VZCZCXRO8289
PP RUEHAST RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSL
RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0239/01 2961306
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 231306Z OCT 09
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6668
INFO RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE PRIORITY
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/DOD WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JCS WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USOSCE 000239 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, EUR/CARC, 
SCA/CEN, SCA/RA, PM/WRA, ISN/CPI 
NSC FOR SHERWOOD-RANDALL, HAYDEN, MCFAUL, HOVENIER, 
NILSSON, FRIEDT 
OSD FOR ISA (WALLENDER, KEHL) 
JCS, EUCOM, USAREUR AND CENTCOM: FOR J-5 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL RS XG
SUBJECT: FSC: UNSCR 1540 TAKES CENTER STAGE 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  Russia shared more detailed remarks in 
Working Group A about their Food-for-Thought paper on 
analyzing Vienna Document 1999 implementation, including its 
interest in targeting specific provisions to reflect more 
accurately the political-military environment.  There were 
some murmurings of agreement with the Russians by some pS at 
the FSC (and on the margins) that it may be time to begin 
some form of review on VD99. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Russia is moving towards delivering a draft decision 
on VD99 review issue for the Athens Ministerial.  Meanwhile, 
the Forum for Security Cooperation's Security Dialogue 
briefings from NATO Deputy Assistant Secretary General Guy 
Roberts and U.S. 1540 Coordinator Tom Wuchte were well 
received, with general agreement the OSCE has a continuing 
role to play in support of 1540 implementation.  Russia 
cautioned such efforts must not displace or substitute for 
the role of the 1540 Committee, but ultimately acknowledged 
there was room for further non-proliferation work within the 
OSCE context. (NOTE: RFG in para. 8.  End note). End Summary. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The 591st FSC was devoted to UNSCR 1540 with 
presentations by NATO D/ASYG for WMD Policy Guy Roberts and 
U.S. 1540 Coordinator Tom Wuchte.  Roberts emphasized the 
importance of NATO seminars and outreach to other 
international organizations to help inventory capacities for 
addressing non-proliferation and related issues.  He 
underscored the need for a comprehensive approach that 
avoided duplication and focused on practical cooperation 
consistent with the framework as agreed at the 2008 Bucharest 
NATO Summit.  Roberts noted that NATO could set up a "trust 
fund" in support of UNSCR 1540 implementation as one of the 
many tools for combating proliferation, in addition to NATO 
support for the NPT, CWC, BWC and efforts by Member States in 
the Proliferation Security Initiative and the Global 
Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Roberts also discussed NATO's efforts at building 
consequence management capabilities, including through the 
lending of NATO support to national authorities if requested. 
 He gave examples of the multi-dimensional character of 
NATO's efforts and the "strategic enablers" for facilitating 
NATO's abilities to combat WMD: intelligence and information 
sharing, CBRN "Reachback" (i.e., detection, characterization, 
forensic attribution and international outreach and partner 
activities, and public diplomacy and strategic 
communications).  He noted NATO's readiness to provide 
assistance for addressing WMD issues and concerns, if asked. 
 
¶5. (SBU) State Department 1540 Coordinator Tom Wuchte 
identified 1540 implementation as a "classic OSCE 'crossover' 
issue, underscoring the importance of incorporating all 
elements of the OSCE's work, not just the First Dimension 
portfolio.  Wuchte noted that in addition to the development 
of the 1540 Best Practice Guide chapter on export controls, 
the Action against Terrorism Unit (ATU) and the CPC Borders 
Team, as well as the Supply Chain Security Workshop for the 
Mediterranean organized by the Greek CiO for December were 
examples of the cross-dimensional nature of the issue.  He 
highlighted the tools that the U.S. worked to develop 
including PSI, the GICNT (with Russia), and EXBS program as 
efforts to build capacity for further implementation of UNSCR 
¶1540.  Wuchte underscored the OSCE's lead in developing 
regional approaches to support 1540 implementation, including 
through facilitating the efforts of participating States to 
address gaps in their implementation efforts.  He noted that 
the 1540 Committee's limit of eight experts benefit greatly 
from the collaborative role of regional organizations like 
the OSCE. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Following Sweden's statement of support 
(representing the EU and associate partner countries), Russia 
(Ulyanov) referenced its own Food-for-Thought (FFT) paper 
(FSC.DEL/169/09) cautioning pS that OSCE actions on 1540 must 
be in strict accordance with the Resolution and not make new 
demands on States; challenging the capacity of the OSCE to 
provide the appropriate level of expertise and resources; and 
avoiding duplication of efforts that are best done elsewhere. 
 The U.S. (Ellis) noted that the OSCE was capable of moving 
 
USOSCE 00000239  002 OF 002 
 
 
forward on facilitating 1540 implementation while also 
meeting the parameters that were raised in Russia's FFT. 
 
Working Group "B" -- SA/LW on the menu 
 
¶7. (SBU) The UK Chair (Gare) introduced the Draft Ministerial 
Decision on SA/LW and SCA (MC.DD/4/09) as an "evolutionary, 
not revolutionary" text that builds on the Helsinki 
Ministerial Decision.  In response to initial reactions to 
the draft, the U.S. (Ellis) volunteered that--pending 
guidance from Washington--the draft seemed "ambitious." 
 
¶8. (SBU) Comment and Request for Guidance: The UK's SA/LW 
Coordinator (Hartnell) told us during private consultations 
on the draft following Tuesday's JCG, that the language was 
considered realistic in that release of the SA/LW Review 
Report (FSC.GAL/109/09) was imminent, and there was an 
obligation to meet goals that were agreed at the Helsinki 
Ministerial. USDEL would appreciate Washington's views on the 
SA/LW Draft Decision prior to the October 27 FSC in order to 
provide advance notice to the UK Chair. End Comment and RFG. 
 
Working Group "A" -- Russia softens tone on VD99 Review 
 
¶9. (SBU) The WGA did not move any Draft Decision documents 
forward to the FSC plenary.  Russia said it did not have 
instructions on AIAM Agenda and Modalities (FSC.DD/9/09) or 
on Digital Camera Usage under VD99 (FSC.DEL/124/09/Rev.1). 
Russia did review its main points from its FFT on an analysis 
of the implementation of VD99.  Ulyanov softened his 
presentation by carefully separating out VD99 Chapters that 
were (A) successful but where there was room for improvement 
-- Chapters I (Information Exchange); IV (contacts: "could 
extend to naval CSBMs"); VII (calendars); VIII (constraining 
provisions); IX (compliance and verification: "lots of room 
for improvement); X (regional measures); XI (AIAM); and (B) 
clear failures -- Chapters II (Defense Planning), III (Risk 
Reduction)identifying areas.  He warned against the 
consequences of "ten years of stagnation" that could put VD99 
at risk of "losing its significance."  In response to 
Denmark, Ulyanov said he was not proposing a radical overhaul 
of VD99, but the intent was to focus on "targeted packages," 
keeping what is valid and identifying those provisions that 
need amending. 
 
¶10. (SBU) The U.S. (Ellis) cautioned against creating 
artificial targets or deadlines that would run counter to 
national legislative processes or calendars, such as the 
issues raised under Chapter II. In response to Austria, 
Ulyanov said his personal view was that the idea of updating 
VD99 has relevance to the Corfu Process, in that it "gained 
sway" within the scope of the European Security Dialogue.  He 
emphasized, "It would send the best possible political signal 
on European Security if we were to move forward on this 
proposal."  Belarus and Kazakhstan expressed support for the 
Russian position; Greece noted its support for broader 
"dynamism" in the Corfu Process.  The UK Chair (Gare) said 
the topic would remain on the next WGA agenda. 
 
Other Issues 
 
¶11. (SBU) The CPC (Salber) noted its invitation to the Third 
Meeting of the Heads of Verification Centers, to be held on 
14 December, was distributed.  The CPC would welcome 
food-for-thought papers for discussion at the meeting. 
Belarus said it was still uninstructed on whether to support 
the Update of 15/02 on Expert Advice on Implementation of 
Section V of the OSCE Document on SA/LW 
(FSC.DEL/151/09/Rev.1).  There were no interventions on the 
remaining agenda topics.  The next meeting of the FSC Plenary 
and Working Groups is set for Wednesday, October 28. 
CHRISTENSEN