VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHSA #5005/01 3461316
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 121316Z DEC 06
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7275
INFO RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS PRETORIA 005005 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR AF/S ISN/NESS 
ENERGY PASS TO MMANNING, JKERR, SFRAZER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ENRG PARM PREL ETTC MNUC AORC KNNP KTIA IAEA
SF 
SUBJECT: SOUTH AFRICA: INTERNATIONAL NUCELAR SAFEGURDS 
COOPERATION RESPONSE 
 
REF: STATE 190583 
 
¶1. (SBU) This is an Action Cable -- See paragraphs 6 and 8. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Summary. South Africa Department of Minerals and 
Energy (DME) Nuclear Chief Tseliso Maquebela requested that 
the two R&D agreeements under consideration be separated so 
that South African approval for one of the agreements can 
prcoeed alone.  Maquebela also suggests a name change for the 
Agreement for Cooperation in Research and Development in 
Nuclear Material Safeguards Technologies (Safegurards 
Cooperation Agreement), (Catherine - anything to add here?) 
End Summary. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Per reftel, a non-paper regarding the Safeguards 
Cooperation Agreement was delivered to the Department of 
Foreign Affairs (DFA) 
              on                        .                said 
that                 (Catherine: please complete details here 
as to response/reaction from DFA.) 
 
¶4. (SBU) Econoff met with DME Nuclear Chief Tseliso Maquebela 
and delivered a copy of the non-paper December 7.  Comment: 
Poloff later noted to econoff that it had previously 
requested that DFA provide Maquebela with a copy of the 
non-paper and that Maquebela had likely received the 
non-paper two weeks prior.  End Comment.  Maquebela stated 
that of all the nuclear energy issues between the U.S. and 
South Africa, the Safeguards Cooperation Agreement is the 
only one that is "making his life difficult".  Maquebela said 
that his first issue with the agreement, now resolved, was 
the need to understand how the agreement fit with a circa 
1995 broader nuclear cooperation agreement between the U.S. 
and South Africa.  Maquebela stated that he now understands 
that both the Cooperation Agreement and the other Nuclear 
Energy R&D Agreement are subsidiary agreements.  Maquebela 
then stated that his current issue deals with whether or not 
the Safeguards Cooperation Agreement encroaches on the 
multilateral function of the IAEA and on the individual IAEA 
member states themselves.  Maquebela asked econoff "is this 
not an IAEA agreement?" Econoff responded to Maquebela by 
citing text of the non-paper where the objectives of the 
agreement within the context of the IAEA are clearly 
deliniated.  Maquebela commented that SAG does not have this 
type of agreement with any other country and feels that the 
agreement encroaches on SAG's ties to multilateral 
institutions at the same time they are trying to strengthen 
these relations.  Note Presumably, Maquebela was referring to 
the IAEA as the multilateral institution.  End Note. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Maquebela stated that while he agrees with the 
objectives of the agreement, he objects to the use of the 
term "Safeguards".  He asked if this word could be deleted 
from the title of the agreement and instead suggested 
entitling the agreement "Verification Technology Cooperation 
Agreement". Maquebela said that re-naming the agreement would 
make it easier for him to gain SAG approval.  He admitted 
that the key decision makers regarding the agreement are at 
the DFA. (Catherine - should we make a comment or note  here 
that presumably Maquebela means "Minty"?)  Maquebela 
requested that Post contact him within the next two weeks 
with an answer on changing the name of the agreement.  He 
said that he may have further comments on the non-paper at 
that time. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Action request.  Post requests guidance on re-naming 
the Safeguards Cooperation Agreement.  If re-naming the 
Agreement is approved, Post requests that revised copies of 
the agreement, reflecting the name change, be sent to Post. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Maquebela told Econoff that he can not understand 
why or if the Safeguards Cooperation Agreement is linked to 
the Nuclear Energy R&D Agreement.  He said that SAG would 
like to proceed with signing the Nuclear Energy R&D Agreement 
now.  Maquebela said that the he understood from an un-named 
senior U.S. Department of Energy official attending the 
September IAEA General Conference that the two agreements 
were linked.  Maquebela requested that the two agreements be 
delinked so that SAG can approve the Nuclear Energy R&D 
Agreement. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Action request.  Post requests approval to tell SAG 
that the two R&D agreements are not linked and that SAG may 
approve the Nuclear Energy R&D Agreement alone. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Comment: Maquebela spoke in a relaxed confident 
style during the meeting with econoff.  The meeting covered 
 
 
the status of other outstanding U.S./SAG nuclear energy 
initiatives including the return of U.S.-origin spent fuel 
assemblies, the Commodities Identifictation Training program 
and GIF.  Joining Maquebela in the meeting was DME Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Director Elsie Monale and a newly hired 
nuclear technology officer.  Maquebela said that he was 
pleased that progress had been made on the spent-fuel project 
and expressed gratitude for training and support being 
provided by the U.S.G.  Maquebela further noted that he felt 
that his office is finally starting to get the resources it 
needs to deal with long-standing issues. End Comment. 
BOST