POLITICS SATURATE OPENING OF "FUTURE OF THE

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000075

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

FOR IO/T, ISN/MNSA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: IAEA AORC KNNP UN PREL
SUBJECT: POLITICS SATURATE OPENING OF "FUTURE OF THE
AGENCY" DISCUSSIONS

REF: UNVIE 11


1. (U) Summary: The initial meeting of the year-long, Future
of the Agency (FOA) process got off to a disappointing - if
predictable - start. Most Member States had not given
thought to specific issues and their statements were overtly
political and unconstructive. Only the U.S. and Canada
offered specific topics for discussion beyond the Agency's
"three pillars" of Science and Technology, Security and
Safeguards. Now that the opening session is out of the way,
there is still hope that substance will creep into subsequent
sessions. UNVIE recommends Washington participation in the
next meeting on Nuclear Techniques for Development, scheduled
to follow immediately on the heels of the March Board
(reftel). End Summary.


2. (U) Finnish Ambassador Kirsti Kauppi chaired the opening
session of the "Future of the Agency" process on February 19.
This initial, general meeting was geared toward gaining
agreement on the year-long process and raising questions to
be addressed along the lines of "what kind of Agency would
Member States like to see in the future?" Kauppit reiterated
that the FOA process would be open-ended and without any
decision-making powers. The final report would be
consensus-based, and subsequent discussions would revolve
around the "three pillars" of the Agency (reftel). The
meeting was well-attended by a cross-section of Member States
represented at the ambassadorial level.


3. (U) Once the parameters had been agreed, the remainder of
the meeting was characterized by a series of rote statements
that highlighted long-standing differences in priorities
between developed and less developed Member States. The
majority of interventions by G-77 Member States focused on
various aspects of Technical Cooperation (TC),the need for
predictable TC funding, and the importance of treating TC as
an equal "pillar" of the Agency with "balanced treatment."
Some of the more aggressive G-77 statements (Iran, Cuba)
lamented the public characterization of the IAEA as a
"nuclear watchdog" agency (instead of, presumably, an "atoms
for peace" agency or "atoms for development" agency). Iran
and Cuba also made calls for nuclear disarmament (though the
issue clearly lies outside the IAEA's mandate).


4. (SBU) Iran became particularly problematic as the day wore
on, suggesting that the IAEA had been "forced" into exceeding
its mandates in the area of safeguards. Egypt cryptically
suggested that "some states" wished to deny the spread of
nuclear technology (perhaps a reference to a deadlock at the
previous Board of Governors meeting over a Syrian TC
project). The tone of the discussion, never particularly
enthusiastic, dampened progressively toward the end of the
day.


5. (U) Contributions by major-donor Members were more
wide-ranging. Canada's thoughtful intervention urged other
Members to help the IAEA become a world leader on nuclear
technology, while scaling back support for mature
technologies and out-dated roles. Canada also spoke in favor
of TC, but called for timely results and a shift from project
implementation to norms-setting. Perhaps anticipating future
budget discussions, Canada suggested finding ways to include
both TC and Nuclear Security programs in the regular budget
(septel). Canada admitted that the IAEA was well-run "by UN
standards" but that it lacked focus, transparency and
accountability. (Note: Canada has also expressed privately
the view that DG succession might lead to improved
management. End note.) Germany also delivered a thoughtful
statement in favor of fuel assurances, and decoupling Cuba's
links between non-proliferation and disarmament. The U.S.
was the only Member State to move deliberately through the
year's scheduled discussions and proposed specific topics.


6. (U) Ambassador Kauppi, apparently unfazed by the
highly-stylized and political interventions of the day,

determined to move the FOA process forward. In a side
conversation, she mentioned that the first topical meeting in
the process, Nuclear Techniques for Development, would be the
"true test" of Member States' seriousness. The meeting
follows immediately on the heels of the March Board
(tentatively scheduled for March 5). Mission invites
Washington's contributions in the lead-up to and in the
course of the meeting.
SCHULTE