R 270809Z JUN 08
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
DOD WASHDC
SECSTATE WASHDC 8134
INFO THE WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000366 
 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CATR, T, PM/DTC, PM/RSAT 
DOD FOR OSD: PDASD/S&TR, DUSD/TSP 
DOD ALSO FOR DIR DTSA/ST AND DIR DTSA/STP 
DOD ALSO FOR USD/(A&T)/ODUSD(I&CP) AND USD(A&T)/IDA 
USDOC FOR BXA/EA/OAS AND BXA/EA/OSTFPC 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/26/2018 
TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM PREL
 
SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: GENERAL WORKING GROUP 
MEETING MAY 26-28 
 
REF: STATE 55864 
 
Classified By: CDA Geoffrey R. Pyatt, Reason 1.4 (d). 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The Wassenaar Arrangement General Working 
Group (GWG) met May 26-28 and held an Outreach meeting with 
Israel on May 29.  Only one new initiative was proposed - 
Best Practices on Internal Compliance Programs (Japan).  The 
United States used this first meeting to attempt to direct 
and focus future discussions towards more concrete and 
specific subjects. Participants appeared to generally accept 
the idea of focusing the October meeting's Regional View 
discussion on the Great Lakes region in Africa, although 
Russia and South Africa advised caution on this approach. 
END SUMMARY. 
 
General Information Exchange 
 
¶2. (C) Several Regional View papers were submitted, with a 
strong focus on Iran as a result of the October 2007 request 
of the Chair of the Ad Hoc Group of Security and Intelligence 
Experts to focus that group's discussion.  Australia provided 
two papers on Iran -- one on Iran's UAV program and the other 
on Iranian weapons proliferation in the Middle East.  Spain's 
paper focused on the Iranian defense industry, noting that 
Iran is attempting achieve as much self-sufficiency as 
possible.  Russia presented its annual paper on Georgia's 
arms build-up, while Japan presented one on the security 
situation in Northeast Asia.  France made an oral 
presentation on the increasing presence of Chinese arms in 
Africa, noting that some of these weapons have been found in 
the hands of non-state actors, such as Chadian rebels. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Russia was the only country to comment on the 
Regional View papers.  It noted the Australian paper on 
Iranian proliferation covered Iranian violations of UNSCR 
¶1747.  However, Russia believes this issue is not appropriate 
for Wassenaar.  Russia emphasized its view that Iran is a 
very sensitive issue and violations of UN resolutions should 
only be discussed in New York.  The Russian delegation 
further noted that USD 100 million in arms exports should not 
be seen as destabilizing; there are much larger exports to 
the region.  The U.S. responded that USD 100 million may not 
appear to be a lot, but the recipients of Iranian weapons are 
usually non-state actors or small countries where such 
weapons transfers are significant or are cut off from other 
sources. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Participating States generally accepted the U.S. 
proposal to have the October GWG focus on the Great Lakes 
region during the Regional View discussion.  Countries 
willing and able to do so will submit papers on the region 
well in advance of the meeting.  This will enable 
Participating States to come prepared to the meeting; foster 
better discussion; and possibly examine aspects of the 
proliferation problem that have not been discussed previously 
in the Arrangement.  Russia and South Africa expressed 
concern with the proposal.  The South African head of 
delegation (Abdul Minty) noted that if Wassenaar focused on 
the Great Lakes, then it would need to discuss suppliers and 
the gray arms flows and possibly lead to naming countries 
that are Participating States.  South Africa has in the past 
expressed its concern that when NATO standardized its 
weapons, the excess stocks from new NATO countries wound up 
in Africa.  The U.S. noted that South Africa's comments 
actually made a strong case for having the focused 
discussion, so Participating States could look at the issue 
and how to prevent it from continuing.  On the margins of the 
meeting, several representatives noted the need to focus 
regional view discussions, and expressed support for the 
U.S.-proposed concept. 
 
¶5. (C) Ad Hoc Group of Security and Intelligence Experts: In 
October 2007, the Ad Hoc Group Chair suggested participants 
to focus presentations on Iran in an effort to generate 
discussion.  Several Iranian papers were presented (as noted 
in paragraph 2), as well as other regional papers.  France 
noted in its presentation on China that Africa was an 
increasingly important market for China; it also noted the 
presence of the Chinese FN-6 MANPADS in Sudan.  The U.S. 
encouraged Participating States to engage with China on its 
exports and, where possible, demonstrate examples of best 
practices. 
 
¶6. (C) Germany presented a paper on High Performance Laser 
Pointers.  The paper noted that high-performance laser points 
that emit a highly concentrated light could pose a threat to 
airspace security, because if such lasers are targeted at 
aircraft they can, through scattered radiation, cause serious 
visual impairment to pilots.  Germany noted its paper was for 
awareness-raising; it was not proposing additional controls 
on such laser pointers. 
 
¶7. (C) The Ad Hoc Group accepted a U.S. suggestion that 
participants plan to focus in October 2008 on add on 
components (such as night sights) for weapons systems and S-5 
rockets, which are being used in non-traditional roles in 
Iraq and Afghanistan. 
 
¶8. (U) The U.S. and Russian delegations jointly circulated 
the text of the March 2008 U.S.-Russia Strategic Declaration. 
 Both delegations delivered short remarks; the Russian 
remarks were positive and stressed Russia's readiness to 
cooperate with the U.S. on these strategic issues. 
 
Specific Information Exchange 
 
¶9. (SBU) Ammunition:  Sweden asked Participating States to 
respond to its questionnaire on how countries report 
ammunition exports.  Russia and South Africa noted the 
questionnaire needed studying in capitals; Russia said it 
would be able to answer the questionnaire in the near future. 
 The U.S. delegation did not speak to this issue again; we 
have privately informed the Swedish delegation that the U.S. 
would not be able to report on ammunition exports. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Geographic Scope of Transparency:  Russia continues 
to receive objections to its proposal to have Wassenaar 
report on arms transfers between Participating States.  Japan 
and Poland both noted they did not feel the proposal was in 
line with the Initial Elements nor was it necessary.  South 
Africa supported the Russian argument that reporting on 
transfers between Participating States would serve to 
underline to non-Participating States that the Arrangement is 
not targeted at any country or region. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Arms and Dual-Use Reporting:  A few countries spoke 
up in support of the existing proposals on Arms Denial 
Reporting and Consultation and Dual-Use Consultation.  No 
consensus was reached, but the U.S. had discussed this issue 
with other Participating States and noted we needed to 
continue to raise the subjects. 
 
Controls, Licensing, and Enforcement: 
 
¶12. (SBU) South Korea, Ireland, Spain, and Turkey all briefed 
on changes to their export control systems.  Romania asked 
that the Licensing and Enforcement Officers Meeting (LEOM) 
include discussion of transit and transshipment documentation. 
 
¶13. (SBU) MANPADS: The UK suggested Wassenaar start to look 
areas where we could do more on ensuring strong 
implementation of the MANPADS guidelines.  Three areas for 
focus were outlined: transparency - are the controls 
capturing all items that should be captured, such as upgrades 
and add-ons; post-transfer checks - exchange information on 
how Participating States are conduction post-transfer checks; 
and develop generic elements for implementing the MANPADS 
guidelines. 
 
¶14. (SBU) Internal Compliance Programs (ICP): Japan tabled a 
proposal for Best Practices on ICPs.  There was general 
support for the proposal, but several countries expressed 
concern about the potential burden on small businesses with 
trying to develop an ICP.  Russia suggested including 
Intangible Transfers of Technology in the ICP proposal, 
because academic societies should also have similar 
procedures in place.  Participating States agreed to provide 
comments on the draft proposal. 
 
¶15. (C) Re-Export Controls: Russia had tabled a questionnaire 
on Participating States' laws and regulations regarding 
re-export control procedures.  The U.S. and UK met with 
representatives from Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and 
the Czech Republic on the margins of the GWG to discuss the 
questionnaire.  The U.S. noted tabling such questionnaires 
had become a practice in Wassenaar when drafters of proposals 
wanted to learn more about Participating States, procedures 
in order to draft a better proposal.  The U.S. said we 
intended to table a paper on its procedures as an answer to 
the questionnaire.  We repeated that the U.S. continues to 
stand firm that any Wassenaar document should be forward 
looking and that the issue of expired foreign licenses is a 
bilateral issue that does not belong in the Wassenaar 
Arrangement.  The UK expressed similar support. 
 
¶16. (SBU) During the GWG discussion on the issue Poland, 
Romania, Bulgaria, and the Czech Republic all noted they 
still had some issues to work out, but hoped to provide 
concrete input as soon as possible.  The Russian delegation 
said it recognized that their intellectual property rights 
and royalties discussions with some countries is not an 
export control issue.  The Best Practices document develops 
guidelines for future military technical cooperation 
agreements. 
 
Outreach/Participation 
 
¶17. (SBU) Bulgaria, as Plenary Chair, reported on outreach 
activities conducted thus far in 2008, including the offer of 
post-Plenary meetings made to Kazakhstan and Indonesia and 
possible or upcoming activities with Belarus, China, and 
Israel.  On China, Bulgaria reported that it had met with the 
Chinese in May and had indicated that the WA invitation for 
further discussions in 2008 remains active.  Bulgaria noted 
that the Chinese have informed Bulgaria that it will let the 
WA know when it has formulated a plan, including suggested 
times, dates, and venue, for a follow on outreach meeting. 
China further noted that any follow-on meeting would likely 
be after the Beijing Olympics.  Bulgaria also reported that 
it had sent a letter in February to Belarus suggesting an 
outreach meeting on the margins of the next GWG or LEOM, but 
that the Belarus mission here in Vienna had initially 
informally informed the Bulgarians that Belarus did not have 
funds to send officials to participate in an outreach 
meeting.  Bulgaria noted that it had met again with Belarus 
mission in order to stress that Belarus should respond to the 
February 29 letter officially; at that point, noted Bulgaria, 
the mission indicated that Belarus was preparing a formal 
response that would actually propose dates for an outreach 
meeting in September or October. 
 
¶18. (SBU) The U.S. delegation again suggested that WA should 
consider annual briefings on changes or updates to the export 
control lists to non-Participating states that have adopted 
WA control lists and standards.  The Korean delegation 
supported this suggestion.  The UK and Russia both noted that 
they have conducted briefings for countries on updates on 
changes to the control lists.  The Korean delegation added 
that the Plenary should be mandated to assess the impact of 
outreach activities.  The Korean delegation also suggested 
that WA might consider opening up the EG or Plenary to 
outside observers in order to encourage more states to 
participate.  While there was no objection to the U.S. 
proposal, in order to advance the idea we will clearly need 
to put forward a concrete proposal for discussion at the next 
local-level outreach meeting and the October GWG. 
 
¶19. (SBU) A number of Participating States, including Japan, 
Australia, and the UK, briefed on outreach initiatives 
undertaken thus far in 2008.  Japan supplemented its oral 
presentation with a paper circulated at the GWG.  The U.S. 
reported that the U.S. and Croatia are organizing an annual 
export control conference in Zagreb in September.  The 
Croatian delegation reported that this date might slip to the 
end of September or the beginning of October because a 
previously scheduled international soccer match was creating 
a hotel-room shortage.  The UK updated states on plans for 
its September 22-23 export control conference for industry, 
which would have a WA focus on the morning of the first day. 
The UK invited Participating States to provide presentations 
on bilateral WA control list implementation efforts. 
 
¶20. (SBU) The U.S. delegation suggested that Participating 
States consider a post-Plenary briefing in 2009 for the 
United Arab Emirates.  A number of delegations, including 
Australia, Korea, and France, supported this proposal, and 
the proposal will be further considered for Plenary approval. 
 France also noted that it will present a proposal on 
outreach to industry at the next GWG. 
 
¶21. (SBU) The Slovenian delegation, on behalf of the EU, 
voiced support for Cyprus' application for participation. 
The U.S. delegation indicated its support for Cyprus' 
application.  However, Turkey, not unexpectedly, delivered a 
long intervention on the consensus-based nature of WA and 
that Turkey's "informal" objections to Cyprus' latest 
application should have been sufficient to ensure that the EU 
does not raise this issue given the clear absence of 
consensus.  In somewhat strongly worded terms, Turkey noted 
that the EU should "reconsider" its "attitudes" before 
speaking. 
 
Administrative Issues 
 
¶22. (U) The discussions on administrative issues, including 
the 2007 audited financial statements and risk management 
were straightforward with general support for the 
Secretariat's proposed recommendations.  The GWG supported 
the renewal of the term for the UK-based External Auditors 
and the audit as a whole for approval by the Plenary.  The 
Secretariat updated the GWG on risk management mitigation 
proposals, with specific terms and procedures for the 
establishment and use of a contingency roster forthcoming. 
The GWG further supported the upgrade of the post of 
Administrative Assistant from G4 to the G5 level, which would 
be reflected in the 2009 budget proposals. 
 
¶23. (U) With regard to the 2009 budget proposals, the 
Secretariat provided a general overview; no delegations had 
any concrete comments, proposals, or objections.  The 
Japanese delegations did note that on principle, it supported 
a budget with no increases. 
 
Any Other Business 
 
¶24. (U) The Maltese delegation indicated it would forfeit its 
role as GWG Chair (alphabetically-based) for 2009.  The 
Netherlands delegation, in turn, indicated it needed to 
consult with its incoming ambassador, not yet in Vienna, to 
determine its ability to take the rotating chairmanship.  The 
Belgian delegation raised the issue of inconsistencies in the 
rules of procedure with regard to assumption of 
chairmanships, and suggested an open-ended informal 
intercessional working group could review these 
inconsistencies and make recommendations for the Plenary on 
possible revisions.  The Russian delegation indicated that it 
had no objection with Belgium undertaking this in its 
national capacity but that any WA group would need formal WA 
endorsement; the Belgian delegation, in turn, declined to 
constitute an informal group bilaterally.  Given the Russian 
insistence on formalizing any rules of procedure working 
group, we will have to work with like-minded countries to 
consider next steps. 
 
PYATT 
 
 
NNNN 
 



End Cable Text