DPRK:1718 COMMITTEE DESIGNATIONS STALEMATED

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000661 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ETTC MCAP PGOV PHUM PREL KN UNSC SUBJECT: DPRK:1718 COMMITTEE DESIGNATIONS STALEMATED BECAUSE OF CHINA/RUSSIA ¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: On July 7, the DPRK Sanctions Committee ("1718 Committee") continued its work to implement key tasks in Resolution 1874, including making new sanctions designations by July 12, drafting a Program of Work to guide the Committee's work, and helping to establish a Panel of Experts to assist in the monitoring and improved implementation of sanctions. China and Russia claimed to be lacking any guidance or feedback from their capitals regarding the joint U.S./UK/France/Japan package of proposed designations. France, Japan, and the United States expressed deep disappointment with the Committee's inability to discuss the proposal and warned of the consequences of missing the deadline for new designations set by the Security Council. China and Russia proposed minor changes to the draft Program of Work (POW) including edits to restrict the ability of the Committee chair to travel in the course of his duties. The Secretariat explained to the Committee that work is ongoing to identify appropriate candi dates for the Panel of Experts (POE) and that no list of experts has been prepared yet. END SUMMARY. DESIGNATIONS: CHINA/RUSSIA REFUSE TO ENGAGE -------------- Q -------------- ¶2. (SBU) On July 7, the Security Council's DPRK Sanctions Committee ("1718 Committee") continued its work to implement key tasks in Resolution 1874, including making new sanctions designations by July 12, drafting a Program of Work to guide the Committee's work, and helping establish a Panel of Experts to assist in the monitoring and improved implementation of sanctions. Turkish Charg d'Affaires Fazli Corman chaired the meeting (the previous chair, Turkish Perm Rep Baki Ilkin, has recently left New York). ¶3. (SBU) The chair noted that no delegation had submitted any questions or feedback about the proposed designations (individuals, entities and goods) submitted jointly by the United States/UK/France/Japan on June 19. The Chinese representative said that he had not received any instructions from his capital and warned that the Committee should not expect anything from China by the end of the week. The Russian representative stated that although his capital was "closely analyzing" the text, he still had not received anything from Moscow. The Vietnamese representative also explained that his capital was still working on the proposal and was awaiting more information justifying the proposals on the individuals. The Mexican representative also asked for additional justifying information. ¶4. (SBU) USUN Sanctions Unit chief expressed concern about the lack of feedback from delegations. He reminded the Committee that capitals had been reviewing the package for nearly two weeks, which was a longer period of time than they had in April 2009 when the Committee last considered designations proposals. He also noted that in the previous day's Council consultations on DPRK, all Council members had expressed firm support for implementation of 1874 -- achieving designations by the requested deadline was a critical element of implementing that resolution, he said. The French representative echoed these points, lamenting that no deQ had askQfic questions or sought clarifications about any element of the designations proposal. He also reminded delegations that, pursuant to Resolution 1874, if the Committee did not act by its July 12 deadline, then the Security Council had agreed to act within seven additional days. The Japanese representative also said he was disappointed by the lack of guidance from capitals and asked those delegations if there were any particular issues related to the package that their capitals found problematic. PROGRAM OF WORK: MINOR CHANGES -------------- ¶5. (SBU) The chair noted that Committee members had received a draft Program of Work (POW) on July 1 for the Committee's activities over the coming months, adding that Resolution 1874 had tasked the Committee to finalize this product by July 15. The Russian representative proposed a number of edits, including the removal of certain phrasings concerning the definition of small arms and light weapons. ¶6. (SBU) The Chinese, Russian and Vietnamese representatives also proposed removing a section from the POW that envisioned travel by the Chairman and/or Committee members to visit countries. They argued that such travel was not mandated by either resolution 1718 or 1874. USUN noted that the chairs of sanctions committees often travel in the course of their duties, provided that such travel is in accordance with the Committee's mandate. Loraine Rickard-Martin, the senior Secretariat official in charge of supporting the Committee, confirmed that this practice was well established and even supported by the Security Council in a Presidential Statement made in 1999; she added that such travel has proven to be useful and helpful for other committees. ¶7. (SBU) The Chair pledged to circulate a revised POW for the Committee's review. PANEL OF EXPERTS: SECRETARIAT STILL WORKING -------------- ¶8. (SBU) The Mexican representative asked if the Secretariat had prepared a preliminary list of experts under consideration for positions on the upcoming Panel of Experts. Rickard-Martin explained that the Secretariat was continuing to review appropriate candidates and had not yet developed such a list. The Chair stated that the Committee should focus now on the designations, leaving work on the Panel of Experts until a later time. RICE