DEMARCHE TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON UNSCR 1540 --

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 STATE 017394 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL AORC KPAO PTER UNSC SUBJECT: DEMARCHE TO SECURITY COUNCIL ON UNSCR 1540 -- COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW REF: A. STATE 8246 (08) ¶B. BRUSSELS 248 (08) ¶C. CONCEPT PAPER WITH USG REVISIONS ¶D. NOTIONAL WORK PLAN ¶E. NOTIONAL BUDGET OVERVIEW ¶F. NOTIONAL AGENDA ¶G. COMMON STRATEGY IOS SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED -- PLEASE PROTECT ACCORDINGLY ¶1. (U) This is an action request for USUN, see para 3. USUN may also leave para 6 points as a non-paper. Other Posts as info only. ¶2. (U) Background: New Security Council member Mexico, in its capacity as Vice Chairman on the 1540 Committee, is leading a UN Working Group focused on conducting a comprehensive review of UNSCR 1540 by the end of this year ) a major USG objective from 2008 connected to the extension of the 1540 Committee's mandate, see REFs A and B. The Working Group seeks to report to the Committee on the results of its consideration and the way ahead by February 28, 2009. We have long sought to conduct an open review to promote transparency and for states to determine whether additional approaches are needed on 1540 implementation. End background. -------------- --- OBJECTIVES FOR ENGAGING SECURITY COUNCIL MEMBERS -------------- --- ¶3. (SBU) Regarding consultations on this issue, Washington requests USUN to: -- Note our continued adherence to our original objectives for a comprehensive review meeting as provided during initial discussions regarding the Committee's renewal (i.e., a multi-day conference, open to all States, Committee-recognized IGOs and regional organizations, and select NGOs). (USUN should underscore proposed additional edits to the Mexican-penned non-paper on this subject in Ref C.) -- Provide informally more detailed ideas on a possible agenda and modalities that can be passed by Mexico to the Committee's 8 Experts to facilitate their development, in coordination with the UN Office of Disarmament Affairs (ODA), of a paper on a way forward for the comprehensive review. See Refs D-F. -- Indicate that, as a next step, the experts and UN ODA should be tasked to develop a paper on the administrative and logistic costs of various conference options, including a multi-day conference with attendance from capitals. (Note: We do not believe that a sufficiently detailed cost analysis has been provided and do not support the use of informal consultations to establish costs or limit meeting options. End note.) This will require an extension of the working group's end of February deadline. -- Coordinate with P3/P5 as needed, as well as natural allies such as Austria, to share the burden for developing modalities for an options paper along with Mexico -- as Washington understands the Committee has leaned toward the USG to provide further details. -- Inform France that their suggestion to hold a conference in proximity to the UNGA 1st Committee meetings has merit and should be included as part of an option paper. Experience from 2007 and 2008 has revealed that many of the experts from STATE 00017394 002 OF 003 capitals familiar with UNSCR 1540 are in New York during this timeframe. -- In determining the span of IGOs or others who are actively working on UNSCR 1540 implementation, USUN should ask that the paper in Ref G be re-distributed and addressed in parallel by the working group on International Organizations. This paper has yet to be agreed to by the Committee and we need it agreed to effectively invite as many IGOs to the meeting as possible. This paper is titled, &Common Strategy IOs.8 ¶4. (U) Reporting deadline. Post is requested to deliver the above points during the informal working group meeting on February 25 and report results NLT March 2, 2009. -------------- BACKGROUND POINTS FOR POST ONLY -------------- ¶5. Washington's support for a comprehensive review stresses the following: -- The need to make operational the original intent of Resolution 1810, specifically operative paragraph 8. The Mexican-chaired working group should produce papers that outline both: 1) a meeting that serves as a vehicle for a comprehensive review; and 2) what the objectives for a comprehensive review of 1540 would be for the Committee. -- That a mid-point review by all states, to include also the IGOs/regional organizations contacted by the Committee, would help to ensure that reporting and implementation matrices are used in planning for further implementation. -- That there has been no extended discussion by states since 2004 and that an extended meeting will help to determine tasks for 2010 and the preparation of the 2011 report. -- That announcing and setting of a date for a broad review by all interested states would help to determine whether additional approaches are needed on funding and implementation. -- Our consistent intention to conduct an open review as a way to increase transparency. The meeting would involve all states and be of sufficient length to address issues over a multi-day period. -------------- -------------- TEXT OF PAPER FOR USUN TO USE IN EXPLAINING REVIEW -------------- -------------- ¶6. Begin non-paper: The results of outreach and initiatives since the adoption of UNSCR 1540 have demonstrated international commitment to the non-proliferation goals of resolution 1540, and the U.S. is committed to developing ideas for the elements of the Comprehensive Review. We looked at several studies as well as the remarks by outgoing Chairman Ambassador Burian, our current Chairman, as well as the 2008 report by the Committee. Our ideas aim to build capacity and encourage further implementation of resolution 1540 -- while recognizing a "one size fits all" approach is not suitable for the various requirements unique to each state. We hope we can develop a review process that will better equip the Committee to pursue practical, concrete measures to enhance Member States's ability to implement the resolution, while recognizing that the pace of implementation will STATE 00017394 003 OF 003 require a longer strategic timeline than originally envisioned following 1540,s adoption in ¶2004. We should work to support more than just a technical review of the Committee. An effective review, approximately five years into the life of the resolution should recognize that both the UN Security Council and the many regional, intergovernmental, and nongovernmental organizations working to promote implementation of resolution 1540 need a longer timeframe in which to promote implementation of resolution 1540. A mid-point review while working under the extension of UNSCR 1810 by all states would help to ensure that reporting and implementation matrices are used in planning for further implementation. There has been no extended discussion by states since 2004 and this will help to determine tasks for 2010 and the preparation of the 2011 report. Announcing and setting a date for a broad review by all interested states would help to determine whether additional approaches are needed on funding and implementation. It has always been our intention to conduct an open review as a way for transparency. The meeting would involve all states and be of sufficient length to address issues over a multi-day period. End non-paper. ¶7. 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