FSC MARCH 11: UNSCR 1540 ROUNDTABLE HIGHLIGHTS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 USOSCE 000055 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 RS XG SUBJECT: FSC MARCH 11: UNSCR 1540 ROUNDTABLE HIGHLIGHTS U.S. PROPOSALS ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The March 11 Forum for Security Cooperation roundtable on UNSCR 1540 endorsed further work at the OSCE to implement the mandatory measures to prevent the proliferation of WMD to non-state actors. The speakers, including the director of counter-proliferation policy from the UK Foreign Office, endorsed a U.S. strategy paper that calls for completion of a Best Practice Guide, an information exchange among participating States, and identification of available technical assistance for participating States implementing the provisions of 1540. Speakers also endorsed including OSCE field missions and other intergovernmental organizations in Vienna like the IAEA in OSCE implementation efforts. Russia was grudging with its support, warning that it and other delegations lacked technical expertise and of the risks of duplication. ¶2. (SBU) The U.S. recommended greater use of Chapter X, Vienna Document 1999 voluntary regional measures in light of an OSCE monitors' report of a live-fire exercise by Russian forces near a Georgian village. Russia found the idea interesting. Delegations are still analyzing the latest revision of the draft decision on an update to the Code of Conduct questionnaire. The decision to extend the deadline to June 15 for submitting responses to the Code of Conduct questionnaire was adopted. End summary. UNSCR 1540 Roundtable: Call to Arms -------------- ¶3. (SBU) A roundtable on implementation of UNSCR 1540 agreed that there remained much work to be done that the OSCE could support. Paul Arkwright, director of counter-proliferation in the UK Foreign Office, extolled a Food-for-Thought (FFT) paper (FSC.DEL/25/09/Corr.1) recently circulated by Italy, the UK, and the U.S., that outlined next steps to be taken at the OSCE. The paper, based on a U.S. strategy document, recommends participating States: - Exchange data on all reports provided to the 1540 Committee at the UN in New York; - provide each other information on their ability to provide technical assistance to other countries; - complete work on the Best Practice Guide; - continue to report on their implementation to the 1540 Committee Arkwright also suggested updating the OSCE principles on nonproliferation to bring them into line with the demands of ¶1540. Both Sides of the Danube -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Arkwright noted that the 1540 Committee is constrained by the language of the resolution and political considerations, unlike other relevant actors such as the OSCE and its participating States who have greater latitude to move the resolution forward. He noted that Vienna has several intergovernmental organizations which could work together to further implementation. By leveraging capacity USOSCE 00000055 002 OF 004 on "both sides of the Danube" the OSCE could help to make Vienna a "regional center of excellence" in 1540 implementation. Nukes and the "Masculine Strut" -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Rebecca Johnson of the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy said 1540 implementation could be part of a larger effort at nuclear weapons disarmament. Although, she claimed, many states were still suspicious of 1540 as it arose during the "toxic period" immediately after 9/11 when the U.S. was implementing "coercive" counter-proliferation measures like the Proliferation Security Initiative, the preamble to 1540 tied it to broader efforts to rid the world of WMD. Johnson said that states had to deglamorize" nuclear weapons, claiming that some states sought them because the weapons enabld a "masculine strut." ¶6. (SBU) Johnson acknowledged many obstacles to full implementation of 1540 including "reporting fatigue," lack of understanding of the threats posed by proliferation to non-state actors, inadequate resources, and "reactive" assisance. She called for greater involvement by civil society and more normative regimes to restrict possession and use of WMD. She suggested that one possible first step would be the elimination of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. EU Efforts to Implement 1540 -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Ian Anthony of SIPRI detailed EU programs that furthered 1540 goals, among them introducing a "security dimension" to EU export controls; refinement of dual use goods lists; policies and practice for critical infrastructure protection, including chemical and biomedical facilities, in light of CBRN threats; and over 1.5 million euros in dedicated research funding. Anthony said SIPRI had identified continuing security and proliferation problems with some common-chemical production facilities, biomedical research institutes, and HEU supplies for research reactors. Anthony recommended an OSCE-EU meeting in late 2009 or early 2010 to compare and coordinate 1540 implementation efforts. Model Workplans from VERTIC -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Rocio Escauriaza Leal of VERTIC detailed elements of legislative and regulatory action plans for implementing the provisions of 1540 for each of the major WMD types: biological, chemical, and nuclear. She noted VERTIC is able to respond to requests for technical assistance in implementation, including institutional and legal audits and action plans. Endorsements -------------- ¶9. (SBU) The Czech Republic (Reinohlova),on behalf of the EU, announced its continuing support for 1540 and combating the proliferation of WMD. The EU supports continued OSCE work on 1540. Finland (Kangaste) supported the Italy-UK-U.S. FFT on further 1540 work at the OSCE. Turkey (Begec) said it USOSCE 00000055 003 OF 004 wanted to see more 1540 work on the OSCE agenda and praised the FFT, particularly the idea of cooperation between the FSC and the Permanent Council's Security Committee. On the margins, Spain and Belgium indicated their interest in supporting the FFT. U.S. Calls for Action -------------- ¶10. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour) noted its role in the creation of 1540 and the wide OSCE support for UNSCR 1810 extending the mandate of 1540 as reflected in the number of participating States who were co-sponsors of that resolution. Neighbour recalled that the most recent 1540 Program of Work included elements that were reflected in the FFT: assistance, cooperation with international organizations, and national implementation and monitoring. Neighbour echoed Arkwright's call to take advantage of other intergovernmental organizations like the IAEA and UNODC. He repeated the point made in the FFT that the OSCE could widen the scope of work beyond the FSC to the Security Committee and Secretariat units it oversees: the Action against Terrorism Unit and the Border Management Group. Russia Has Doubts -------------- ¶11. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) recalled that it, too, was among the original sponsors of 1540 at the UN. While gratified that the OSCE was making a contribution, Ulyanov doubted it had the technical expertise to absorb the volume of complex information provided by states in fulfilling their 1540 reporting obligations. It would be important for the OSCE to create realistic goals for itself, he added. ¶12. (SBU) Turning to the FFT, Ulyanov said he would need guidance from Moscow, but as a preliminary observation he thought much of the paper only duplicated the requirements of 1540 itself. On the other hand, the suggestion to include the field missions in 1540 work had potential, although it might require additional resources including staff. Russia will participate in any informal consultations on the FFT. OSCE Field Missions and 1540 -------------- ¶13. (SBU) Arkwright, from the UK FO, in response to a U.S. question about a potential role for OSCE field missions, said it would not be necessary to increase their staffing as long as their function as a conduit for communication on 1540 issues to a host government was not duplicated by other states, intergovernmental organizations, or NGOs. SIPRI's Anthony disagreed, arguing that field missions needed the resources and that duplication was more of a concern at a higher level among states and IOs. Regional CSBM in South Caucasus -------------- ¶14. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour),noting a March 9 OSCE Military Monitoring Officers report of a Russian or South Ossetian live-fire exercise near the Georgia village of Bershueti (SEC.FR/182/09),suggested a Chapter X, Vienna USOSCE 00000055 004 OF 004 Document 1999 voluntary measure to report such exercises in advance to avoid alarm and possible destabilization in area where tensions continue to run high. ¶15. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) responded with interest, asking if the proposal would lead to a "dangerous" reopening of the Vienna Document and whether notifications of such exercises would be required in the entire OSCE area. Neighbour assured that the measure would be voluntary and not require reopening the Vienna Document and was meant to respond only to another Bershueti-type incident and would perhaps be applicable along the administrative boundary. Code of Conduct Questionnaire -------------- ¶16. (SBU) The decision to extend the deadline for responses to the Code of Conduct questionnaire in 2009 to June 15 was adopted (FSC.DEC/1/09). ¶17. (SBU) In the working group, several delegations reported they needed more time to study the latest version of the draft decision to update the Code questionnaire (FSC.DEL/14/08/Rev.1). The FSC Code coordinator (Eischer, Austria) explained his use of "constructive ambiguity" in the revision of the preamble paragraphs in the draft decision, retaining both the paragraph referring to the UN Charter and "race, sex, language or religion" and a paragraph combining reference to the Helsinki Final Act and the "indivisibility of security." ¶18. (SBU) Russia still would prefer additional language in operative paragraph 2 allowing response to either the existing or updated questionnaire in 2009. Finland and Sweden, among the Nordic authors of the UN Charter paragraph, can support the latest version of the draft decision. The chair (France, Simonet) urged all to support his effort to reach consensus on a decision before the end of the winter session on April 1. Next Meeting -------------- ¶19. (SBU) The FSC will hold a cyber security workshop on March 17-18. The next FSC plenary and working groups will be on March 25 and will include, at Russia's request, a Security Dialogue discussion on reopening the Vienna Document 1999. SCOTT