NPT PREPCOM CHAIR CONSULTS IN VIENNA

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000112

DEPT FOR ISN/MNSA

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC KNNP IAEA ENRG TRGY

SUBJECT: NPT PREPCOM CHAIR CONSULTS IN VIENNA

--------------
Summary
--------------


1. (SBU) Rounding out consultations in New York and Geneva, NPT
Prepcom Chairman Zimbabwe UN Permrep Bonafice Chidyausiku reviewed
preparations for the 2009 Prepcom with approximately two dozen
states parties in Vienna March 16. The first priority for the
Prepcom would be to adopt the 2010 Revcom agenda, he stressed, and
secondarily to make recommendations to the Revcon that should
reflect balance among the three NPT pillars. He indicated support
for using the "clean" 2000 Revcon agenda as a starting point, but
also considered other views so long as the end result was a balanced
agenda. He downplayed any expectation of substantive negotiations
at the Prepcom, arguing that it would be particularly unfair to the
new U.S. administration. Chidyausiku cast his role as that of a
facilitator and enjoined states parties to "get their act together,"
as success was in their hands. During the discussion, Egypt took a
forceful position that the Prepcom should deal with substantive
objectives and not defer them to the Revcon. Germany and Chile
recommended that once the Revcon agenda was agreed, the Chair
propose a more ambitious outline or "scenario" to set the stage for
the Revcon and to help forestall another debacle as in 2005. End
Summary.


2. (SBU) Prepcom Chairman Chidyausiku met with Vienna Missions,
having already held consultations in New York and Geneva. He
underlined that the first priority for the Prepcom was agreement on
the 2010 Revcon agenda, so as to avoid a repeat of the 2005 agenda
fight. Drawing on the lessons from the 2005 Revcon, Brazil also
stressed adoption of the agenda to ensure the Revcon's success. The
ROK questioned whether the 2000 or 2005 Revcon agenda could serve as
the basis for 2010, having heard from Geneva that there was support
for using the 2000 agenda as a compromise. Chidyausiku noted that
the 2000 agenda was "cleaner" than that of 2005. Agreeing that the
agenda should be the priority, Japan suggested using the 2007
Prepcom (which Japan had chaired) agenda as it struck an appropriate
balance. Chidyausiku acknowledged views about using the 2007 agenda
but also reservations on the part of those who preferred to work
from the 2000 agenda. He promised to take all views into
consideration in formulating a balanced agenda.


3. (SBU) Secondarily, Chidyausiku addressed the issue of making
recommendations to the Revcon. He did not believe it would be
productive or fair to start substantive negotiations at the May
Prepcom, given that the new U.S. Administration is hardly in place,
and there was ample time before the 2010 Revcon. However, the
Prepcom should produce more than Chair's "summaries upon summaries."
The Chair would put together recommendations for the Revcon based
on input from states parties, though he had not received much input
thus far. Chidyausiku noted that some held the view that agreement
on the Revcon agenda would be enough and that putting forward
substantive recommendations would be stepping into a "minefield,"
while others had suggested enumerating recommendations as bullet
points or "intentions." During the Q&A the ROK advised that it may
not be realistic to contemplate consensus on substantive
recommendations. Chidyausiku reiterated that he would draw on input
received from states parties and suggested any recommendations not
be too detailed.


4. (SBU) Egypt took a strong stance on the importance of the Prepcom
setting forth substantive objectives for the Revcon. Egypt did not
support deferral of substantive issues to the Revcon for the sake of
quick consensus at the Prepcom, arguing that these issues should be
highlighted at the conclusion of the Prepcom. Many saw the comments
by Egyptian Ambassador Fawzi foreshadowing a tough line on Middle
East Safeguards and other issues at the upcoming IAEA General
Conference. Chidyausiku acknowledged that the role of the Prepcom
was to prepare for the Revcon and that substantive issues are
discussed in all three Prepcoms. However, it was a question of
timing and what we hoped to achieve; agreement on substance was
unrealistic given the political environment as the U.S. would not be
ready, and there was more time and opportunity at the Revcon. He
argued that it would "serve the treaty better" if states parties
agree to an agenda and reaffirm the substance of 2000 and 2005
Revcons so as to set the stage for a more conducive Revcon in 2010.


5. (SBU) Although acknowledging the precedence of agreement on the
Revcon agenda, Germany underlined the crucial importance of setting
the stage for the Revcon so as to avert another failure as in 2005
and encouraged the Chair to be as ambitious as possible in this
regard. Specifically, Germany looked to the Chair for guidance on
outlining possible results for the Revcon, hoping that "new deal"
could lead to a balanced outcome, and recommended that Chidyausiku
propose more ambitious elements for the Revcon in lieu of another
Chair's summary. Chidyausiku reiterated that procedural issues must
be dealt with first, but if we could go further he did not rule out
making recommendations to the Revcon. The Chilean Director for
International Organizations, who was visiting Vienna and had
participated in the 2005 Revcon, agreed with Germany that a
well-prepared scenario for the 2010 Revcon would be desirable and
suggested a set of general recommendations in bullet form. This was
a transitional period, Chile observed, and the NPT Revcons should be
viewed as a continuum with particular emphasis on 1995 and the
readiness of the "major players" to balance all three pillars,
including both nonproliferation and disarmament. He also noted that
the much maligned 2005 Revcon had produced some results on Articles
IX and X before its complete breakdown.


6. (U) Other issues for the Prepcom included electing the Revcon
President and officers and procedural matters. Chidyausiku noted
that it would be the NAM/Asia Group's turn for the Presidency and
Philippines had nominated its Ambassador to the UAE. He also
reviewed the revised Draft Program of Work for the Prepcom (emailed
to the Department),which was based on the 2004 Prepcom and limited
General Debate to three sessions, and procedural issues pertaining
to documentation and amending the Rules of Procedure on NGO
participation.


7. (SBU) Concluding his presentation, Chidyausiku cast his role as
that of a facilitator who would be guided by states parties. He
emphasized to participants that success was "in your hands" and a
matter of political will. The priority for the Prepcom was to not
get bogged down but rather to "get our act together" in approving an
agenda and elements for recommendations that reflected balance among
the three NPT pillars. Realling its experience at the 2005 Revcon,
Brazil also noted that the role of the President goes only so far
and without the existence of a compromise spirit, all is fruitless.



8. (SBU) Comment: Chidyausiku came across as sincerely seeking a
successful Prepcom with adoption of the Revcon agenda being the
measure of its success. He was clearly not inclined to delve into
substantive issues to the extent that they could be avoided and
deferred to the Revcon. Charge expressed appreciation for the Chair
taking account of the new U.S. Administration and underlined strong
support for the NPT in all its dimensions.

PYATT