WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: SUCCESSFUL 2009 FALL

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 UNVIE VIENNA 000482 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: 10/21/2019 TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: SUCCESSFUL 2009 FALL EXPERTS GROUP MEETING REF: A. STATE 30105 SPRING EG GUIDANCE ¶B. UNVIE VIENNA 214 SPRING EG REPORT PART 1 ¶C. UNVIE VIENNA 215 SPRING EG REPORT PART 2 ¶D. STATE 60575 INTERSESSIONAL EG GUIDANCE ¶E. UNVIE VIENNA 337 INTERSESSIONAL REPORT ¶F. STATE 95232 FALL EG GUIDANCE Classified By: Counselor Eric Sandberg, Reason 1.4 (d). ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The U.S. Delegation to the Wassenaar Arrangement's (WA) Fall Experts Group (EG) successfully negotiated agreement on 20 of the 23 proposals tabled by the U.S. this year and withdrew the other three. Overall, the EG agreed to 26 national proposals at the Fall meeting, bringing the total agreements for 2009 to forty-three. Among the most significant agreements were revisions on controls on composites, coordinate measuring machines, encryption, stacked laser arrays and some jet engine technology controls. Russia joined consensus on new controls for satellite navigation receivers. The EG also approved recommendations from the low-light level (LLL) sensors and associated cameras Technical Working Group (TWG),resolving two issues with competing national proposals. The EG agreed to request Plenary mandates to continue work in 2010 on optical sensors and cameras, on bathymetric survey systems and on robotically controlled vehicles. The working relations in the EG were good with delegations actively working to resolve their differences. By the end of the Fall EG, there were no proposals left unresolved. All had been agreed or withdrawn. A full list of the agreed proposals is included at the end of the cable. USDEL raised possible revision of the U.S./Japanese bilateral agreement on high performance computers with the Japanese Delegation on the margins. End Summary. Agreement on National Proposals -------------- ¶2. (SBU) During the September 14 ) 25 WA EG meeting, USDEL successfully negotiated agreement on 10 of the remaining 13 U.S. proposals not agreed during the Spring EG. Getting agreement on U.S. proposals for revised encryption controls and coordinate measuring machines took until that last day. Getting agreement on U.S. proposal to revise controls on carbon fiber used in making composites also required intense negotiations. In the end, the German delegation was not able to join consensus during the Fall EG on the portion of the proposal that would raise the control parameters for carbon fiber from standard to intermediate modulus. It asked for additional time until November 15 to seek revised instructions and join consensus. ¶3. (SBU) With respect to the three U.S. proposals not agreed, one was withdrawn per instructions (Ref F). One was withdrawn after USDEL had secured a plenary mandate to continue work on control of robotically controlled vehicles and surface vessels in 2010. The third was withdrawn after USDEL determined that it needed more time to study the issue and that the current proposal that the U.S. had on the table might not be the best basis for future discussion. The EG chair will reflect in his report that additional work on redefining "frequency switching time" should be addressed in ¶2010. ¶4. (SBU) Most significant of the non-U.S. proposals agreed was a major restructuring and clarification of some of the jet engine technology controls. During the intersessional meetings (Ref E),USDEL worked hard to shape the UK proposal to revise the controls on Full Authority Digital Engine Controls (FADEC). As a result, the U.S. preferred option was agreed quickly during the Fall EG. FADEC experts attending the meeting took advantage of the time to discuss possible revision of other jet engine controls using the revised FADEC text as a model. The UK submitted a non-paper (WA-EG (09) GB 020) to record the ideas developed during these informal consultations. Global Satellite Navigation Systems (GNSS) -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Russia joined consensus on the revised text negotiated during the Spring EG to control GNSS receivers (Ref B). By joining consensus, Russia permitted the EG to fulfill the Plenary mandate set for it last December. If approved at the 2009 December Plenary, this agreement will UNVIE VIEN 00000482 002 OF 005 mark the accomplishment of a goal that the U.S. has sought for five years. Low-Light Level Sensor (LLL) TWG -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The U.S.-chaired LLL TWG developed solutions for Japanese and Canadian proposals for underwater cameras (JP006/CA011) and German and Canadian proposals for scanning cameras (DE001/CA010). In both cases, broader issues related to these proposals were left open for further work in 2010. The LLL TWG recommended that it continue work in 2010 on: 1) mono and multispectral remote sensing and scanning cameras, 2) consolidation of direct view imaging equipment, 3) performance based controls, 4) the consolidation of optical systems in Categories 6 and 8, 5) foreign availability and 6) new and emerging technology. The EG, in turn, agreed to seek a Plenary mandate to continue this work in 2010. France noted that it would begin field tests of certain image intensifier tubes in October and planned to share the results with the TWG in 2010. (Comment: On the margins, the French representative told U.S. Head of Delegation that France hoped to have a more detailed discussion of its test results on a bilateral basis, or in a small group. End comment.) Information Security TWG -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Colin Whorlow of the UK did an outstanding job in chairing the Information Security TWG. Although the Plenary mandate for this TWG called for simplifying the current controls, Participating States proved reluctant to delete existing text to decontrol certain items, even after agreeing to text that broadened and incorporated existing decontrols. In the end, a statement of understanding had to be negotiated and approved by the EG before the U.S. proposal to decontrol ancillary encryption, and the Canadian (CA004) and German (DE003) proposals to eliminate redundant controls and clarify Cat 5 ) Part 2 references in Cat 4, could be agreed. The EG agreed that the Plenary Mandate on Information Security has been fulfilled through the work on ancillary encryption and the results of the Cat 5 ) Part 2 list review discussions. Plenary Mandates Requested for 2010 -------------- ¶8. (SBU) In addition to the Plenary mandate requested for the LLL TWG, the EG also agreed to request Plenary mandates to work on bathymetric survey equipment and to address the robotically controlled vehicles and surface vessels. USDEL had to overcome some procedural hurdles to get a TWG established that could negotiate the robotically controlled vehicles mandate, but the actual negotiation of that mandate went well with other Participating States actively contributing. (Comment: Based on discussion in the TWG, it remains a challenge to convince other Participating States that dual-use equipment exists in this area that poses a military threat. Participating States accept that a number of militaries are developing these capabilities, but argue that such items are already controlled on the military list. They do not see the need for controls on any dual-use systems at this time. End Comment.) EG Atmospherics -------------- ¶9. (C) The Fall EG had a very constructive atmosphere. Twenty-eight of the 40 Participating States attended at least some part of the meeting. This is a slight decrease from last year. The following highlights are offered: - The Japanese delegation played a constructive role in the EG. Hiroaki Machii, although young, has excellent English and was a very constructive interlocutor. Vienna-based Toshiki Wani, the new Japanese head of delegation, and designate 2010 Expert Group Chair, is still getting settled, but expressed a desire to work closely with the USDEL. Continuing the practice from last year, the USDEL had useful bilateral exchanges with the Japanese delegation. - The Russian delegation played a limited role in the Fall EG. The Russian Head of Delegation, Andrey Odnoral, has become more comfortable in the EG, but does not play as active a role as his predecessor. The Russian delegation was UNVIE VIEN 00000482 003 OF 005 back to its normal size after being absent from the summer intersessional meetings. They sought out the USDEL on a number of issues and seemed quite appreciative of explanations offered by the USDEL. - The UK delegation's performance continued to be uneven. The UK delegation had a lot of energy and thereby made a positive contribution to the work of the EG. However they continue to table proposals that are not well staffed and to rely on others (often the U.S.) to solve the resulting problems. Diver detection sonars and several of the UK's ML proposal fell into that category. FADEC required considerable work earlier in the year. - The French delegation continued to expand its role in the EG. Four of its members were from the Ministry of Defense and one from the Ministry of Economy and Industry. The French delegation asked tough questions of other delegations, but in all cases was willing to work for pragmatic solutions. Such was the case in the U.S. proposal for semiconductor laser stacked arrays. - The German delegation remains very much dependent on Joachim Wahren. He is scheduled to retire after next Spring's EG. - Romania, Bulgaria and Ireland were all absent from the Fall EG. Romania has historically been a second tier actor, having useful comments on specific issues. Bulgaria and Ireland, while not active, have historically attended. - After increased representation last year, Italy's representation was down to a delegation of one. ¶10. (SBU) The EG chair, Diego Martini from Italy, ran a very good Fall session. In both weeks, he packed the first day's work schedule. This worked very well. By Wednesday of each week only a few difficult issues remained, and the EG was able to focus its attention on those items. Discussion of Non-Papers -------------- ¶11. (SBU) USDEL presented non-papers on graphene and spread spectrum technology. The UK responded to the US non-paper with one of its own. The UK paper questioned the need to address graphene in the EG in the immediate future. USDEL formally answered the UK questions in the EG plenary and also conducted a useful bilateral discussion. There was no response to the U.S. non-paper on spread spectrum technology. Proposals Recommended for Plenary Approval -------------- ¶12. (SBU) Category 1 (Special Materials Related Equipment) proposals agreed: ¶A. 1.A.1.b./1.C.10. Editorial changes. JP001/TWG031. ¶B. 1.B.1. Relaxation of control on tape laying machines. US005 Rev 1. ¶C. 1.C.2.b. Clarification of the scope of control of 1C.2.b. AU002 Rev 1. ¶D. 1.C.10. Carbon composites. US008/TWG040. Germany has requested until November 15 to join consensus on the change in carbon fiber parameters in 1.C.10.b. All other changes, including the extensive re-write of 1.C.10.e. have been agreed. ¶E. CAT 1 Annex, ML8. Adding CAS registry numbers. JP002 Rev ¶2. ¶13. (SBU) Category 2 (Materials Processing) proposals agreed: ¶A. 2.B.6. Coordinate Measuring Machines (CMMs) US009 Rev 2/NL001 Rev 1/TWG046 Rev 1. ¶14. (SBU) Category 3 (Electronics) proposals agreed: ¶A. 3.A.1.b.11. Frequency Synthesizer Control (formerly 3.A.2.b.) US012 Rev 2. ¶B. 3.B.1.c. Anisotropic Etch Equipment. US010 Rev 2. UNVIE VIEN 00000482 004 OF 005 ¶C. 3.B.1.e. Modification of control of automatic loading and multi-chamber wafer handling systems. US015 Rev 1. ¶15. (SBU) Category 4 (Computers) proposals agreed: ¶A. 4.A.1.b. and 4.D.3. Deletion of 4.A.1.b. and 4.D.1.c.3. CA004. ¶B. 4.A.1.b. and 4.D.3. New Nota Bene. DE003. ¶C. 4.A.3.g. Revision of controls of External Interconnects. US004 Rev 1. ¶16. (SBU) Category 5 Part 1 (Telecommunications) proposals agreed: none. ¶17. (SBU) Category 5 Part 2 (Information Security) proposals agreed: ¶A. Category 5 Part 2 Note 4. Ancillary Encryption. US003/TWG045/TWG049. ¶B. 5.A.2.a. Clarification of specially designed components. CA005. ¶C. 5.A.2. Note a. Decontrol of personalized smart card readers/writers. JP004 Rev 1/TWG045/TWG049. ¶18. (SBU) Category 6 (Sensors and Lasers) proposals agreed: ¶A. 6.A.1.a.1. Wide-swath bathymetric survey systems. GB001/TWG039 Rev 1. Agreed with a Plenary mandate to further address this issue in 2010. The EG Chair will also report that all Participating States agreed that this change was a temporary solution that would require a more permanent solution in 2010. This statement was a compromise after Russia rejected the U.S. proposed validity note and Canada was reluctant to accept the change without the validity note. ¶B. 6.A.1.c. and 6.D.3.a.5. Diver detection sonars and software. GB002/TWG047. ¶C. 6.A.3. Underwater cameras. JP006/CA011 Rev1/TWG041. ¶D. 6.A.3.b.2. Decontrol of certain scanning cameras. DE001/CA010 Rev 1/TWG041. ¶E. 6.A.5.d.1.b., c, and d. Semiconductor laser stacked array power density. US019 Rev 3. ¶F. 6.A.8.l. Clarification of controls on radar systems. CA007 Rev 2. ¶19. (SBU) Category 7 (Navigation and Avionics) proposals agreed: ¶A. 6.A.5. Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) receivers. TWGp9 Rev 2/Chair009. ¶20. (SBU) Category 8 (Marine) proposals agreed: ¶A. 8.A.2.f. Deleted. TWG041 ¶21. (SBU) Category 9 (aerospace and propulsion) one proposal agreed: ¶A. 9.E.3.h. Clarification of FADEC controls. GB012/TWG027 Corr. ¶22. (SBU) Sensitive List (SL) proposals agreed: ¶A. 4.D.1. and 4.E.1. Computer software and technology controls. US016. ¶B. 6.A.1.a.1.e. and 6.D.3.a.5. Diver detection sonars. FR010. ¶C. 6.A.3.b.3. and 6.A.3.b.4. Note. New Note and new Note 5 respectively. TWG041. ¶D. 9.E.3.h. Consequential change. TWG027 Corr. ¶23. (SBU) Munitions List proposals agreed: UNVIE VIEN 00000482 005 OF 005 ¶A. ML5.c. Note. Note added. GB004 Rev 2. ¶B. ML8.b.7. and Nota Bene 2. Specially designed explosives, propellants and pyrotechnics. GB005 Rev 3. The addition of the Nota Bene was agreed. Canada has requested until November 15 to join consensus on the new ML8.b.7. ¶C. ML8.a.34. Clarification or ML8.a.34. GB010. ¶D. ML8.e.6. Text clarification. GB011. ¶E. ML10.h. Military parachutes. GB006 ¶F. ML17. Fuel Cells. US007 Rev 2. Other business -------------- ¶24. (SBU) On the margins, USDEL presented the Japanese delegation an information paper on the possibility of updating a U.S./Japanese agreement on high performance computers. The Japanese delegation expressed its appreciation for the advanced notice that the U.S. was considering a formal approach to discuss possibly revising the agreement. DAVIES