CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): GUIDANCE FOR

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 062952


GENEVA FOR CD DELEGATION

E.O. 12958: DECL: 6/17/2019
TAGS: PARM MNUC PREL SIPDIS
SUBJECT: CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT (CD): GUIDANCE FOR
THE BALANCE OF THE 2009 SESSION

REF: A) STATE 48065; B) GENEVA 401; C) GENEVA 425


1.(U) CLASSIFIED BY ISN/MNSA OFFICE DIRECTOR MARGUERITA
RAGSDALE, E.O. 12958, REASONS 1.5 B AND D


2. (U) The CD Delegation should draw on the following
for the balance of the 2009 CD session.

Objectives
--------------


3. (SBU) Now that the CD has adopted its 2009 program
of work (Ref B),the U.S. goal is to ensure that work in
2009 adequately sets the stage for a smooth resumption
of the CD's activities when the 2010 session begins next
January. Detailed, substantive negotiations on a
Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT),the highest U.S.
priority in the CD, are expected to be possible at that
time. The U.S. does not want to see a repeat of the
1998-99 experience, in which FMCT negotiations began at
the end of the 1998 session, only to founder at the
beginning of the 1999 session.


4. (C) Since the Delegation has reported that the
consensus behind the CD's program of work remains
fragile, it will be important to begin substantive work
on all aspects of the CD's agenda as soon as possible in

2009. This will establish as solid a track record on
FMCT negotiations as possible, and help demonstrate that
the program adopted in CD/1863 is working and deserves
to be renewed in 2010. The CD's annual report to the
UNGA should document this substantive work. The goal is
to establish that the CD is firmly back at work, and
deter potential trouble makers from trying to derail the
CD when the 2010 session begins. To this end, the
Delegation should avoid establishing procedural or
substantive red-lines in response to the proposals of
others, if those proposals are consistent with CD/1863.
For proposals pushing the envelope, the Delegation
should point out that the U.S. is still developing its
positions on various issues and seek instructions from
Washington.

Issues
--------------


5. (C) Following are points on selected issues on which
the U.S. Delegation may draw on as the CD organizes
itself. Once substantive work begins, Washington will
provide as necessary statements and talking points on
the range of issues on the CD's program of work.

-- Chairs of Working Groups: Chairs should be capable
individuals who can bring the necessary competence and
diplomatic skills to the groups which they are selected
to lead. As a general rule, each prospective chair also
should be assessed on that government's track record in
the specific subject area of the working group in
question. The United States considers countries under
sanctions, such as the DPRK or Iran, to be politically
disqualified; otherwise, in principle no country should
be arbitrarily excluded from providing a qualified
chair. In that regard, there should be no express or
tacit prohibition on any NATO member presiding over any
CD body for any given issue. Yearly rotation of chairs
is acceptable. The geographic allotment of CD chairs,
though not the preferred norm for the U.S., nonetheless
will be acceptable if there is a broad consensus for
such an arrangement, and opposition might cause
difficulty from among key parties.

-- Rollover: The CD must formally re-establish its work
program by consensus each year. However, in order to
maintain momentum, given the limited time left in the
2009 session, USDEL should seek a CD report that
includes a recommendation that the term of the chairs
selected in 2009 be continued during 2010. The report
also should recommend early action by the CD in 2010 to
renew the work program in CD/1863 and resume substantive
work. In pursuit of these options, USDEL should keep
Washington apprised of developments, in particular, any
sense that pursuing these outcomes jeopardizes an early
resumption of substantive work in the CD next year.
Further, the Delegation should explore with like-minded
states opportunities to hold a ceremonial start to FMCT
negotiations in 2009. While not a requirement for the
USG, such a start would help create facts on the ground
and discourage states from blocking consensus on the
program of work in January.

-- Procedural issues: As the only true negotiation on
the work program, FMCT logically should be allocated
most of the meeting time, and likely will require the
establishment of a number of sub-groups. However, for
certain countries other CD agenda items remain
priorities and they will insist on a certain amount of
time to discuss those issues. We assume that
substantive work should not begin until January, thus
giving the USG time to work out positions on the
different issues. However, the Delegation may be
flexible on this issue, as long as the intent remains to
discuss, rather than negotiate on, non-FMCT agenda
items. USDEL should advocate the recent practice of
dedicated, specified sessions to deal with those issues,
but should argue against the establishment of non-FMCT
subgroups, as such action would give working groups with
non-negotiating mandates equivalent status to the FMCT
working group.

-- P-5 Outreach: It has been proposed that the P-5 pre-
negotiate a common message for the broader community on
the FMCT. Washington believes that developing a common
P-5 concept covering broad FMCT concepts such as the
overall goals of the Treaty, how it should be
characterized (as nonproliferation, disarmament, or a
combination),etc. has merit. The P-5 should not,
however, try to take common positions on specific
elements that will be the subject of the negotiations
(scope, verification, stocks, entry into force, etc).
The Delegation may participate in P-5 efforts to develop
a common message for use with key states within the CD,
and with a broader audience in contexts such as the
margins of the UNGA First Committee, but the delegation
should keep expectations low on such a statement, given
China's possible reluctance to agree to a strong text.
The texts of such messages may be agreed ad ref to
capitals.


CLINTON