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