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