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outdated information.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