HCOC: TWO REMINDERS TO PROVIDE REVIEW OF POSITION

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000518 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/13/2029 TAGS: PARM MTCRE PREL MNUC KSCA ETTC KNNP TSPA SUBJECT: HCOC: TWO REMINDERS TO PROVIDE REVIEW OF POSITION REF: UNVIE VIENNA 314 Classified By: Counselor Eric Sandberg, Reason 1.4 (d). ¶1. (C) Summary. At two different meetings, diplomatic interlocutors recently inquired when the USG would complete the interagency review of its position on Hague Code of Conduct (HCOC) reporting commitments (reftel, para 26). On both occasions, we replied that the review was still ongoing. Contacts in Vienna imply a deadline for a change in U.S. position by the next Annual Meeting (May 31 - June 1, 2010). End Summary. ¶2. (C) The current Chair of HCOC, Ambassador Ana Teresa Dengo-Benavides, Permanent Representative of Costa Rica, hosted a working breakfast October 14 where she provided an update on HCOC activity. After the update, the German ambassador asked MISSOFF about the status of U.S. pre-launch notifications (PLNs) and queried the Russian representative when the Russians' own moratorium on PLNs might be suspended. ¶3. (C) MISSOFF said the interagency review of the USG position was still under way, and once it was completed HCOC would be informed. Other participants seemed content to know that the review in progress kept open the possibility that the USG position may change. When Ambassador Dengo-Benavides pressed MISSOFF for views on when the process might be completed, and particularly if it might be completed before the next HCOC regular meeting, MISSOFF noted that post was not privy to the status of the interagency discussions in Washington and declined to hazard a guess. ¶4. (C) More recently, on November 5th, members of the Russian Mission in Vienna raised HCOC at a luncheon focused on other issues. They noted that until the U.S. begins to report PLNs they will maintain their suspension of reporting. This suspension and the U.S. position have brought HCOC to a critical situation, according to the Russian representatives. The response echoed Russian statements at the October 14 breakfast: Russia's moratorium was "not cut in stone," but was a temporary measure. "If circumstances change, then Russia's decision could change." ¶5. (C) At the lunch Russia asked whether the U.S. review was completed. MISSOFF said it was not. In reply, while not threatening, the Russian contact implied the HCOC Annual Meeting 2010 was an informal deadline for the U.S. to change its position on reporting. They noted that "there is no point in having meetings just for the point of having meetings." MISSOFF reminded the Russians that the U.S. position on reporting within HCOC from the beginning was contingent on getting the Moscow-hosted Joint Data Exchange Center (JDEC.) ¶6. (C) The Russian contact was well informed about the JDEC discussions. While he thought JDEC operations may have been an initial element of how and when reporting is done to HCOC, from the Russian view JDEC is now a (bilateral) issue beyond the HCOC forum on limiting the proliferation of missile programs. JDEC parameters allow the exchange on a bilateral basis of far more information than will ever be encompassed by HCOC, he pointed out. But HCOC is a valuable international organization that guards against missile program proliferation. HCOC is not a perfect non-proliferation tool, but it is at least a starting point for discussion on a multi-national level. DAVIES