DPRK: U.S. EXPERTS MAKE CASE FOR SANCTIONS

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000407 E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/21/2019 TAGS: UNSC PREL PHUM ETTC MCAP KN SUBJECT: DPRK: U.S. EXPERTS MAKE CASE FOR SANCTIONS DESIGNATIONS Classified By: Amb. Alex Wolff for Reasons 1.4 (B),(D) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: On April 20, visiting U.S. experts briefed the DPRK Sanctions Committee on the U.S. proposal to designate new entities and goods for sanctions. The experts made a detailed and compelling case for why the U.S.-proposed items met the designation criteria in UNSCR 1718 and were an appropriate response to the April 5 DPRK missile launch. The Japanese and UK delegates also made presentations justifying their respective designation proposals, although the Libyan delegate suggested that the Japanese proposal relied on outdated information. The Russian delegate said Russia could support the U.S. proposal to update a technical list referred to in UNSCR 1718 with the latest Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Annex, but that Russian experts were still reviewing other elements of the proposal and might not provide instructions for several days. He further suggested the Committee first identify and support "non-objectionable" elements in the proposals, while continuing discussions on more controversial elements after the April 24 deadline. The Committee chair, Turkish Perm Rep Ilkin, expressed concern that the Committee might not be able to meet the Security Council's deadline and vowed to hold meetings every day, if necessary, until April 24. USUN expressed hope that the Committee could begin a substantive discussion on the tabled proposals at its next meeting on April 21. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) On April 20, U.S. experts from Washington presented a compelling case to the UN's DPRK Sanctions Committee ("1718 Committee") about the Committee should support a U.S. proposal to designate new goods and entities. (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). In his introduction of the visiting experts from Washington, USUN Sanctions Unit chief expressed optimism that the Committee would be able to follow through on the Security Council's "serious political commitment," which was made when the Council adopted a Presidential Statement directing the Committee to make new designations by April 24 in light of the DPRK's missile launch. He added that the United States had structured the U.S. designation proposal in a way to facilitate quick review in capitals, such as by relying on well-known entities and lists of goods. ¶3. (C) Ralph Palmiero and Kennedy Wilson of the U.S. Department of State's Office of Missile Threat Reduction (Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation) provided the Committee with additional information on the U.S. proposal to designate new items to be subject to the import/export ban. Palmiero and Wilson, using easily understandable terms, explained exactly how the selected items could be useful to the DPRK's ballistic missile programs and therefore fit under the designation criteria in UNSCR 1718. They also explained why it was necessary to update the list of banned items referenced in UNSCR 1718 (S/2006/815) with a more recent annex produced by the thirty-four state members of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). Anthony Ruggiero, also of the Department of State's Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, who was joined by Michelle O'Lear from the U.S. Department of Treasry, walked the Committee through the eleven U.S.-proposed entities. Ruggiero presented newly-declassified information about the role of these entities -- especially the export company KOMID and its financier Tanchon Commercial Bank -- in the DPRK's ballistic missile efforts. ¶4. (C) The Japanese delegate made a brief presentation of new information related to the three entities Japan has proposed. He emphasized that while Japan had proposed a hospital and shipping line with some civilian functions, these entities clearly met the UNSCR 1718 criteria of being involved in nuclear-related, WMD-related or ballistic missile-related activities. The UK delegate presented the UK proposal for designating a certain type of tungsten that is used in missiles. He explained that the UK had crafted the proposal carefully so as to avoid capturing legitimate civilian uses for tungsten. ¶5. (C) During the comment period, the French delegate applauded the U.S. presentation, which he said established a clear link between the UNSCR 1718 mandate and the U.S. proposals. He said he hoped that this proposal would allow capitals to accelerate their review in order to meet the April 24 deadline set by the Security Council. The Libyan delegate challenged the Japanese proposal on a number of points, emphasizing that sanctions must not imposed in a way that causes humanitarian hardship and criticizing the presentation for including old information, some of which predated the adoption of UNSCR 1718. The Burkina Faso delegate offered generally supportive remarks about the proposals on the table. ¶6. (C) Saying he was under instructions, the Russian delegate confirmed that Russia could support updating the MTCR annex as proposed by the United States. He further suggested, however, that the Committee first identify and support quickly the "non-objectionable" items in the proposals, while continuing discussion on the controversial items even after the April 24 deadline. The Russian delegate stressed that experts in his capital were still reviewing the proposals and that he might not receive instructions for another two or three days. He added that the Committee should not make decisions that would increase regional tensions. ¶7. (C) Ilkin, visibly worried, said he was concerned that the Committee would not be able to achieve its assigned task by April 24. He expressed his intent to hold meetings every day, if necessary, until agreement could be reached. At the next meeting, Ilkin said, he hoped delegations would have instructions to begin a substantive discussion on the proposals. USUN echoed this point, reaffirming the need to start talking about the content of a final designation proposal and warning that it would be better to solve this issue in the Committee rather than have the Council take action by April 30, as it had committed to do in its recently-adopted Presidential Statement. The French delegate also said it would be preferable to avoid Council action. Rice NNNN End Cable Text