DPRK: 1718 COMMITTEE REVIEWS DESIGNATION PROPOSALS

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000401 E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/16/2019 TAGS: UNSC PREL PHUM ETTC MCAP KN SUBJECT: DPRK: 1718 COMMITTEE REVIEWS DESIGNATION PROPOSALS Classified By: Amb. Alex Wolff for Reasons 1.4 (B),(D) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: On April 15, the DPRK Sanctions Committee considered the Security Council's request that the Committee "adjust" sanctions measures through the designation of goods and entities in response to the DPRK's recent missile launch. Turkish Perm Rep Ilkin noted that the Council requested Committee action by April 24. USUN and the Japanese delegate walked the Committee through their respective designation proposals. The Chinese delegate complained about the short timeframe to review highly-technical information, claimed that the U.S. designation proposal lacked sufficient justifying information and said it would "not be the end of the world" if the Committee were unable to make progress by April 24. The Russian delegate echoed Chinese complaints on the timeframe and lack of information, and further complained that some U.S.-proposed goods had legitimate civilian uses. Libyan and Vietnamese delegates urged that sanctions not have unintended humanitarian consequences. The chair proposed that after bilateral and small-group consultations, the Committee next meet on Tuesday April 21. After the meeting, the U.S., UK, French and Japanese delegates pushed back on an informal Turkish suggestion that the Committee issue an "interim report" by April 24 that would announce only a few designations but pledge to continue deliberations after the deadline. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) On April 15, the DPRK Sanctions Committee ("1718 Committee") discussed the recent request from the Security Council to adjust sanctions imposed on the DPRK in light of that country's missile launch. Turkish Perm Rep Ilkin, Committee chair, noted that in an April 13 Presidential Statement the Council asked the Committee to designate entities and goods by April 24. If the Committee was unable to act, he explained, then the Security Council had agreed to move forward with designations by April 30. (NOTE: Per UNSCR 1718, the DPRK Sanctions Committee has a mandate to designate entities linked to the DPRK's proscribed WMD and missile program, which will then be subject to an asset freeze. The Committee also may identify specific technical goods that States will be prohibited from transferring to or from the DPRK. END NOTE). ¶3. (C) USUN Sanctions Unit chief walked Committee members through the U.S. designation proposal that had been circulated the previous day. He explained that the United States had selected a limited set of technical goods and entities -- most of which were already well known in capitals -- that were linked to the DPRK's ballistic missile-related programs. USUN noted that in light of the "serious political commitment" made by Security Council members to support new designations, the Committee should be able to meet the April 24 deadline. The Japanese delegate explicitly supported the U.S. designations (both goods and entities). He noted that Japan had also proposed three additional entities for designation. ¶4. (C) Calling this discussion "a very complex matter," the Chinese delegate complained that many agencies in Beijing would need a significant amount of time to research and study the U.S. and Japan designations. He denied that the entities were well known and asserted that the United States proposal lacked adequate justifying information for both the goods and the entities. The Chinese delegate expressed the hope that the United States would provide the Committee with more information soon. He added that it would "not be the end of the world" if the Committee is unable to make progress by the April 24 deadline. ¶5. (C) The Russian delegate said he fully agreed with the Chinese concerns about the timeframe and lack of information. He asserted that the U.S.-proposed goods included items that had legitimate civilian uses, such as a time of fine-grain spherical aluminum powder that can be used as industrial propellant for metal mining. He also requested additional information from the United States about both the goods and the entities. The Russian delegate further complained that one component of the U.S. proposal -- a 73-page document based on the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Equipment, Software and Technology Annex -- would need to be translated into all official UN languages. USUN noted that Russia, as a member of the MTCR, probably already has access to a Russian-language version of this annex. ¶6. (C) The Libyan delegate, referencing his own country's experience with sanctions, noted that Libya generally does not favor sanctions, especially when they affect the citizens of a country. In this regard, he expressed initial concerns with Japan's proposal to designate a DPRK hospital. The Vietnam delegate, remaining non-committal on the substance of the proposals, reiterated Vietnam's position that the purpose of sanctions is to modify behavior of a state threatening international peace and that they should avoid unintended humanitarian consequences. The French delegate confirmed that the U.S.-proposed entities were well-known in Paris and that France supported the U.S. list of goods. Both the French and UK delegates left open the possibility they may wish to propose modifications to the U.S. list of goods. ¶7. (C) Ilik outlined the following next steps: -- Committee members may submit new designation requests until 6:00 p.m. on Thursday April 16. -- Committee members will be requested to provide comments on the designation requests no later than 6:00 p.m. on Monday April 20. -- The Committee will meet again on Tuesday April 21 to discuss a final list and prepare the report to the Security Council. -- Ilkin will facilitate bilateral or small group meetings, as necessary, to reach consensus. ¶8. (C) Noting the many cameras and nearly two dozen journalists lurking outside the conference room, Ilkin requested Committee permission to make anodyne comments to the press affirming that the Committee met, had productive discussions and would continue to hold further meetings. The Committee agreed, but the U.S., UK and Japanese delegates reminded the Committee of the need to keep its deliberations confidential and, due to the risk of asset flight, not divulge the names of entities under consideration for designations. ¶9. (C) After the meeting, a Turkish advisor to Ilkin suggested to the U.S., UK, French and Japanese delegates that the Committee might send an "interim report" to the Council on April 24 that would include only "one or two designations" but also a pledge that the Committee will continue its deliberations past the deadline. The U.S. and Japanese delegates warned that this option was highly undesirable and that our governments fully expect the Committee to make substantive progress by the deadline (i.e., high-value designations). It would not be acceptable, the U.S. delegate emphasized, that the Committee take only token action and then claim it had acted in fulfillment of Security Council's April 13 Presidential Statement. Rice NNNN End Cable Text