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