partners have specific issues they wish to raise during the RPOC brainstorming session, we would strongly urge them to circulate a short paper conveying their ideas to all Partners well in advance of the RPOC, preferably by April 1, 2009. This will help stimulate discussion and also facilitate delegations, preparation for the brainstorming discussion. --We look forward to coordinating closely with our Partners as we prepare for the RPOC and to detailed and productive discussions at the April 2009 meeting. --(if asked only) The United States would not support tasking the MTCR Chair to prepare a paper to shape the brainstorming discussion. Such an approach would be inconsistent with the Canberra decision. ¶6. (U) Please slug any reporting on this issue or other MTCR issues for ISN/MTR. Department POC is ISN/MTR Director Pam Durham, 202-647-4931, durhampk@state.gov. CLINTON NNNN End Cable Text