VZCZCXYZ0007
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUCNDT #0519/01 1761920
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 251920Z JUN 07
FM USMISSION USUN NEW YORK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2140
INFO RUEHGG/UN SECURITY COUNCIL COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS USUN NEW YORK 000519 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PTER UNSC PARM
SUBJECT: 1540: UPDATE ON COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES 
 
REF: STATE 78188 
 
¶1.    (SBU)  Summary.   Per reftel, USUN has solicited views 
from 1540 Committee Members on how to handle matrices more 
broadly and with specific regard to Iran.  The Chair 
(Slovakia) has indicated that he intends to hold a meeting in 
late June to consider formally how matrices are handled. 
UNODA has made available a CD-ROM which includes the updated 
matrices of 76 states prepared by experts.  The Iran matrix 
is included.  UNODA is under the erroneous impression that 
the sub-committee on which the U.S. serves approved the draft 
Iran matrix (in April 2006 we agreed to take no action on 
it).  At this time it appears there is wide agreement on how 
to deal with matrices more broadly, but UNODA has essentially 
forced our hand now on the Iran matrix by including it on the 
CD-ROM. 
 
¶2.    (SBU)  USUN also reiterated the willingness of the USG 
to co-sponsor and provide funding for a 1540 workshop in 
Jordan, assuming it is held at the Cooperative Monitoring 
Center (CMC).  Our understanding, while nothing is official, 
is that Jordan has agreed to this and we expect official 
confirmation shortly.  USUN has communicated to UNODA that 
due to procedural issues, the USG money must go to the CMC 
itself.  This may raise some coordination and logistical 
issues.  USUN is prepared to meet with UNODA to hammer these 
out as appropriate. 
 
 
Matrices 
 
¶3.    (SBU)  Since April 2006, the Committee has not taken 
any further action on the matrices analyzing states, 
implementation of Resolution 1540 (2004) that the 
Committee,s experts have prepared.  There was broad support 
for addressing this issue prior to the Donors Conference 
meeting, currently scheduled for July 11th here in New York. 
On June 12th, UNODA made available to Committee Members a 
CD-ROM which contains 76 updated matrices, including Iran. 
Per reftel, USUN canvassed views on the disposition of the 
matrices.  There appeared to be no opposition to returning 
matrices to Member States that submitted them as a means to 
enhance and continue dialogue about implementation of 1540. 
While Committee Members supported the goal of transparency in 
theory, it is not clear that there is consensus to support 
sharing matrices with other States and organizations, even if 
the individual state in question consents.  Some feel Russia 
and China will invoke the security argument, maintaining that 
too much transparency might expose weaknesses that could be 
exploited by those with intentions counter to the goals 
established by 1540.  Privately, several delegations agreed 
that Russia and China are likely more concerned that maximum 
transparency will facilitate &criticism8 of Member States 
whose implementation of 1540 may be lackluster. 
 
¶4.    (SBU)   Per reftel, USUN solicited views on whether the 
function of the matrix was simply to summarize information 
provided by Member States, or should it provide an accurate 
picture of States, circumstances.  The overwhelming view was 
that it should simply summarize the information presented. 
Accuracy, of course, was an ideal goal, but the belief was 
that if a State provided inaccurate information or was 
intentionally trying to deceive the Committee, then it would 
be unlikely to seek assistance or engage in dialogue on that 
particular issue in any case.  Many felt that using experts 
or outside sources to make submissions more accurate would be 
highly controversial and might encourage Member States to 
provide less, not more information.  If in fact a state 
submitted inaccurate or incomplete information, but was 
sincere in wanting to work with the Committee, then there 
were better ways to address these shortcomings than by 
indirectly (or directly) criticizing their voluntary 
submissions.  If in fact a state was being intentionally 
deceitful, then the issue was moot because there was very 
little the Committee could or should do in response given the 
Committee,s mandate. 
 
¶5.    (SBU)  Per reftel, USUN also solicited views on whether 
or not &approval8 of a matrix constitutes &endorsement8, 
or is it only administrative function?  Consistent with the 
views noted in para 3, there was consensus that the matrix in 
no way is meant as a stamp of approval about the validity and 
veracity of respective Member States, reports upon which the 
matrix is based.  There was an overwhelming sense that the 
Committee could best serve as a conduit between donors and 
Member States that requested assistance, and that those 
Member States seeking assistance would find it in their own 
self-interest to provide an accurate picture. 
 
¶6.    (SBU)  Per reftel, USUN sought views from other 
Committee members about how to dispose of the Iran matrix in 
particular.  USUN sought views from others operating under 
the assumption that the Iran matrix would not be included for 
 
consideration at the end of the June meeting.  Based on the 
working assumption, all friendly countries spoken to, 
including the Chair, felt it was better to let the specific 
case of Iran lay dormant for a while, since the Subcommittee 
did not approve Iran,s matrix in April 2006.  Other 
Committee members more broadly agreed that the Committee 
should not take any action that might be inconsistent with 
any decision by the Security Council of Iran,s nuclear 
weapons program.  Unfortunately, on June 12th, UNODA made 
available to Committee members a CD-ROM with 76 updated 
matrices, one of them being Iran.  In essence, the issue is 
now being forced upon us.  USUN has spoken only with the UK, 
France and the Chair about this issue.  The preferred option 
is that the Iran matrix be &quietly removed8 from 
consideration at the next meeting.  Whether or not this is 
possible remains unclear.  Attempting to block consideration 
of Iran,s matrix would be viewed by several Committee 
members, notably China and Russia, as outside the mandate of 
the Committee and unnecessarily provocative. 
 
Jordan Workshop 
 
¶7.    (U) USUN spoke with UNODA about our willingness and 
hope to co-sponsor a 1540-related workshop at Jordan,s 
Cooperative Monitoring Center.  UNODA said they had still not 
received official confirmation from the Jordanians on the 
site location, but expect to hear shortly that the Jordanians 
have agreed.  Given that the money from the USG must go 
directly to the CMC itself, UNODA said it would be useful to 
sit down with USUN to work out logistics.  In so doing, UNODA 
believes they can approach the Jordanians and begin hammering 
out concrete details, in particular, the date of the 
conference. 
KHALILZAD