THE 1540 COMMITTEE DEBATES IMPLEMENTATION

C O N F I D E N T I A L USUN NEW YORK 000964 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/29/2019 TAGS: PREL PARM UNSC SUBJECT: THE 1540 COMMITTEE DEBATES IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES FOR COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW Classified By: Ambassador Rosemary DiCarlo for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d ¶1. (SBU) Summary. The 1540 Committee met on October 20 and 23 to begin consultations on how to prepare a final document based on the 1540 Comprehensive Review, which took place on September 30 and October 1-2, and how to present the conclusions of substantive papers prepared by the 1540 Committee panel of experts. The discussion focused on the recommendations of papers #6 "Analyze the work of the 1540 Committee and identify ways of increasing the effectiveness of its activities," and paper #8 "Develop methodologies to improve the effectiveness of cooperation with individual States, sub-regional and regional and international organizations, multilateral arrangements dealing with export controls, and with relevant UN entities within the UN system." Debate about paper #6 included whether the current temporary working group structure should be adopted permanently, ways to make the panel of 1540 experts more accessible to the working group committees, and more effective knowledge management. Regarding paper #8, some key delegations supported making this paper public, but China and Russia blocked this motion. Before year-end, the Committee will convene several more meetings to finalize an outcome document based on the Comprehensive Review. End summary. ¶2. (SBU) The 1540 Committee met on October 20 to discuss issues raised in paper #6. (Note: In March 2009 the 1540 Committee published a consensus document that framed the work for the panel of experts to analyze the work of the 1540 Committee and implementation, out of which eight papers were produced. Of the eight papers, only #6 and #8 are not published on the Committee's web site. End note.) The first topic raised by the Chair was the structure of the 1540 Committee and the issue of the permanent adoption of the current temporary working group structure. Most member states, particularly the leaders of the working groups such as the US, France, Austria and Mexico, supported the current structure and cited future dates for outreach meetings. While supportive of the working groups, China suggested that the Committee consider merging the meetings of the working groups to alleviate workload and increase both continuity and coordination. Russia said it was too early to assess whether the working groups were successful and thus made permanent because they had only operated for approximately six months. Russia judged it was premature to make a decision about working group permanence without more operating history. ¶3. (SBU) Another issue concerning paper #6 was the "division of labor" between the working groups and the experts and how best to engage the experts more regularly. The UK suggested that it would be helpful to receive quarterly updates from the experts about how they were implementing the Committee's recommendations. Austria suggested the Committee consider associating two experts with each working group to enhance their productivity. Russia reminded the group of a recent "food for thought" paper, which Russia had authored about ideas to enhance the effectiveness of the working groups. In this paper, Russia suggested a timeline to implement regular meetings attended by the experts as well as approaches to improve the procedural process of the working groups and enhance their transparency. France said that scheduling regular meetings of the working groups was unnecessary, and they should continue to meet on an as-needed basis. France further indicated that fears that the creation of the working groups would engender too many meetings had proved unfounded. Lastly, the UK proposed establishing a "core script" of 1540 delegations and the panel of experts. Similarly, Austria proposed posting a "frequently asked questions" portion to the 1540 Committee website so that outsiders could easily find answers to the questions about the Committee. ¶4. (SBU) On October 23 the Committee reconvened to discuss ways to implement the proposal forwarded in paper #8 to improve cooperation between the Committee and other relevant organizations. The U.S. registered disappointment that a paper to enhance cooperation with relevant organizations, particularly since a number of NGOs and IGOs have vast resources to further the 1540 Committee's work, would not be made public. France and the UK agreed and said the lack of consensus to make this paper public was counterproductive. The Chair of the Committee, Costa Rican Ambassador Jorge Urbina, said the conclusions in the paper fell within the Committee's mandate and therefore supported its publication. Austria said the document should be made public and recommended that the 1540 Committee have a formal exchange of letters with relevant organizations and called for the development of closer ties to export-control bodies, which could also provide substantive briefings to the Committee. Russia and China both blocked the proposal to make the document public, arguing only that they could not support the reference to some organizations in the document. (Note: China opposes the reference to cooperation with the Missile Control Technology Regime. Russia opposes the Australia Group. End note.) ¶5. (C) Comment. There was clear support among the delegations for continuing with the working groups, the introduction of which was proposed by the U.S. and U.K. Although Russia showed hesitation in backing them, it is isolated. During planning for the next program of work of the Committee due in early 2010, the working groups will likely move beyond a trial stage and be adopted as permanent fixtures. However, Russia and China successfully blocked the publication of an important paper. Because the Committee is run by consensus, unless members decide to edit out the references to the MCTR and the Australia Group, this paper will not become a public document. Nonetheless, the U.K. opposed this option as it would set a precedent that the impartial analysis of the panel of experts would be subject to review and edits by Committee members, based on political concerns, before publication. End comment. Rice