FSC MAY 27: U.S.-MOROCCO SEMINAR ON CONVENTIONAL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 USOSCE 000134 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, EUR/CARC, SCA/CEN, SCA/RA, PM/WRA, ISN/CPI JCS FOR J-5 OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI) NSC FOR HAYES USUN FOR LEGAL, POL EUCOM FOR J-5 CENTCOM FOR J-5 UNVIE FOR AC GENEVA FOR CD E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL KCFE OSCE MO RS XG SUBJECT: FSC MAY 27: U.S.-MOROCCO SEMINAR ON CONVENTIONAL ARMS AND REGIONAL SECURITY IN SECURITY DIALOGUE ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The Security Dialogue included an account of the U.S.-Morocco hosted seminar on conventional arms and regional security in Rabat, April 14-15. The U.S., Morocco, Spain, and France described the seminar, which sought coordinated regional responses to the proliferation of weapons from conflict zones into North and West Africa and the Sahel. Delegations from nations in these regions as well as France and Spain attended. Earlier, a Portuguese state-owned defense holding company described its ammunition demilitarization services. ¶2. (SBU) In the working groups, despite low-grade sniping among some delegations, there was wide support for the draft list of political-military elements for the 2009 Annual Security Review Conference. Russia acknowledged U.S. and Conflict Prevention Center comments on the British-Russian draft Best Practice Guide on Vienna Document contact visits. Support is growing for the German-authored draft guidelines for Vienna Document inspection briefings, although Russia still wants them to be mandatory. The chair of the Informal Group of Friends of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) surveyed OSCE decisions and related developments in the field since 1999 and will soon introduce a draft agenda and modalities for the special meeting to review the OSCE Document on SALW. ¶3. (SBU) The U.S. called for further support of the Food-for-Thought paper proposing measures by the FSC to support implementation of UNSCR 1540, introduced in March. Belgium, Canada, Croatia, France, and Poland now are willing to co-sponsor. Italy, an original co-sponsor with Britain and the U.S., suggested drawing on FSC expertise by organizing an information exchange on participating States' implementation programs. Canada noted it has, like the U.S., circulated a draft chapter for a Best Practices Guide on 1540 and called for comments. Russia noted it generally supports implementation of 1540 through the OSCE but added that the FFT "raises issues for us" as it was important to find the best modalities to support the resolution. End summary. Rabat Seminar -------------- ¶4. (SBU) The U.S. (Silberberg) briefed the FSC on a joint U.S.-Morocco hosted seminar on conventional arms and regional security held in Rabat, Morocco, April 14-15, 2009. During the October 2008 U.S.-organized MANPADs seminar for Mediterranean Partners in Vienna, the Moroccan delegation expressed concern over the flow of conventional weapons from conflict zones into the regions of North Africa, the Sahel, and West Africa. Morocco noted the need for additional work and proposed the idea of a regional seminar as a useful tool. The U.S. and Morocco co-hosted the April 2009 seminar to open dialogue on conventional arms proliferation. Participants from border control agencies in Burkina Faso, Chad, France, Libya, Mali, Morocco, Senegal, Spain, Tunisia, and the U.S. attended. ¶5. (SBU) The Rabat seminar focused on illicit proliferation of conventional armaments from conflict zones into North Africa, the Sahel, and West Africa. Attendees identified regional threats and evaluated regional security capabilities. Most attendees viewed socioeconomic factors as USOSCE 00000134 002 OF 006 central to proliferation - as arms trading provides a source of income for impoverished tribes and families ) and noted that increased regulation would likely exacerbate poverty in the region, which in turn could increase extremism and the proliferation of "gray areas." Discussion of these factors, as well as other threats, steered the group toward identifying several common security goals for the region. ¶6. (SBU) Spanish, French, and U.S. experts provided technical information and spoke about available programs to improve existing or future regional security capabilities to combat proliferation. Attendees discussed and identified counter-proliferation and preventative security measures to address these goals, including interagency coordination, specialized training and sharing of best practices, strengthened export controls, and multilateral cooperation. ¶7. (SBU) Morocco (Laaouaouda) added that recently dismantled terrorist networks were supported by conventional weapons proliferation, noting linkages between terrorist cells in Afghanistan and the Sahel region. Laaouaouda suggested that regional inter-governmental coordination should also target crime, money laundering, trafficking, and other criminal activities, which often are associated with conventional arms proliferation. He said that lack of intergovernmental communication undercuts these efforts. ¶8. (SBU) Sweden (Byren) questioned whether the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) moratorium on import, export, and manufacture of light weapons had been effective in curbing conventional proliferation. Morocco noted that the moratorium is not respected, but argued that local production, which does not fall under the aegis of the moratorium, was a contributing factor as well. France (Simonet) supports the two-pronged approach taken at the seminar: (1) a regional focus, and (2) an inter-administrative focus including police, civil aviation, and other sectors within countries. Spain (Anson) also supported the seminar. ¶9. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) noted its support for regional nonproliferation efforts but pointed out that despite the plethora of multilateral agreements halting the spread of conventional arms created in the 1980s and 1990s, the OSCE recently had come to a "stand still" and that "not everything is as good as it seems to be." Belgium (Kenes) asked about the possibility of expanding participation in future seminars. The U.S. (Silberberg) noted that it was planning additional events like the Rabat seminar that would increase outreach to other regions. Portuguese Demilitarization Capacity -------------- ¶10. (SBU) Major General (retired) Jose Cordeiro gave an overview of governmental and private sector actors in Portugal's defense manufacturing and demilitarization industries, and provided a more detailed briefing on Portugal's demilitarization process for obsolete conventional ammunition. Both functions are carried out under the aegis of EMPORDEF, a holding company of Portuguese defense industries with the government as its sole shareholder. USOSCE 00000134 003 OF 006 ¶11. (SBU) EMPORDEF provides manufacturing, maintenance and support, and demilitarization to the Portugal defense establishment across a number of areas, including naval, industrial, and technological sectors. EMPORDEF also actively pursues national and international partnerships; more than two-thirds (71 percent) of EMPORDEF activity is targeted to international markets, through which the company provides technical knowledge to other companies within Europe. ¶12. (SBU) Manufacturing and destruction of armed forces and security corps ammunition is contracted through the Industry of Defense Demilitarization (IDD),an EMPORDEF subsidiary. IDD was created to facilitate the implementation of the Ottawa Convention, but has since undertaken the destruction and recycling of obsolete conventional ammunition as well. ¶13. (SBU) France (Simonet) asked whether the OSCE could play a role in IDD's efforts. Cordeiro noted IDD's willingness to partner with participating States (pS) on demilitarization and offered IDD as a model of a "small, profitable" company capable of effectively demilitarizing obsolete ammunition stockpiles at low-cost. Finland (Kangaste) and the CPC (Kalashnyk) were interested in the types of cooperation EMPORDEF and IDD had pursued with international partners. Cordeiro noted that EMPORDEF had worked with NATO's NAMSA and companies in Spain, Italy, and France. Cordeiro further noted that, in cases of international cooperation on destruction, Portugal preferred on-site destruction of materials due to the dangers in transporting obsolete ammunition. ¶14. (SBU) The U.S. (Silberberg) asked whether EMPORDEF weighed relative costs between demilitarization (including recycling ammunition) and complete destruction, and whether IDD had considered the resale of recovered ammunition to offset destruction costs. Cordeiro stated that EMPORDEF was quite competitive in the world market, noting that it compared favorably with larger defense manufacturing companies, including U.S. companies. List of Pol-Mil Elements -------------- ¶15. (SBU) In the working groups, there appears to be wide if tacit support for the draft "list of politico-military elements for the 2009 Annual Security Review Conference" (FSC.DEL/115/09/Rev.1),although Azerbaijan returned to its earlier complaint over the "opacity of the process" by which the list had been assembled, and criticized the FSC chef de file for the ASRC (Simonet, France) for lack of impartiality and transparency. Russia (Ulyanov) noted that the list was not a consensus document and did not reflect the preferences of all 56 Forum delegations. Ulyanov suggested the title of the list be amended to reflect that the elements were "suggested by FSC delegations." ¶16. (SBU) Ulyanov then objected to the chair's proposal to forward the list to the June 3 plenary for "endorsement" as this connoted a "positive reaction" by all delegations and was too similar to what the FSC did when it "approved" a decision. He suggested "take note of" as less judgmental. Armenia urged forbearance and self-restraint by delegations when making proposals for the list while Greece and the UK USOSCE 00000134 004 OF 006 praised the list and urged the chair to forward it to the CiO. The list will be reviewed again by the FSC Troika and may appear on the June 3 plenary agenda along with the chair's transmittal letter. Vienna Document -------------- ¶17. (SBU) Turkey (Begec) introduced a Food-for-Thought paper that would allow use without advance approval of digital camera and global positioning systems during Vienna Document inspections and evaluations (FSC.DEL/124/09). Begec noted the frequent use of these devices in Vienna Document verification activities and the need for clear rules on their use. ¶18. (SBU) The U.S. reminded delegations of the invitation extended by Italy for Chapter IV airfield and military facility visits June 8-12 to U.S. units at Aviano Air Base and Caserma Ederle in Vicenza. A written reminder was also circulated (FSC.NOT/10/09). HOV Meeting -------------- ¶19. (SBU) Ukraine announced support for the draft decision to hold a meeting of heads of verification agencies on December 14 in conjunction with the Annual Exchange of Military Information (FSC.DD/3/09/Corr.1 Turkey said it lacked instructions, most likely for administrative reasons. The draft will remain on the working group agenda for the June 3 meeting. VD99 Briefing Guidelines -------------- ¶20. (SBU) Turkey, Spain, Ukraine, and Poland joined the supporters of the German-proposed guidelines for Vienna Document inspection and evaluation briefings (FSC.DEL/103/09). Finland (Kangaste) reported that the paper was being reviewed in capital where there was concern that it might be better couched as a chair's paper or a Best Practices Guide (which do not require consensus at 56 and are not mandatory). Germany (Schweizer),in response to Kangaste, noted the draft decision included the "adopts and endorses for publication" language also used to approve BPGs. Russia (Ulyanov),while still awaiting instructions that are "likely to be substantial," said the status of the paper was a matter of principle. Chair's statements do not improve the implementation of the Vienna Document: "they don't work." Instead, a "serious," mandatory decision was needed. Schweizer will prepare a revised version as a chair's draft decision for the June 10 working group. SALW Review -------------- ¶21. (SBU) The chair of the Informal Group of Friends of Small Arms and Light Weapons (Schweizer, Germany) circulated a prioritized list of FSC SALW-related decisions for the review tasked by Ministerial decision 11/08. Schweizer gave a brief overview of the history of SALW work at the OSCE: USOSCE 00000134 005 OF 006 - 1999: FSC started to discuss SALW, two years before the UN launched its own Program of Action on SALW. FSC decision 6/99 recognized that the spread of SALW contributed to armed conflicts. - 2000: OSCE Document on SALW in 2000 - 2000-2002: workshops to develop plans for implementation of the Document, culminating in FSC decision 15/02 that provided expert advice on implementation via projects - 2003: Best Practices Guides on SALW - 2003-2004: decisions on MANPADS - 2004: decisions on end-use certificates and brokering - 2006: MANPADS annex to the BPG - 2006: illicit air trafficking of SALW decision - 2007 Madrid ministerial decision - 2007-2009: NGO presentations at FSC - 2007-2009: information exchanges on end-use certificates and brokering - 2008: Ministerial decision 11/08 to review the OSCE Document on SALW and supplementing decisions ¶22. (SBU) Schweizer said he had drafted an agenda with modalities for the special meeting on the SALW review, tentatively scheduled for September 22-23. He was forwarding the draft to the FSC Troika and hoped it could be introduced at the June 3 FSC with substantive discussion to follow at the June 10 meeting. A decision on the agenda would need to be made before the summer recess at the end of July to allow enough time for inviting speakers and other arrangements. UNSCR 1540 -------------- ¶23. (SBU) The U.S. (Silberberg) provided an update on further work on UNSCR 1540. The Food-for-Thought paper (FFT) on an OSCE 1540 strategy, initially co-sponsored by the U.S., the UK, and Italy, now includes Canada and Belgium as additional co-sponsors (FSC.DEL/25/09/Corr.2). Silberberg observed that UNSCR 1540 is a global effort, and that the most recent UN report on the resolution, published late 2008, called for further measures. The UN 1540 Committee works with several regional organizations such as the OAS and OSCE as well as others to provide resources. The OSCE, the regional organization most supportive of 1540 objectives, continues to work on producing a Best Practices Guide. Chapters on export controls and physical security have been drafted by the U.S. and Canada, respectively. The FFT recommends a regional database to facilitate matching pS needs with technical assistance programs available in other OSCE countries. ¶24. (SBU) Canada, Italy, Croatia, Ukraine, and Poland supported the idea of the OSCE 1540 strategy paper and thanked the U.S. for its lead in the effort. Croatia and Poland also expressed their desire to join the list of co-sponsors. France (Simonet) later informed the U.S. that it too wants to co-sponsor. Italy (Negro) noted that delegations have had "plenty of time" to study the paper since its distribution in March. It was important for the Forum to identify the added value that a regional organization can provide to implementation. He suggested that well-tried OSCE instruments be used to further implementation, such as transparency mechanisms like information exchanges. USOSCE 00000134 006 OF 006 ¶25. (SBU) While Turkey and Germany offered general support for the proposed 1540 strategy, both also noted concerns. Turkey (Begec) pointed out the strategy foresees field missions hosting regional events and wanted assurances that the Secretariat would provide guidance to the field. Turkey offered to work with the U.S. on appropriate language. Germany (Schweizer) noted that the FFT proposes OSCE activity in anti-terrorism and border controls, which would require "proper expertise." Schweizer later told the U.S. that it might be better to keep 1540 work in the FSC. ¶26. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) noted that it favored use of the OSCE in furthering work on 1540, but it was important to "find the most effective and best modalities." Ulyanov noted that the strategy paper raises" a number of issues," and said he would hold consultations with the U.S. this week to discuss them. Next Meeting -------------- ¶27. (SBU) The next FSC meeting will be on June 3 and feature a Security Dialogue presentation by Finland on the "multinational experiment process." In the working group, Russia plans to return to its proposals for naval CSBMs. VanDreal