WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: EXPERTS GROUP TECHNICAL

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 06 UNVIE VIENNA 000337 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: 07/15/2019 TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: EXPERTS GROUP TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP MEETINGS JUNE 15-25 Classified By: Counselor Eric Sandberg, Reason 1.4 (d). Summary -------------- ¶1. (SBU) At the intersessional meetings June 15 - 25, the U.S. Delegation to the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) Experts Group (EG) made considerable progress in advancing a number of U.S. proposals and in shaping the proposals of others. Thirteen participating states attended some part of the intersessional meetings and 13 different topics were addressed. The Technical Working Groups (TWGs) on Low-light Level and Infrared Sensors (LLL) and Information Security both made considerable progress. U.S. proposals to add controls for semiconductor laser array stacks, and to revise controls on fibrous and filamentary materials were refined; revised versions will be recommended to the Fall EG. Discussion of U.S. proposals on Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMMs) and unmanned ground vehicle conversion systems made progress, but did not reach resolution. The U.S. Delegation played a major role in reshaping the UK's proposal for Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC); two options will be forwarded to the Fall EG. USDEL also helped shape British and Japanese proposals for diver detection sonar, the British proposal for bathymetric survey systems and the French proposal on operational mission concept. Japan received favorable comments on its non-paper Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) registry numbers and promised a revised proposal for the Fall EG. Delegations were skeptical of the French proposal on virtual radar. Limited progress was made in discussing the Australian proposals on metal alloys in Australia's absence. France announced during the course or the intersessional meetings that the decree by which France formally adopts use of the WA Munitions List (ML) had been signed. An issue of how to handle New Forum documents within the Secretariat surfaced in course to intersesional discussions. USDEL circulated, but got limited feedback on several revised proposals for Category 3. End Summary. Participation -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Thirteen countries (Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, the UK and the U.S.) participated in some portion of the WA EG's intersessional meetings in Vienna from June 15 ) 25. This is two fewer countries than in 2008, but the same as is 2007. The Information Security TWG drew the widest representation with 10 Participating States represented. However, lack of participation by some states could present additional challenges during the Fall EG. The only Russian representative was Andrey Odnoral and he participated less than half the time during the first week. Historically, Russia has sent a significant delegation to all EG meetings. Also, the German delegation was totally absent the second week. This means that there was no German participation in the discussion of U.S. proposals for fibrous and filamentary materials or for unmanned ground vehicle conversion systems. ¶3. (C) In conversations on the margins, Odnoral expressed frustration with the lack of support from Moscow for these meetings. He noted that plans for significant Russian participation were canceled shortly before the intersessional and implied that the reason was financial. Comment: The lack of Russian participation in the intersessional meetings could make getting the Russians to join consensus on the issues discussed challenging. Odnoral is still relatively new to the EG, does not seem to have a strong technical understanding of the issues, nor does he seem to have the same authority of his predecessor. End Comment. ¶4. (SBU) The Japanese delegation to the EG is in the process of almost a complete change of personnel. Masaaki Takabatake will step down as head of the Japanese delegation after three and a half years following the Intersessional meetings. His successor Toshiki Wani arrived to attend the last two days of the intersessional meetings. The deputy head of the Japanese delegation for the past year, Atsushi Tanizawa, stepped down after the first week of the intersessional meetings. He will be entering a Masters Degree program in international relations at the Fletcher School at Tufts University this fall. His successor, Hiroachi Machii, attended both weeks of the intersessional meetings, but will only serve for one year as he is also in the process of applying to a U.S. university UNVIE VIEN 00000337 002 OF 006 for further education in the Fall of 2010. It is anticipated that Japan will make a nomination in December to assume chairmanship of the EG in 2011. Low-Light Level Sensors -------------- ¶5. (SBU) The LLL TWG addressed four issues: 1) monospectral and multispectral imaging sensors, 2) underwater cameras, 3) line scanning cameras and 4) direct view versus indirect view imaging equipment. The TWG concluded that more study was required to address the recommendation in CA010 for moving controls for monospectral and multispectral imaging sensors designed for remote sensing applications from 6.A.2 to 6.A.3. USDEL committed to explaining its concerns in greater detail prior to the Fall EG. The TWG noted that the Oxford English Dictionary defines "remote sensing" as pertaining to space or high altitude aerial observation. USDEL argued the term "high altitude" is subjective, and that remote sensing also applies to "slant range" terrestrial observation, from lower altitudes, a view also shared at the table by the FR, the TWG chair recommended that if this broader definition is to be considered in the future, a national proposal for a local definition would be in order. The TWG considered two proposals and a non-paper (CA011, JP006 and JP010) with respect to underwater cameras. CA011, that would move some of the underwater camera controls from 8.A.2. to 6.A.3., received the most attention. A U.S. Defense representative also noted that current controls in 8.A.2.d.2. might not be adequate. The U.S. committed to provide its own analysis for the Fall EG of how best to clarify and delineate camera controls relate to 6.A.3. and 8.A.2. Several options were discussed for solving the problem of controlling lines scanning cameras that have little military utility raised by DE001, but the TWG made no specific recommendations. The final topic discussed was the apparent ambiguity between control of direct view imaging systems in 6.A.2. and 6.A.3. Discussion focused on options 2 and 3 presented in US026, but no recommendation was made to the Fall EG. France informed the LLL TWG that it was in the process of performing tests on tube-based cameras. It promised to share the results of these tests prior to the Fall EG. Information Security -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The Information Security TWG recommended language for a new Note 4 Category 5 Part 2 on ancillary encryption (based on US003) and a revision of the 5.A.2. decontrol note for personalized smart cards (based on JP004). The inclusion of an illustrative list of items that would be decontrolled by Note 4 proposed in US020 was moved to an annex. Whether to include this annex remains under discussion. The TWG discussed, but left open, the reconfiguration of existing decontrol notes for 5.A.2. based on the incorporation of new Note 4. The open issues will be taken up in the Fall EG. Semiconductor Laser Array Stacks -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The working group addressing semiconductor laser array stacks, based on US019 Rev 1, worked through several iterations of draft text. The working group developed local definitions for "bars" and "stacked arrays" and a new sub-paragraph "e" to address modules. This last issue was not fully resolved, but overall this proposal is now well positioned for agreement at the Fall EG. The JP DEL has an action to demonstrate a product that establishes the need for the newly proposed 6.A.5.d.1.e.3. The UK stated that they do not support this control because it is an 'empty box' and they do not understand how stacked arrays designed to be combined could be limited by design to not exceed the control threshold. The U.S. Defense representative shares this view. Fibrous and Filamentary Material -------------- ¶8. (SBU) USDEL worked revised controls on fibrous and filamentary material both in the working group and bilaterally. The working group produced a revised text that it has recommended to the Fall EG. Supported by the participation of industry experts from both the U.S. and UK, the working group made several changes to improve the technical requirements which should reduce the potential for misinterpretations. The text recommended to the Fall EG UNVIE VIEN 00000337 003 OF 006 incorporates JP001, CA003, US006 and US008. USDEL, including industry experts, engaged with the Japanese delegation bilaterally to address a number of concerns raised by their delegation. These bilateral consultations seem to allayed Japanese concerns. ¶9. (C) During the first week of the intersessional meetings, the Japanese delegation requested a bilateral meeting to discuss fibrous and filamentary materials. Japan was concerned that the proposed revisions in the controls for 1.C.10. proposed by the U.S. would relax technology controls essential for composite materials. The Japanese were uncharacteristically blunt saying they were concerned about the spread of composite technology to China and potentially to North Korea. After careful consideration of the Japanese points, U.S. defensive and industry representatives explained that technology currently controlled would remain controlled and that the U.S. proposal had no impact on current technology controls. This point was reinforced during the bilateral meetings during the second week when additional U.S. industry and defensive representatives were present. Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMMs) -------------- ¶10. (SBU) Discussion of CMMs was supported by five industry representatives (1 US, 3 German and 1 UK). The working group considered both US009 and NL001 and produced two options for consideration by the Fall EG. The largest unresolved issue is whether to use the term "tested" or "specified". There was considerable opposition to the decontrol note proposed by the U.S. The issue of probe accuracy in US009 would now be addressed as "with the most accurate configuration of the CMM specified by the manufacturer (e.g. probe, stylus, length, motion parameters environment)." Because the new ISO standard has not yet been approved, alternative bracketed text was included in both options to account for the new standard. There seemed to be consensus that when the new ISO standard is adopted, it should be incorporated into the control text. ¶11. (SBU) An interesting side issue raised by the industry representative was the need to control probes as well as CMMs for the controls to be effective. Industry representatives stressed that the CMM and the probe are a system. It takes both a good probe and a good CMM to get a good result. Industry representative noted that countries outside of the WA already produce CMMs. However, these countries do not produce good probes. If top of the line probes can be exported without a license these countries will be able to improve their CMMs and defeat the controls. Unmanned Ground Vehicle Conversion Systems -------------- ¶12. (SBU) Discussion of unmanned ground conversion systems (US023) raised a number of challenges. The UK delegation included two industry representatives who were very skeptical of the proposed control. The UK made a presentation to demonstrate the capabilities of the systems produced by AB Dynamics. The U.S. made two presentations that tried to focus the discussion. The UK remained skeptical that the systems the U.S. was proposing to control merited control on the dual-use list. USDEL presented the Kairos Autonomi system being used as a target for advanced munitions, but the UK did not feel that the threat posed by such targets rose to a level that merited control. USDEL had little success in meaningful engagement on discussion of the most critical elements of the conversion systems (i.e. steering, software). At the last meeting of this TWG the UK unofficially tabled an alternative text that included a decontrol note to items designed for legislative testing or not designed to operate without external input beyond a certain range. Japan mentioned that the decontrol note in the current U.S. proposal was important for their national interests. ¶13. (C) The performance of the UK delegation on this proposal was most unhelpful and bordered on being unprofessional and obstructionist. The UK delegation had dinner with their industry representatives the night prior to the first meeting of the working group and seem to have accepted the line given to them by industry without question. Anthony Best, the founder and CEO of AB Dynamics made a presentation that showed in some detail the capability of the systems designed by his company. While the systems cannot operate UNVIE VIEN 00000337 004 OF 006 autonomously, the accuracy of the robotic control of test vehicles is quite impressive. The UK tried to argue that the AB Dynamics systems are unsophisticated and ordinary. This was belied by AB Dynamics presentation. AB Dynamics tried to argue that they only sold their systems as components and not as whole systems. USDEL exposed this argument as false and AB Dynamics did eventually admit that they do sell whole systems when that is what a customer requests. The UK tried to argue that critical components such as the hybrid navigation system would be controlled as a separate item. However, the UK delegation had no response when queried by the USDEL of how they would license the navigation system that was a component of a complete system. At one point David Wookey argued that he had previously pushed for dual-use control of explosive handling equipment because the U.S. had dual-use products in that area while the UK treated all explosive handling equipment as munitions. USDEL pointed out on the margins that his argument appeared to be that it was fine to control U.S. dual-use items, but not UK dual-use items. Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) -------------- ¶14. (SBU) Supported by three representatives from U.S. industry, USDEL succeeded in getting the FADEC TWG to develop control language that reduces the ambiguity in the current control text and that moves beyond the UK proposal that is ambiguous and possibly would decontrol critical elements of the technology for designing high performance gas turbine engines. The TWG recommended two options to the Fall EG for consideration. Both options are intended to accomplish the same thing, the difference is in the format. Option 1 would control "FADEC systems" and have a note that elaborates how to apply the control. This is an awkward construction. Notes are normally used in the WA lists to give an illustrative list of types of items controlled, or a list of items not controlled. Defining the scope of control in a note raises a number of questions. Option 2 would move the control for FADEC to 9.E.3.h. The disadvantage of this format is it moves the FADEC controls away from the rest of the technology controls for gas turbine engines in 9.E.3.a. The advantage is that it has positive control text rather than a note and it removes the need to interpret the word "required" which is often not clearly understood as the FADEC TWG discussions revealed. The proposed control text, both in the note and the sub-paragraphs in 9.E.3.h., explains the technology to be controlled. If this text is acceptable it could provide a useful model for restructuring and clarifying all of the 9.E.3.a. controls. The TWG also developed a new definition for "FADEC systems" that is an improvement over the previous definition for FADEC. Sonar Diver Detection Systems -------------- ¶15. (SBU) The working group on diver detection systems had two separate issues to address: individual diver detection sonar (based on GB002),and diver detection sonar systems (based on JP008 and JP012). The working group produced recommended text for the Fall EG incorporating both issues. Many questions were raised about these proposed controls and only partially answered. It is not clear that the proposed text would actually catch the indented sonar. This issue will have to be resolved at the Fall EG. Bathymetric Survey Systems -------------- ¶16. (SBU) In the sonar diver detection working group, the UK acknowledged the problem raised by the U.S. during the Spring EG with its proposed change to the control text to wide-swath bathymetric survey systems. The UK will propose an interim change for this year with a Plenary mandate for 2010 to address this problem. The interim change will lead to an expansion of the current scope of control text, but it conforms to the way the Department of Commerce interprets the text. The working group agreed that the current control text needs to be revised. Operational Mission Concept -------------- ¶17. (SBU) After hearing reservations about FR006 Rev 2, the French delegation used this working group to try to develop a UNVIE VIEN 00000337 005 OF 006 definition of "combat mission". This proposal had been put forward initially to meet French concerns with trying to adapt the French munitions list to the WA ML. France's adoption of the WA ML (see para 20) removes some of the impetus for this proposal. Nevertheless, France will continue to explore the ideas developed in the discussion of FR006 over the next year as a means of limiting the growth of the WA ML to non-munition related items. CAS Registry Numbers -------------- ¶18. (SBU) This working group addressed JP002 on adding CAS registry numbers to the dual-use list. Prior to the intersessional meetings, Japan circulated a non-paper, JP011, that effectively revised JP002. Japan used the TWG to gage support for its revised approach. JP011 proposed slightly revised wording for Note 2 of the ML and adding this revised note as Note 2 to the Dual-Use List as well. The revised wording was well received. Japan recommended that CAS numbers not be used for common elements that have multiple CAS numbers. This view was supported the UK and the U.S. During the working group, the idea was raised of having the Secretariat pay the CAS registration fee so that all Participating States could have access to the CAS registry system. The Secretariat was already exploring the possibility of having the Secretariat subscribe to all of the standards listed in the Dual-Use List. The Secretariat will make a recommendation to the Fall EG for its consideration. Japan intends to circulate a revised version of JP002 based on the positive responses received during the working group to JP011. Virtual Radar -------------- ¶19. (SBU) The French proposal to add a control for internet-based systems that track air traffic, FR007, met with a great deal of skepticism. U.S. representatives from the FAA and U.S. industry were especially critical. They were joined in their criticism by the UK and Roger Cucchietti, Senior Advisor, WA Secretariat (who is also French. It was unclear in what capacity he was speaking.) The French delegation said that it had gained the information that this control is needed and suggested on the margins that it might raise this issue in the General Working Group as a political issue related to combating terrorism. Metal Alloys -------------- ¶20. (SBU) This working group had been requested by Australia to address the issues raised by AU001 and AU002. For financial reasons, Australia was not able to attend the intersessional meetings. The UK volunteered to chair the meetings in the absence of Australian representation. The working group also briefly reviewed CA008, a non-paper on the ambiguity of the current control text for certain metal alloys. The working group recommended several alternative formulations for the Technical Note in AU002 for consideration by the Fall EG. Concern was expressed by a number of delegations about the expanded control for aluminum alloys proposed in AU001. Concerns raised include foreign availability, the wide spread commercial use, the possibility of avoiding the control by simply exporting the unfinished product license free, and completing the tempering process at the destination. Australia sent a written statement saying that it acknowledged these concerns and would continue studying if there was a way to refine its proposal. Other items -------------- ¶21. (U) During the course of the intersessional meetings, France announced that the decree adopting the WA ML as the French munitions list had been signed. This happened earlier than expected and would cause some regulatory problems. Whether France will request that reference to France be removed from the footnote that always appears with respect to mention of the WA ML in Wassenaar documents, indicating that France, Russia and the Ukraine only take the WA ML as a reference, the French EG delegation could not say. ¶22. (SBU) During the course of discussion in the EG the origins of the controls and the initial rationale for adopting the control is a frequent question. Many of the UNVIE VIEN 00000337 006 OF 006 controls date to the prior organizations of New Forum and COCOM. During the course of discussion on the French proposal on operational mission concept, the UK requested the Secretariat search for the origins of the language in several ML controls. The search surfaced a New Forum document from Working Group G that was identified as being of U.S. origin. This document was circulated by the UK delegation without consulting the USDEL. The Secretariat subsequently criticized the UK for circulating another country's document from another organization without that country's permission. The document in question was innocuous (and did not materially address the question at hand). ¶23. (SBU) The Secretariat has a complete set of New Forum documents. However, these documents have no official status as New Forum countries never made any decision on the disposition of these documents. As a result of this incident Ambassador Danielsson suggested that the issue of the New Forum documents should be raised in the GWG/Plenary. Their disposition, he suggested, should take into account consultations of former New Forum participating states. He also suggested that perhaps these documents should be turned over the U.S. Mission to International Organizations in Vienna (UNVIE) for safe keeping. USDEL expressed concern about this idea pointing out that these documents are a valuable resource for the Secretariat. USDEL recommended that the Secretariat keep these documents for the time being, but handle them with discretion. Prior to the incident with the UK the Secretariat was planning on scanning all of these documents so that they can be accessed electronically as they currently exist only in paper form. The Secretariat indicated this project will now be put on hold pending further discussion of how these documents should be handled. ¶24. (SBU) USDEL distributed draft revisions of US010 Rev 1 and US015 to several delegations. Due to the press of other topics, USDEL got limited feedback on these revised drafts. The UK noted that it remains uncomfortable with the current text "are to be connected to" in 3.B.1.e. and continues to look for a way to improve that language. Comment: The versions circulated by USDEL was circulated by U.S. Department of Commerce on June 5. Back in Washington, at the Department of Defense sponsored interagency meeting on Category 3, 4, 5, on July 1, it appeared that a new text is under consideration. After interagency agreement is reached, this new version will be circulated to WA participating states. End Comment. PYATT