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 VIENNA 001793 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR PM/WRA - PICO AND EUR/AGS - VIKMANIS-KELLER 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/01/2015 
TAGS: PREL AU PREM
SUBJECT: DEMARCHE TO AUSTRIA:  SA/LW NEGOTIATIONS ON 
MARKING AND TRACING 
 
REF: STATE 99866 
 
Classified By: Economic-Political Counselor Gregory E. Phillips.  Reaso 
ns:  1.4 (c) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (SBU) EconPolCouns presented reftel points on June 1 to 
Norbert Hack, the Austrian Foreign Ministry's assistant 
secretary-level Director of the Disarmament and 
 
SIPDIS 
Non-Proliferation Department.  Hack will represent Austria at 
the June 6-17 negotiating session in New York. 
 
¶2.  (C) Hack said Austria subscribed to the EU consensus on 
the draft text.  Austria's positions on the issues are as 
follows: 
 
--  Legally binding vs. political document:  In keeping with 
the EU consensus, Austria wants the instrument to be legally 
binding.  Hack said, "I don't think there's flexibility on 
the EU's part" on this issue.  Hack said the EU feared that 
an instrument which was not legally binding would have no 
effect on national policy.  Beyond that, Hack argued, if the 
instrument were merely a political document, many countries 
might treat it as a political substitute for the Firearms 
Protocol, and would not ratify the latter document. 
 
--  Ammunition:  Austria, like the rest of the EU, thinks the 
instrument should deal with ammunition.  This could, however, 
be in the form of an annex or a protocol "on a voluntary 
basis."  Hack noted that the Firearms Protocol deals with 
ammunition as well.  He acknowledged that the issue of how to 
mark ammunition was "difficult." 
 
--  Record keeping:  Hack said Austria agreed with our 
position that 30 year retention was unrealistic, and thought 
ten years might be better. 
 
--  Marking:  The EU position "goes beyond the U.S. 
position," Hack asserted. 
 
¶3.  (C) On the end game, we stressed, and Hack agreed, that 
there should be a consensus document.  Hack said he very much 
hoped there could be a resolution of outstanding issues in 
the upcoming session of the OEWG.  Concerning consultations 
among participating states, he said the EU participants had 
naturally coordinated their positions.  We argued that if 
there was to be a consensus document, those participating in 
the negotiating session had to be in a position to enter into 
a real give and take, even if they came to the table with 
instructions based upon an EU consensus.  Hack said he 
believed the EU member state representatives would indeed be 
able to hammer out an agreement.  Hack agreed that an 
instrument without the agreement of all the participants -- 
especially the U.S. -- would be "worthless." 
Brown