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