WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: (PART I OF II) EXPERTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000214

SIPDIS
DEPARTMENT FOR ISN/CATR, T, PM/DTC, PM/RSAT
DOD FOR OSD: PDASD/S&TR, DUSD/TSP
DOD ALSO FOR DIR DTSA/ST AND DIR DTSA/STP
DOD ALSO FOR USD/(A&T)/ODUSD(I&CP) AND USD(A&T)/IDA
USDOC FOR BXA/EA/OAS AND BXA/EA/OSTFPC

E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/08/2019
TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM
SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: (PART I OF II) EXPERTS
GROUP MEETING MARCH 30 - APRIL 9

REF: STATE 30105 SPRING 09 EG GUIDANCE

Classified By: Charge Geoff Pyatt, Reason 1.4 (d).

THIS IS PART ONE OF TWO; CABLE DIVIDED BECAUSE OF LENGTH.


1. (SBU) Summary: The Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) Experts
Group (EG) completed a very successful round of negotiations
March 30 - April 9, reviewing 53 national proposals, 4
"counter-proposals", 11 non-papers and addressing 2 Plenary
mandates. Setting a record for a spring meeting, the EG
reached consensus on 15 proposals and partial agreement on 3
others. Ten of the agreed proposals were from the U.S. Only
Russia reserved its position on revised control text for
Global Satellite Navigation Systems (GNSS). The EG set an
intersessional schedule to address the most challenging
issues remaining on the EG's agenda for this year. The new
Italian chair performed well. There are a number of
significant challenges for the U.S. in the work remaining for

2009. End Summary.

--------------
List Review Items Agreed
--------------


2. (SBU) The March 30 - April 9 EG meeting reached consensus
on a record 15 proposals. The proposals agreed were:


A. 1.A.2./1C.10.b. & e. US006. Aircraft Patch Size.


B. 1.C.10. CA003. Clarification of the Chapeau to 1.C.10.


C. 3.A.2.e. US014. Decontrol of Certain Coaxial Network
Analyzers.


D. 4.A.3.b. US002. Relaxation of Digital Computer Control
Threshold.


E. 4.D.1.b. & E.1.b. US016. Computer Software and Technology
Controls with changes to the Sensitive List entries 4.D.1.
and 4.E.1. as well.


F. 5 Part 1 Note 1. US018. Lasers for Telecommunications.


G. 5.B.1.b., D.1.d. & E.1.c. US001. Infrastructure
Transmission and Switching Equipment, Software and Technology.


H. 5.B.1.b.3., D.1.d.3. & E.1.c.3. US017. Optical Switching
Equipment, Software and Technology.


I. 6.A.1.a.1.d. CA001 Rev 1. Clarification of controls on
acoustic systems.


J. 6.A.8. US020 Rev 1. RADAR Cleanup.


K. 7.B.1. US021. Revision of Definition of Maintenance Level
II.


L. ML2.b. CA002. Clarification of ML2.b.


M. ML2.d. CA001. Addition of Gun Mountings to ML2.


N. ML6. Note 2. FR 001. Deletion of Reference to Tyre
Inflation Control.


O. ML11. Nota Bene. US022. Software Defined Radio Note.



3. (SBU) Portions of three other proposals were also
agreed:


A. ML5.c. GB004. Detection Equipment for ML5.a. and ML5.b.
The addition to ML5.d. agreed.


B. ML8.a.33. & 34. GB010. Editorial Cleanup on ML8.a.33. &

34. Change to ML8.a.33. agreed.


C. ML8.e.6. & 13. GB011. Editorial Cleanup on ML8.e.6. & 13.
Change to ML8.e.13 agreed.


--------------
Plenary Mandates
--------------

Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS)
--------------


4. (SBU) The December 2008 Plenary mandated the EG to attempt
to reach consensus during the spring EG on the options for
GNSS controls presented in WA-EG (08) TWG 025, with a special
focus on option 4. The French delegation tabled a non-paper,
WA-EG (09) FR008, at the spring EG that offered a new option
6, focusing on government services. Presentations on Galileo
allayed U.S. concerns about the level of encryption that
would be used for Galileo commercial services and revealed
that encryption of the Safety of Life signals would be
limited to authentication and would not include ranging code
for position or time. FR008 also proposed removing all
references to GPS and GLONASS in the current Dual-Use text
and treat all GNSS systems equally. Additional work on
option 6 refined the language proposed in FR008 and led to a
recommendation that the EG chair include two statements in
the EG chair report. These two statements are: "The
Participating States agree that the Galileo PRS decryption
algorithms are specially designed for government use."; and
"The Participating States acknowledge that GNSS receivers
designed or modified for military use are controlled under
ML11." These changes can be found in WA-EG (09) TWG 009 Rev

2.


5. (C) With these changes, all Participating States except
Russia were able to join consensus. USDEL as well as the UK
and French delegations, the EG chair, and the Secretariat all
engaged the Russian delegation to find a way to facilitate
Russian joining consensus, but Russia, in the end, maintained
its reservation. Comment: The Russian delegation seemed
unprepared for the possibility of an agreement. It is unclear
whether Russian hesitation to join consensus was the result
of misreading the situation or inflexibility in Moscow. The
new Russian Head of Delegation, Andrey Odnoral, has an
excellent command of English, but is still finding footing in
the WA EG. USDEL maintained contact with the Russian
delegation throughout the negotiation process, even as the
U.S. position evolved. However, but this effort had no
immediate result. End comment.


6. (SBU) The Russian delegation steadfastly maintained that
it would not be able to evaluate the new GNSS language before
the fall EG. A strategy for moving towards agreement on GNSS
was not proscribed by the EG.

Low-light Level (LLL) Sensor TWG
--------------


7. (SBU) The LLL Technical Working Group (TWG) chaired by Dr.
Jim Harrington from the U.S. addressed the three current
national proposals remanded to it. The LLL TWG also had a
preliminary exchange on the U.S. non-paper on direct versus
indirect view, US026. The TWG offered Japan several examples
from national regulations on how to handle the issue raised
in JP005 of controlled components (in this case a focal plane
array) incorporated into a larger system (in this case a
camera). The TWG reviewed JP006 and appreciated there might
be a need for the additional link in the 6.A.3. Nota Bene to
Category 8, but agreed to take a more detailed look at the
camera text in Category 8 during the upcoming intersessional
meeting. The TWG reviewed the German proposal, DE001, and
Germany agreed to revise the proposal after hearing the views
of others. The TWG had a preliminary round of views on US026
and will return to a more detailed discussion during the
intersessional meetings.

Encryption TWG
--------------


8. (SBU) Colin Whorlow of the UK chaired the encryption TWG.
The TWG reviewed 5 national proposals (US003, CA009, JP004,
GB003 and CA005). The TWG focused its discussion on US003
and CA009 both of which had been submitted to address the
Plenary mandate to clarify the decontrol notes in 5.A.2. and
to ensure that the category (C5P2) only controls items of
concern. After discussion, the TWG accepted US003 as the
basis for future negotiation. There was general agreement
with the principle embodied in US003, but there was a feeling
that there might be a way to more clearly express the
proposal's objectives. The TWG agreed to continue this
discussion during the intersessional meetings.

--------------
List Review Process
--------------


9. (SBU) The spring EG managed its agenda and schedule well.
The new Italian EG chair, Diego Martini, moved crisply
through the agenda each morning leaving the majority of the
afternoons for the more detailed work in TWGS or other
informal meetings.


10. (SBU) Thirty-two countries attended at least part of the
spring EG. Australia, Japan, Canada, the UK, France and
Germany all played active roles. New Zealand participated in
the EG during the first week. This is the first time since
2004 that New Zealand has participated in the work of the EG.
South Africa was represented by five delegates, a larger
delegation than usual. According to the South Africans,
several members of their delegation attended in order to
better understand the workings of the Wassenaar Arrangement.
The Australian Head of Delegation, Peter Sorenyi, announced
that, after 10 years, this EG would be his last.


11. (C) The Russian delegation created problems by submitting
two papers, one formatted like a proposal that call for a
significant rewrite of ML1 and ML2. The papers were
submitted in early March, three weeks after the deadline for
proposals. In addition, the Russian Federation was unable to
send its expert to discuss this topic during the first week
when the issue was officially on the agenda.


12. (SBU) During the second week, the Russian Federation
initially clarified its position, saying that the non-paper
(RU002 Rev 1) had been submitted to gather the opinions of
other delegations, and that the other paper (RU001 Rev 1) was
a draft to illustrate what a proposal might look like. USDEL
questioned: 1) the status of ML1.A. proposed in RU001 Rev 1;
2) the reason for moving MANPADS from ML4 to ML1.A; and, 3)
the benefit to be gained by the Russian proposed realignment
of the Munitions List (ML). USDEL noted that such a
realignment would be a large task and requested the Russian
Federation circulate a text that would show how the proposed
Russian changes would affect other parts of the ML,
particularly ML4. The UK reiterated that the Russian
Federation needed to provide a stronger justification for
such a sweeping change. In a Russian intervention later in
the week, the Russian expert said that Russia was looking to
conform its munitions list to the WA ML. In the process, it
had noted large differences and thought that it would be
appropriate for both the WA and the Russian Federation to
take steps towards each others lists so that all the movement
did not have to be in one direction. He indicated Russia
would come back with a proposal for the fall EG. The EG
chair deflected the last comment, stating that any proposal
should be submitted in 2010.


13. (C) Russian comments in support of these two papers show
a division within the Russian delegation with respect to the
goals of these papers and how to proceed with them. The
first intervention reflected a very low-keyed approach. The
second was much more confrontational. How Russia proceeds
with these papers that are clearly outside of normal WA rules
of procedure will be a challenge for the EG chair, the
secretariat and the EG as a whole. The Russian current
proposed changes would require extensive work to implement.
Comment: Regardless of whether such list changes are
warranted, keeping Russia engaged and playing by the rules
will be challenged by these papers. Dismissed, or even dealt
with off-handedly, the Russians may become obstructionist and
this could block the work of the EG. End comment.

Editorial Issues
--------------


14. (SBU) The EG convened an informal working group to review
the editorial issues raised by the EG chair in WA-EG (09)
Chair002. As a result of the work of the working group, the
Chair issued a revised paper. The EG agreed to 14 of 15 of
the proposed editorial changes recommended in Annex I to
Chair002 Rev 1. Annex II of Chair002 Rev 1 contains
additional editorial items that need more time for study or
national proposals.


--------------
Intersessional Work

--------------


15. (U) The EG will conduct intersessional meetings from June
15 to 25. Meetings during the first week of the
intersessional will include the LLL TWG, the encryption TWG,
and working groups addressing Full Authority Digital Engine
Control (FADEC) (GB012),Lasers (US019),incorporation of CAS
registry numbers into the lists (JP002),real-time virtual
radars (FR007),powder metallurgy (AU001 and AU002),
coordinate measuring machines (CMM) (US009 and NL001). The
U.S. will chair the LLL TWG and the informal meetings on
lasers and CMM. Meetings the second week will address diver
detection systems (GB002 and JP008),adding operational
mission concept to the ML6, 9 and 10 (FR006 Rev 1),fibrous
and filamentary materials (1.C.10.) (US008 and JP001),
unmanned ground vehicle conversion systems (US023),and
bathymetric survey systems (GB001). The U.S. will chair the
meetings on fibrous and filamentary materials and unmanned
ground vehicle conversion systems. There is flexibility
built into the schedule to allow for discussion of other
national proposals, but such meetings would have to be
announced in advance to allow other countries sufficient time
to prepare.


PYATT