COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY: EXECUTIVE

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000114 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM KTBT SA SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY: EXECUTIVE SECRETARY PRESSES FOR TIMELY US FUNDING AND SUPPORT REF: UNVIE 48 ¶1. (SBU) At the conclusion of Working Group B of Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO),Ambassador met with Provisional Technical Secretariat (PTS) Executive Secretary Tibor Toth to review the results of the three weeks of meetings. Toth welcomed signs of change in US policy, noting that movement toward entry into force of the Treaty could have positive effects on the 2010 NPT Review Conference and on various IAEA initiatives. Unfortunately, he added, some the G77 were in a state of denial about the change in US policy and prospects for entry into force. The G77 was still calling for a stop to station building in the International Monitoring System (IMS),saw no need to consider changing the rules on provisional operation, and were demanding the 2010 budget stay at zero real growth. Mexico was even demanding a 2010 budget reflecting zero nominal growth. This resistance would continue, Toth strongly opined, unless the U.S. pays its 2009 assessment on time and in full. He also urged the necessity of the U.S. being fully prepared by the May WGB meetings to take the lead on on-site inspection matters. If the U.S. missed this opportunity to put its stamp on OSI planning, irreversible decisions would already be made. ¶2. (SBU) Toth also asked for US assistance with Saudi Arabia. Although Saudi Arabia has neither signed nor ratified the Treaty, the PTS had set up the equipment for a a seismic station on Saudi territory. The station has never functioned, and now the Saudis are requesting that the PTS come remove the seismic equipment from their territory. Toth urged the US to intervene with the Saudis, stressing that it would send exactly the wrong message to have a country reject and dismantle an existent station just when prospects for entry into force were otherwise improving. Mission believes Washington should consider a demarche along the lines suggested by Toth. ¶3. (SBU) In an informal meeting after with missionoff, a South African representative, one of the most active and influential G77 members in Vienna, expressed opinions illustrating the truth of Toth's concerns. The G77, according to the South African, welcomed the Obama administration's apparent plan to work for ratification of the Treaty. The Group realized this would take time, so the Group was willing to "keep the heat down" in future CTBT meetings while waiting for U.S. action. In particular, the group had told Iran that it would no longer support protracted discussion of the issue of Palestinian observership in the Preparatory Commission. Iran could make its points, but it would then have to allow the meeting to continue and not be dominated by this single issue. In exchange, the Group would only want a positive statement from the U.S. at the June meeting of the Preparatory Commission, participation in Article XIV (i.e., ratification) activities, agreement to "keep the budget under control," and finally and most importantly evidence of "a clear path to ratification in advance of the NPT Review Conference." ¶4. (U) In a March 11 meeting with representatives of the EU trio (France, Czech Republic, and Sweden),as well as Germany and the UK, there was further discussion about methods to encourage support for the Treaty in the G77. We agreed that a like-minded group would meet with representatives of the G77 prior to the drafting of the G77 statement for the May meetings of Working Groups A and B. The EU expressed interest in a possible meeting of technical experts in the on-site inspection area prior to the May meetings, possibly on Friday, May 8, and pushed for a cooperative effort between the EU and the US on maintenance of the auxiliary seismic system. Finally, the two sides agreed to share their respective suggestions on the proposed work plans for Working Groups A and B. ¶5. (SBU) Comment. Toth is correct that, in the opinion of most CTBT Signatory States, the only "proof" of U.S. commitment to the CTBT will be the payment of U.S. assessments in full and on time. The U.S. paid its 2008 arrears in February but has yet to pay anything toward its 2009 assessment. With the construction of new stations in the International Monitoring System slowly coming to a halt from lack of funds, U.S. funding will be the key to ensuring forward movement in this key element of the verification regime. The expectations on US re-engagement with the Treaty are extremely high, with not only the EU, but also states like Russia and China, hoping that the participation of US experts will bring immediate results in such problem areas such as on-site inspections. At this point, we understand, the FY09 allocation for CTBT was largely exhausted by the February arrears payment, so we will be back under the budget microscope at the June Preparatory Commission meeting, with no sign of the US paying its 2009 dues. An early FY10 budget could avoid a loss of US voting rights, but the Department may also wish to explore the possibility of attaching CTBTO funding to one of the supplementals going forward before the end of this fiscal year. SCHULTE