This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 CANBERRA 000387 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/ANP, NP/MNA, GENEVA FOR CD DEL, USUN (POL) 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2015 
TAGS: PARM PREL KNNP AORC AS IR IAEA
SUBJECT: NPT REVCON: AUSTRALIAN VIEWS ON USG PROPOSALS 
 
REF: A. STATE 18228 
     ¶B. CANBERRA 341 
 
Classified By: POLCOUNS WOO LEE FOR REASONS 1.4 (B AND D). 
 
¶1.  (C) Summary.  GOA officials have provided additional 
comments on U.S. preparations for the 2005 NPT Review 
Conference (Ref A) to those they offered to NPT Envoy 
Ambassador Jackie Sanders (Ref B) during her February 9-10 
visit.  The additional comments reinforce Australian support 
for the overall U.S. approach, while noting two areas where 
the GOA sees room for Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) states to 
misinterpret USG language.  Australian officials reiterated 
their advice for the U.S. to have "hip pocket" language ready 
on the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) and the 
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) for inclusion if there 
is a final consensus document at the RevCon.  Embassy 
thoughts on public diplomacy outreach per Ref A request are 
provided at para. 5.  End Summary. 
 
GOA REACTION TO NPT PAPER 
------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (C) NPT Envoy and CD Ambassador Jackie Sanders presented 
Ref A talking points on preparing for the 2005 NPT Review 
Conference (RevCon) on February 10 to DFAT Deputy Secretary 
Nick Warner, as well as to First Assistant Secretary David 
Stuart and a GOA interagency roundtable (Ref B).  In 
follow-up discussions with Polmiloff, Arms Control Office 
Director David Mason provided additional comments on the U.S. 
proposals.  Mason told us the GOA broadly supports the U.S. 
approach to the NPT RevCon, but he had three specific 
comments.  Under the Ref A talking points of what "the United 
States will urge the RevCon to (do)," Mason was concerned 
about the point regarding non-compliant states not receiving 
Article IV benefits, nor being able to claim that Article IV 
"protects them from the imposition of measures against their 
nuclear programs."  Without further elaboration, he worried 
that "NAM states could assume those 'measures' could mean 
bombing runs" against their nuclear programs.  Mason 
suggested refining the language to read: "measures under IAEA 
statutes or under the purview of the UNSC...." 
 
¶3.  (C) Similarly, in the next paragraph of Ref A non-paper, 
Mason pointed to the following language: "The United States 
will underscore and seek recognition that NPT parties are 
responsible for exercising independent judgment in assessing 
compliance with the Treaty's nonproliferation obligations and 
for holding violators accountable for their actions and 
enforcing compliance."  Mason wondered what would happen if 
the NAM states suggested substituting the words 
"nonproliferation obligations" with "disarmament obligations" 
in that sentence.  In other words, if the NAM wanted to apply 
the same "exercising independent judgment" rubric under 
Article VI against the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) that the 
U.S. wanted use under Article IV against nonproliferation 
noncompliant states, it could "open up a slippery slope" of 
independent judgments that neither the U.S. nor Australia 
wanted to see. 
 
¶4.  (C) Mason's third point was to reiterate the Australian 
comments to Ambassador Sanders (Ref B) urging the U.S. to put 
its "best face forward" on disarmament in order to get its 
wishes on nonproliferation by having "hip pocket language" 
ready on FMCT and CTBT for a RevCon consensus document. 
Mason went as far as to offer ideas on specific language the 
U.S. might use on CTBT: "All NPT parties recognized the value 
of the CTBT, and while one state said it would not pursue 
ratification, all urged a continued testing moratorium and 
continued monitoring to that effect."  Similar language on 
beginning FMCT negotiations would also be useful to have. 
Finally, Mason mentioned that the GOA would sponsor an 
Article X initiative at the RevCon which would seek to raise 
the bar of unacceptability for states that wanted to withdraw 
from the NPT. 
 
NPT PUBLIC DIPLOMACY 
-------------------- 
¶5.  (SBU) We provide responses below to Ref A questions on 
the most useful ways to convey the U.S. message on NPT issues 
to the Australian public. 
 
-- Which NPT issues are most prominent in your host country? 
 
The left-wing of the university and NGO crowd pays attention 
to disarmament issues.  The general public is concerned about 
North Korea's NPT and IAEA-noncompliant nuclear programs, and 
to a lesser extent about those in Iran.  The opposition 
Australian Labor Party (ALP) and Greens are opposed to 
nuclear energy for Australia and to developing additional 
uranium mines in Australia, even though the country has the 
world's largest uranium deposits.  They are also suspicious 
of U.S. arms control and disarmament intentions. 
 
-- Which public diplomacy tools would be most persuasive in 
communicating the U.S. message on nonproliferation, 
disarmament, and peaceful use issues? 
 
Outreach materials would probably be the most effective tools. 
 
-- Would DVC be influential on NPT issues in your country? 
Which host government officials, non-governmental 
organizations, or press outlets would it make sense to 
target?  What issues should DVC address?   How far before the 
RevCon should DVC be employed? 
 
A DVC would certainly not hurt, but the Embassy believes that 
the "hardcore fringe" elements who would be the most 
attracted to attend would also be the least likely to listen 
with an open mind.  The host government is firmly on board 
with USG policy and does not require further outreach, but 
think tanks, specific journalists and universities in 
Canberra, Sydney and Melbourne could be targeted, 
particularly on the need to focus on the "crisis pillar" of 
the NPT, which is not disarmament, but nonproliferation. 
Another option would be ot arrange a DVC just for journalists 
with an eye towards placement of articles based on the 
discussion.  If Washington chooses to provide a DVC for 
Australia, it would be optimal during the week immediately 
prior to the RevCon.  Most universities are not in session 
during much of April.  The 25th is also a public holiday. 
-- Are there local journals or other key national or regional 
media in which it would make sense to place 
articles by USG officials on NPT issues?  What issues should 
such articles emphasize?  What publication date 
would maximize their impact on local preparations for the 
RevCon? 
 
Embassy recommends articles and editorial pieces by very 
senior U.S. officials for our Office of Public Affairs to 
place in "The Australian," "The Sydney Morning Herald," "The 
Age," "The Daily Telegraph" and the "Australian Financial 
Review," among others.  OPA would seek to place them in the 
two weeks prior to the RevCon and would appreciate as much 
lead time as possible.  While providing the U.S. record on 
disarmament, the articles should also highlight the need for 
noncompliant states to be put under the international 
spotlight during the Review Conference. 
-- Would public outreach activities by a visiting USG 
official prove useful in influencing your host country's 
views on NPT issues?  What, if any, NGOs, press outlets, 
academic or research institutions or other fora might be 
useful in this context? 
 
A USG official would be welcome, if willing to visit key 
universities and think tanks in Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, 
Melbourne, Adelaide, and Perth.  We have been invited to 
address the main NGO-hosted NPT seminar of the pre-RevCon 
season in Canberra on March 11, and will do so using AC/AS 
Rademaker's February 3 speech on U.S. Compliance with Article 
VI.  DFAT officials will be making their own NPT 
presentations around Australia, using the Australian 
Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) in most of the 
cities mentioned above.  The Australian Strategic Policy 
Institute (ASPI) in Canberra is Australia's leading defense 
policy think tank.  The Sydney Institute and the Lowy 
Institute are the two best in New South Wales.  AIIA and 
leading universities in other cities also provide appropriate 
venues.  One-on-one interviews with select print and 
broadcast journalists are the preferred method for reaching 
Australian audiences through the media and our Office of 
Public Affairs could arrange them as needed. 
 
STANTON