Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09USUNNEWYORK522
2009-05-20 14:13:00
CONFIDENTIAL
USUN New York
Cable title:
NPT, CTBT, FMCT DISCUSSED AT P-5 LUNCH IN NEW YORK
how-toP 201413Z MAY 09 FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK TO DISARMAMENT CONFERENCE COLLECTIVE PRIORITY CIA WASHDC PRIORITY DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY DOD WASHDC PRIORITY JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5/UNMA// PRIORITY NSC WASHDC PRIORITY OSD WASHDC PRIORITY SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6606 SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY INFO AMEMBASSY ALGIERS PRIORITY AMEMBASSY ANKARA PRIORITY AMEMBASSY ATHENS PRIORITY AMEMBASSY BANGKOK PRIORITY AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY AMEMBASSY BRASILIA PRIORITY AMEMBASSY BRATISLAVA PRIORITY AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS PRIORITY AMEMBASSY BUCHAREST PRIORITY AMEMBASSY BUDAPEST PRIORITY AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES PRIORITY AMEMBASSY CAIRO PRIORITY AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY AMEMBASSY DUBLIN PRIORITY AMEMBASSY HARARE PRIORITY AMEMBASSY ISLAMABAD PRIORITY AMEMBASSY JAKARTA PRIORITY AMEMBASSY KUALA LUMPUR PRIORITY AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY AMEMBASSY LISBON PRIORITY AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY AMEMBASSY LUXEMBOURG PRIORITY AMEMBASSY MADRID PRIORITY AMEMBASSY MANILA PRIORITY AMEMBASSY MEXICO PRIORITY AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY AMEMBASSY NEW DELHI PRIORITY AMEMBASSY OSLO PRIORITY AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY AMEMBASSY PRAGUE PRIORITY AMEMBASSY PRETORIA PRIORITY AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE PRIORITY AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM PRIORITY AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV PRIORITY AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE PRIORITY AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY AMEMBASSY VIENNA PRIORITY AMEMBASSY WARSAW PRIORITY AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000522
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/18/2019
TAGS: AORC CDG ENRG KNNP MNUC PARM PGOV PREL
UNGA/C-1, IAEA, NPT
SUBJECT: NPT, CTBT, FMCT DISCUSSED AT P-5 LUNCH IN NEW YORK
Classified By: Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo, reasons 1.5 (B) and (D).
C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000522
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/18/2019
TAGS: AORC CDG ENRG KNNP MNUC PARM PGOV PREL
UNGA/C-1, IAEA, NPT
SUBJECT: NPT, CTBT, FMCT DISCUSSED AT P-5 LUNCH IN NEW YORK
Classified By: Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo, reasons 1.5 (B) and (D).
1. (C) Summary: Anatoly Antonov, Director for Arms
Control, Russian MFA, hosted Acting Under Secretary for
Arms Control Rose Gottemoeller (also U.S. Head of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory
Committee (PrepCom) delegation meeting in New York) and
other P-5 NPT PrepCom Delegation Heads and Deputy Heads
for lunch May 8 at Russia's United Nations mission. The
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and other
disarmament issues, a program of work in the Conference on
Disarmament (CD) to begin negotiations on a Fissile
Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT),the NPT PrepCom meeting
currently underway in New York, and proposals for
multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle
dominated the conversation. Russia put forward five
principles that might form the basis for agreed consensus
by the P-5 at the Review Conference (RevCon) of the NPT in
2010, and all P-5 supported working to achieve agreement on
a short P-5 press release at the close of current NPT
proceedings, to be drafted by the United States. End Summary.
2. (C) In New York to head the Russian delegation to May
4-15 NPT PrepCom meetings at the United Nations, Anatoly
Antonov, Director of Nonproliferation and Disarmament,
Russia's MFA, hosted fellow P-5 delegation heads and
deputy heads for lunch at the Russian UN mission on May 7.
P5 attendees included Antonov and four other members of the
Russian delegation; for the U.S., Rose Gottemoeller, Acting
Under Secretary for Arms Control and Assistant Secretary for
Verification and Compliance, (Head of the U.S. Delegation),
Ambassador Marguerita Ragsdale, Director of Multilateral
Security and Nonproliferation, Bureau of International
Security and Nonproliferation (Deputy Head); for China, Cheng
Jingye, MFA
Director
General for Arms Control and Disarmament, (Head of
Delegation),
Ambassador Wang Qun, Geneva Mission (Deputy Head); for the
UK,
Ambassador John Duncan, Geneva Mission (Head of Delegation),
Fiona Patterson, Counselor of the Geneva UK Mission (Deputy
Head);
for France, Ambassador Eric Danon, Geneva Mission (Head of
Delegation) and Celine Jurgensen, MFA Deputy Director for
Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament Division.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
3. (C) Antonov initiated discussion by noting the
encouragement CTBTO Executive Secretary Tibor Toth had
received from U.S. administration statements on CTBT
ratification. He said he hoped other countries would
follow suit in expressing an intention to sign and ratify
the Treaty, adding that it would be important to make
progress in this direction before the NPT Review
Conference in 2010. He asked Acting Under Secretary
Gottemoeller for an update of U.S. Administration progress
on CTBT ratification.
4. (C) Gottemoeller said President Obama had begun efforts
to seek the advice and consent of the Senate to ratify the
treaty, and that she was "judiciously optimistic" about
obtaining the votes needed. Inquiries from the Senate had
already begun with a list of questions from Senator Kyl,
which her Bureau had addressed in the initial days of her
tenure at State. She had met with members of Kyl's staff,
who seemed pleased about the responsiveness of the
Administration to the questions that had been raised. On
timing for moving forward, Gottemoeller said she expected
that a proposed START treaty would move first to the Senate
prior to the Administration requesting the Senate's advice
and consent on CTBT.
Disarmament and the New Administration
5. (C) French Ambassador Danon asked if the
Nunn-Schlesinger-Kissinger - Perry initiative on
disarmament had been helpful in facilitating the work of
the new Administration. Gottemoeller said that the two
articles produced by these former officials had been very
helpful in changing attitudes towards disarmament in the
United States and that President Obama had listened to
their perspective. To China's question as to whether the
Law of the Sea Treaty might also be ripe for approval in
the Senate, Gottemoeller responded in the affirmative.
6. (C) Antonov told Gottemoeller that the U.S.
Administration is now sending important signals and this
must surely mean that the U.S. is ready to "assuage"
Russia's security concerns. Gottemoeller responded that
the U.S. believes that our joint experience in
implementing START will allow both Russia and the U.S. to
move forward in talks. Antonov said he was pleased the
talks would be taking place in Geneva because of the
success countries have had in that venue in moving forward
on other important agreements, such as the Chemical
Weapons Convention. The UK's Duncan interjected that work
in Geneva was far more "pragmatic" than in "polemical" New
York.
Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) in the Conference
on Disarmament (CD)
7. (C) On an FMCT and the work of the CD, Antonov said he
had heard that CD members do not see a problem in moving
forward on a program of work in that body but was not yet
convinced this was true of Pakistan. He inquired if
Pakistan now held a positive position on moving forward.
Ambassador Qun of China said he understood Pakistan was
still insisting on the Shannon Mandate, yet had been
"reasonably quiet" of late. Qun expressed the view that
Pakistan would not want a dispute at the CD over FMCT,
even though it has given conflicting signals about whether
it could accept the Algerian program of work.
8. (C) France's Danon said Pakistan had told him it had no
problems with safety and security concerns France had
raised in terms of nuclear materials. It wanted, however,
the same regime India has and is keen to see verification
of stocks included so that India's holdings are known as
they may impact Pakistan's nuclear posture. Danon said he
also believes Pakistan will support the proposed program
of work, as it does not wish to be isolated in the nuclear
world.
9. (C) The best scenario, Danon said, would be to begin
negotiations with the January session of the CD. The CD
would have been able to take advantage of the Algerian
presidency for 15 days prior to ascendancy of Argentina
and then Australia. Algeria can change the NAM's views,
whereas others that follow will have less influence over
the NAM. France does not like the Algerian proposal's
language on negative security assurances (NSAs),Danon
added, and would prefer that all other items mentioned in
the proposal be considered at a different level of
importance. Antonov agreed with Danon,s assessment on
timing, and the importance of getting a program of work in
the CD. He said Russia had not been pleased with the
response to PAROS because it was sure PAROS is ripe for
negotiation. He also laid down a marker that if there is
mention in the CD of proceeding with a treaty on NSAs, but
not a treaty on PAROS, then this would be a problem for
Russia. Russia was not ready to support discussion of a
treaty on NSAs.
10. (C) Antonov told his P-5 guests that Russia is very
interested in the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and
would like to see if there might be a more positive
position taken by the U.S. in it on the Russia-China
initiative for a treaty banning the placement of weapons
in space. He said he did not understand why the U.S.
worked against this in the CD and added that Russia will
seek, in its consultations with the United States, a
report of where matters stand on this issue and whether
there can be forward movement. Russia will also work, he
said, to persuade others to support the initiative and
would prefer a unified P-5 position on it.
11. (C) Gottemoeller responded that in the U.S., four
distinct security posture reviews are currently being
conducted: the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear
Posture Review, a Space Policy review, and a Missile
Defense review. These reviews will stretch out over 2009
but will produce interim results. It is, therefore, good to
hear Russia's inquiries and concerns as the U.S. moves
forward on those reviews.
12. (C) China's Qun said that since there is reference in
the Algeria proposal only to the possibility of
negotiations in the context of NSAs, China did not see
this as prejudicial to its policies. He said China's
representative in the CD was instructed to demonstrate a
"constructive attitude" on a program of work and to be
"low-key" on NSAs. Also, he continued, China is "low key"
on positive security assurances (PSAs) as well, in order
to avoid making other P-5 members uncomfortable. If early
consensus is to be achieved, he continued, problems will
need to be anticipated before they happen. He said he was
pleased to see the U.S. raise the expectations of other CD
members by its actions. It is still unknown how far
forward the CD can move, Qun added, but the next session
will be critical.
13. (C) The UK's Duncan interjected that the Chinese
position was also a good description of the UK's. There is
no cost-free option in mandates before the CD and one must
balance options against the cost and consequence of saying
"no" to either. Doing less would take the P-5 back to the
past. The Algerian proposal is not ideal, Duncan added, but
it is not as harsh as the political cost of failing to move
ahead. When it comes to NSAs, he continued, the UK will say
no to them, but the Algerian proposal remains one with which
the UK can live. France's Danon interjected that if
consensus in the CD to accept the Algerian proposal is
achieved, France will not break that consensus, but the
question of Israel's position remains.
14. (C) Gottemoeller noted that the U.S. has invited
Israel to come to the United States for discussion on FMCT
and the CD prior to the U.S. visit on May 18 of Prime
Minister Netanyahu. She said she was very hopeful and
optimistic about such discussions. To Ambassador Qun's
inquiry as to how the U.S. would address Israeli concerns,
and to his observation that Israel may be keen to talk to
the U.S. about understandings regarding nuclear materials,
Gottemoeller responded that she viewed it inappropriate to
talk about U.S. bilateral understandings with Israel.
NPT PrepCom
15. (C) Antonov initiated discussion of P-5 assessments of
the current NPT PrepCom. The UK's Duncan expressed
fascination over what has happened over the past week. He
opined that the P-5 had shown real leadership and its
members had come across as united, causing the NAM to
"take a step back" compared to the 2008 meeting. He
attributed the reversal to the change in U.S. leadership
style, and especially to the way the U.S. has presented
itself in the conference. There is a change of tone,
Duncan observed, that has allowed the center of the NAM to
become energized against those on the right in the NAM.
Iran this year failed to get some of its points included
in the NAM final document at the Cuba summit. He continued
that he thought Chairman Chidyausiku and the UN Office of
Disarmament Affairs had done a good job. He insisted that
the P-5 maintain its "intellectual leadership" and "unity"
going into the 2010 RevCon. To do this, he recommended
that P-5 members focus on just "two to three" issues on
which its members could agree.
16. (C) Antonov asked about the New Agenda Coalition (NAC)
and its activities in the Prepcom. The UK's Patterson
responded that the NAC is divided in strategy over Egypt
but is still a serious grouping. It could very well come
back with tremendous force at the upcoming United Nations
First Committee (UNFC) meeting in October. Antonov
lamented that the NAC at the 2000 RevCon appeared to try
to speak on behalf of the entire world. He urged the P-5
not to give the NAC "an opportunity to increase its
credibility or sell its objectives to the rest of the
world."
17. (C) Gottemoeller responded that the atmosphere is good
coming out of the PrepCom. Each group has work it needs
to do and if there is progress in the PrepCom, momentum
can be built for progress on CTBT, FMCT and Middle East
issues. Gottemoeller admitted that these would be a "heavy
lift and a hard agenda." Still, she expressed hope that
progress could be shown.
18. (C) Antonov supported the view that the P-5 must be
united going into 2010 and added that this unity will make
it easier for the P-5 to cooperate with the NAM. "We
should forget our bilateral problems and make an agreement
not to attack each other," he said. He endorsed the idea
of finding "three to five" issues that could be the basis
for the P-5's framing of a final document and offered five
that he said Russia could endorse: (1) meet some of the
concerns of Egypt, but require reciprocal action
from Egypt; (2) support an international conference to
deal with all issues that arise under the 1995 Middle East
Resolution; (3) appoint a Special Envoy to visit countries
of the region and to report on findings. (Comment: Not
clear if this would be a Russian envoy, an other P-5 envoy,
or from another country. End comment); (4) support
establishment of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ) in the
Middle East, which might aid in getting all countries to
ratify the CTBT; and (5) come to a common understanding
on the meaning of Article X. He said Russia would provide
this year some elements for a possible position on
withdrawal.
19. (C) By engaging in this way, and on these issues,
Antonov continued, Egypt cannot say that the P-5 has put
nothing on the table. He noted Russian concerns about the
proposals Egypt put forward in its 2008 NPT Prepcom
Working Paper on the Middle East, saying those proposals
only focused on a NWFZ. According to Antonov, the list he
is offering helps get the P-5 away from merely repeating
slogans such as "we support the 1995 resolution" and puts
forward concrete action. Duncan noted that Russia's
proposals would find "a great deal of" resonance in the
UK.
20. (C) France's Danon agreed with Antonov that a final
document for the RevCon could be based on P-5 consensus on
certain issues. The question would be how to organize that
consensus. France, he said, is ready to work with the
other members of the P-5 toward preparing for the RevCon
on the basis of P-5 consensus. On Iran, he said France
believes that President Obama has divided its government.
The tone of Iran's opening PrepCom statement reflects that
division. On Egypt, he said he heard "frustration" in its
opening statement. The world is changing, Danon said, and
Egypt sees its position only worsening as a result. Iran
is growing in power, Israel remains outside the NPT, and
nothing is being offered to Egypt. He said he believes
Egypt must be offered something in this review cycle.
P-5 statement in the NPT PrepCom
21. (C) Antonov told Danon that he thought the P-5 draft
statement France penned and circulated prior to start of
the PrepCom was excellent but far too long for a press
release. It should contain, he said, "five or six points
only" and carry the message, inter alia, that the P-5 has
no joint statement but stands united and ready to
cooperate with others. (Note: Gottemoeller volunteered to
prepare such a draft, which was penned by the NSC and
circulated among the P-5 on May 8. End Note)
Multilateral Fuel Cycles
22. (C) Jingye commented that the P-5 has drawn closer,
despite pending issues among them. The P-5 is still
emphasizing disarmament, where the U.S. and Russia have
the real leadership. What should also be considered, he
opined, are proposals from Russia and others on
multilateral fuel cycles. Is it possible, he asked, to
bring any one of those proposals to fruition in the
current NPT review cycle?
23. (C) Antonov remarked that he supported the Hans Blix
notion that it is important that all countries of a region
refrain from exercising the right to develop uranium
enrichment capabilities. Gottemoeller noted the emphasis
placed on the concept of all countries being able to
benefit from peaceful uses of nuclear energy and queried
whether the idea of preventing a country from enrichment
might encounter difficulties. Antonov said a multilateral
approach would simply be offered in place of the right to
enrich and he touted the Angarsk proposal, according to
which a country would, by his description, "get everything
except access to technology." France's Danon closed the
discussion by saying that the only valuable proposal on
multilateral fuel cycles is one that places all countries
on an equal footing.
Wolff
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/18/2019
TAGS: AORC CDG ENRG KNNP MNUC PARM PGOV PREL
UNGA/C-1, IAEA, NPT
SUBJECT: NPT, CTBT, FMCT DISCUSSED AT P-5 LUNCH IN NEW YORK
Classified By: Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo, reasons 1.5 (B) and (D).
1. (C) Summary: Anatoly Antonov, Director for Arms
Control, Russian MFA, hosted Acting Under Secretary for
Arms Control Rose Gottemoeller (also U.S. Head of the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory
Committee (PrepCom) delegation meeting in New York) and
other P-5 NPT PrepCom Delegation Heads and Deputy Heads
for lunch May 8 at Russia's United Nations mission. The
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and other
disarmament issues, a program of work in the Conference on
Disarmament (CD) to begin negotiations on a Fissile
Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT),the NPT PrepCom meeting
currently underway in New York, and proposals for
multilateral approaches to the nuclear fuel cycle
dominated the conversation. Russia put forward five
principles that might form the basis for agreed consensus
by the P-5 at the Review Conference (RevCon) of the NPT in
2010, and all P-5 supported working to achieve agreement on
a short P-5 press release at the close of current NPT
proceedings, to be drafted by the United States. End Summary.
2. (C) In New York to head the Russian delegation to May
4-15 NPT PrepCom meetings at the United Nations, Anatoly
Antonov, Director of Nonproliferation and Disarmament,
Russia's MFA, hosted fellow P-5 delegation heads and
deputy heads for lunch at the Russian UN mission on May 7.
P5 attendees included Antonov and four other members of the
Russian delegation; for the U.S., Rose Gottemoeller, Acting
Under Secretary for Arms Control and Assistant Secretary for
Verification and Compliance, (Head of the U.S. Delegation),
Ambassador Marguerita Ragsdale, Director of Multilateral
Security and Nonproliferation, Bureau of International
Security and Nonproliferation (Deputy Head); for China, Cheng
Jingye, MFA
Director
General for Arms Control and Disarmament, (Head of
Delegation),
Ambassador Wang Qun, Geneva Mission (Deputy Head); for the
UK,
Ambassador John Duncan, Geneva Mission (Head of Delegation),
Fiona Patterson, Counselor of the Geneva UK Mission (Deputy
Head);
for France, Ambassador Eric Danon, Geneva Mission (Head of
Delegation) and Celine Jurgensen, MFA Deputy Director for
Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament Division.
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)
3. (C) Antonov initiated discussion by noting the
encouragement CTBTO Executive Secretary Tibor Toth had
received from U.S. administration statements on CTBT
ratification. He said he hoped other countries would
follow suit in expressing an intention to sign and ratify
the Treaty, adding that it would be important to make
progress in this direction before the NPT Review
Conference in 2010. He asked Acting Under Secretary
Gottemoeller for an update of U.S. Administration progress
on CTBT ratification.
4. (C) Gottemoeller said President Obama had begun efforts
to seek the advice and consent of the Senate to ratify the
treaty, and that she was "judiciously optimistic" about
obtaining the votes needed. Inquiries from the Senate had
already begun with a list of questions from Senator Kyl,
which her Bureau had addressed in the initial days of her
tenure at State. She had met with members of Kyl's staff,
who seemed pleased about the responsiveness of the
Administration to the questions that had been raised. On
timing for moving forward, Gottemoeller said she expected
that a proposed START treaty would move first to the Senate
prior to the Administration requesting the Senate's advice
and consent on CTBT.
Disarmament and the New Administration
5. (C) French Ambassador Danon asked if the
Nunn-Schlesinger-Kissinger - Perry initiative on
disarmament had been helpful in facilitating the work of
the new Administration. Gottemoeller said that the two
articles produced by these former officials had been very
helpful in changing attitudes towards disarmament in the
United States and that President Obama had listened to
their perspective. To China's question as to whether the
Law of the Sea Treaty might also be ripe for approval in
the Senate, Gottemoeller responded in the affirmative.
6. (C) Antonov told Gottemoeller that the U.S.
Administration is now sending important signals and this
must surely mean that the U.S. is ready to "assuage"
Russia's security concerns. Gottemoeller responded that
the U.S. believes that our joint experience in
implementing START will allow both Russia and the U.S. to
move forward in talks. Antonov said he was pleased the
talks would be taking place in Geneva because of the
success countries have had in that venue in moving forward
on other important agreements, such as the Chemical
Weapons Convention. The UK's Duncan interjected that work
in Geneva was far more "pragmatic" than in "polemical" New
York.
Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) in the Conference
on Disarmament (CD)
7. (C) On an FMCT and the work of the CD, Antonov said he
had heard that CD members do not see a problem in moving
forward on a program of work in that body but was not yet
convinced this was true of Pakistan. He inquired if
Pakistan now held a positive position on moving forward.
Ambassador Qun of China said he understood Pakistan was
still insisting on the Shannon Mandate, yet had been
"reasonably quiet" of late. Qun expressed the view that
Pakistan would not want a dispute at the CD over FMCT,
even though it has given conflicting signals about whether
it could accept the Algerian program of work.
8. (C) France's Danon said Pakistan had told him it had no
problems with safety and security concerns France had
raised in terms of nuclear materials. It wanted, however,
the same regime India has and is keen to see verification
of stocks included so that India's holdings are known as
they may impact Pakistan's nuclear posture. Danon said he
also believes Pakistan will support the proposed program
of work, as it does not wish to be isolated in the nuclear
world.
9. (C) The best scenario, Danon said, would be to begin
negotiations with the January session of the CD. The CD
would have been able to take advantage of the Algerian
presidency for 15 days prior to ascendancy of Argentina
and then Australia. Algeria can change the NAM's views,
whereas others that follow will have less influence over
the NAM. France does not like the Algerian proposal's
language on negative security assurances (NSAs),Danon
added, and would prefer that all other items mentioned in
the proposal be considered at a different level of
importance. Antonov agreed with Danon,s assessment on
timing, and the importance of getting a program of work in
the CD. He said Russia had not been pleased with the
response to PAROS because it was sure PAROS is ripe for
negotiation. He also laid down a marker that if there is
mention in the CD of proceeding with a treaty on NSAs, but
not a treaty on PAROS, then this would be a problem for
Russia. Russia was not ready to support discussion of a
treaty on NSAs.
10. (C) Antonov told his P-5 guests that Russia is very
interested in the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) and
would like to see if there might be a more positive
position taken by the U.S. in it on the Russia-China
initiative for a treaty banning the placement of weapons
in space. He said he did not understand why the U.S.
worked against this in the CD and added that Russia will
seek, in its consultations with the United States, a
report of where matters stand on this issue and whether
there can be forward movement. Russia will also work, he
said, to persuade others to support the initiative and
would prefer a unified P-5 position on it.
11. (C) Gottemoeller responded that in the U.S., four
distinct security posture reviews are currently being
conducted: the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear
Posture Review, a Space Policy review, and a Missile
Defense review. These reviews will stretch out over 2009
but will produce interim results. It is, therefore, good to
hear Russia's inquiries and concerns as the U.S. moves
forward on those reviews.
12. (C) China's Qun said that since there is reference in
the Algeria proposal only to the possibility of
negotiations in the context of NSAs, China did not see
this as prejudicial to its policies. He said China's
representative in the CD was instructed to demonstrate a
"constructive attitude" on a program of work and to be
"low-key" on NSAs. Also, he continued, China is "low key"
on positive security assurances (PSAs) as well, in order
to avoid making other P-5 members uncomfortable. If early
consensus is to be achieved, he continued, problems will
need to be anticipated before they happen. He said he was
pleased to see the U.S. raise the expectations of other CD
members by its actions. It is still unknown how far
forward the CD can move, Qun added, but the next session
will be critical.
13. (C) The UK's Duncan interjected that the Chinese
position was also a good description of the UK's. There is
no cost-free option in mandates before the CD and one must
balance options against the cost and consequence of saying
"no" to either. Doing less would take the P-5 back to the
past. The Algerian proposal is not ideal, Duncan added, but
it is not as harsh as the political cost of failing to move
ahead. When it comes to NSAs, he continued, the UK will say
no to them, but the Algerian proposal remains one with which
the UK can live. France's Danon interjected that if
consensus in the CD to accept the Algerian proposal is
achieved, France will not break that consensus, but the
question of Israel's position remains.
14. (C) Gottemoeller noted that the U.S. has invited
Israel to come to the United States for discussion on FMCT
and the CD prior to the U.S. visit on May 18 of Prime
Minister Netanyahu. She said she was very hopeful and
optimistic about such discussions. To Ambassador Qun's
inquiry as to how the U.S. would address Israeli concerns,
and to his observation that Israel may be keen to talk to
the U.S. about understandings regarding nuclear materials,
Gottemoeller responded that she viewed it inappropriate to
talk about U.S. bilateral understandings with Israel.
NPT PrepCom
15. (C) Antonov initiated discussion of P-5 assessments of
the current NPT PrepCom. The UK's Duncan expressed
fascination over what has happened over the past week. He
opined that the P-5 had shown real leadership and its
members had come across as united, causing the NAM to
"take a step back" compared to the 2008 meeting. He
attributed the reversal to the change in U.S. leadership
style, and especially to the way the U.S. has presented
itself in the conference. There is a change of tone,
Duncan observed, that has allowed the center of the NAM to
become energized against those on the right in the NAM.
Iran this year failed to get some of its points included
in the NAM final document at the Cuba summit. He continued
that he thought Chairman Chidyausiku and the UN Office of
Disarmament Affairs had done a good job. He insisted that
the P-5 maintain its "intellectual leadership" and "unity"
going into the 2010 RevCon. To do this, he recommended
that P-5 members focus on just "two to three" issues on
which its members could agree.
16. (C) Antonov asked about the New Agenda Coalition (NAC)
and its activities in the Prepcom. The UK's Patterson
responded that the NAC is divided in strategy over Egypt
but is still a serious grouping. It could very well come
back with tremendous force at the upcoming United Nations
First Committee (UNFC) meeting in October. Antonov
lamented that the NAC at the 2000 RevCon appeared to try
to speak on behalf of the entire world. He urged the P-5
not to give the NAC "an opportunity to increase its
credibility or sell its objectives to the rest of the
world."
17. (C) Gottemoeller responded that the atmosphere is good
coming out of the PrepCom. Each group has work it needs
to do and if there is progress in the PrepCom, momentum
can be built for progress on CTBT, FMCT and Middle East
issues. Gottemoeller admitted that these would be a "heavy
lift and a hard agenda." Still, she expressed hope that
progress could be shown.
18. (C) Antonov supported the view that the P-5 must be
united going into 2010 and added that this unity will make
it easier for the P-5 to cooperate with the NAM. "We
should forget our bilateral problems and make an agreement
not to attack each other," he said. He endorsed the idea
of finding "three to five" issues that could be the basis
for the P-5's framing of a final document and offered five
that he said Russia could endorse: (1) meet some of the
concerns of Egypt, but require reciprocal action
from Egypt; (2) support an international conference to
deal with all issues that arise under the 1995 Middle East
Resolution; (3) appoint a Special Envoy to visit countries
of the region and to report on findings. (Comment: Not
clear if this would be a Russian envoy, an other P-5 envoy,
or from another country. End comment); (4) support
establishment of a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (NWFZ) in the
Middle East, which might aid in getting all countries to
ratify the CTBT; and (5) come to a common understanding
on the meaning of Article X. He said Russia would provide
this year some elements for a possible position on
withdrawal.
19. (C) By engaging in this way, and on these issues,
Antonov continued, Egypt cannot say that the P-5 has put
nothing on the table. He noted Russian concerns about the
proposals Egypt put forward in its 2008 NPT Prepcom
Working Paper on the Middle East, saying those proposals
only focused on a NWFZ. According to Antonov, the list he
is offering helps get the P-5 away from merely repeating
slogans such as "we support the 1995 resolution" and puts
forward concrete action. Duncan noted that Russia's
proposals would find "a great deal of" resonance in the
UK.
20. (C) France's Danon agreed with Antonov that a final
document for the RevCon could be based on P-5 consensus on
certain issues. The question would be how to organize that
consensus. France, he said, is ready to work with the
other members of the P-5 toward preparing for the RevCon
on the basis of P-5 consensus. On Iran, he said France
believes that President Obama has divided its government.
The tone of Iran's opening PrepCom statement reflects that
division. On Egypt, he said he heard "frustration" in its
opening statement. The world is changing, Danon said, and
Egypt sees its position only worsening as a result. Iran
is growing in power, Israel remains outside the NPT, and
nothing is being offered to Egypt. He said he believes
Egypt must be offered something in this review cycle.
P-5 statement in the NPT PrepCom
21. (C) Antonov told Danon that he thought the P-5 draft
statement France penned and circulated prior to start of
the PrepCom was excellent but far too long for a press
release. It should contain, he said, "five or six points
only" and carry the message, inter alia, that the P-5 has
no joint statement but stands united and ready to
cooperate with others. (Note: Gottemoeller volunteered to
prepare such a draft, which was penned by the NSC and
circulated among the P-5 on May 8. End Note)
Multilateral Fuel Cycles
22. (C) Jingye commented that the P-5 has drawn closer,
despite pending issues among them. The P-5 is still
emphasizing disarmament, where the U.S. and Russia have
the real leadership. What should also be considered, he
opined, are proposals from Russia and others on
multilateral fuel cycles. Is it possible, he asked, to
bring any one of those proposals to fruition in the
current NPT review cycle?
23. (C) Antonov remarked that he supported the Hans Blix
notion that it is important that all countries of a region
refrain from exercising the right to develop uranium
enrichment capabilities. Gottemoeller noted the emphasis
placed on the concept of all countries being able to
benefit from peaceful uses of nuclear energy and queried
whether the idea of preventing a country from enrichment
might encounter difficulties. Antonov said a multilateral
approach would simply be offered in place of the right to
enrich and he touted the Angarsk proposal, according to
which a country would, by his description, "get everything
except access to technology." France's Danon closed the
discussion by saying that the only valuable proposal on
multilateral fuel cycles is one that places all countries
on an equal footing.
Wolff