VZCZCXRO2641
PP RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHDT RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHPB RUEHROV
DE RUEHBS #1034/01 1910952
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 090952Z JUL 08
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUCNARF/ASEAN REGIONAL FORUM COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHYY/GENEVA CD COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 BRUSSELS 001034 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
PLEASE PASS TO U.S. OAS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL KNNP EUN
SUBJECT: EC NON-PROLIFERATION WORKSHOPS YIELD IMPROVED 
COORDINATION 
 
REF: STATE 33804 
 
This message is Sensitive But Unclassified.  Please protect 
accordingly. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Building on cooperative efforts that began in 
March, U.S. non-proliferation officials participated in 
European Commission (EC)-hosted workshops focused on 
determining the EC's priorities for programming EU Stability 
Instrument funding on non-proliferation and identifying 
opportunities for coordination and cooperation with other 
actors. U.S. officials provided a detailed overview of U.S. 
efforts and programs targeted at export control, nuclear 
smuggling/illicit trafficking, scientist redirection, and 
UNSCR 1540 outreach.  EU and IAEA representatives also 
discussed their programs, and EC officials committed to 
continue the EU-U.S. coordination with a follow-up meeting in 
early 2009 after Stability Instrument funding is allocated. 
End Summary. 
 
----------- 
Background 
----------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  Coordination is moving ahead based on the U.S.-EU 
summit declaration in 2007, which called for promoting 
greater coordination of nonproliferation efforts through 
UNSCR 1540.  In 2006, the EU established an approximately 300 
million-Euro "Stability Instrument" to carry out its 
activities in this area and has expressed an interest in 
further coordinating policies with other donors as a follow 
up to the March 2008 consultations.  To explore how to aid 
third countries in nonproliferation capacity-building, 
European Commission and U.S. nonproliferation experts met 
June 24-26 at the expert level.  Prospective areas of 
cooperation include export control, prevention of nuclear 
smuggling, support for engagement of scientists, and the 
development of regional 1540 centers of excellence, building 
off of the Ministerial endorsements in the OSCE, OAS, and ARF 
about regional cooperation as called for in UNSCR 1810.  In 
the June workshops, U.S. officers for third country 
assistance, to include EXBS, Nuclear Smuggling (NSOI), 
Scientist Redirection, and in conjunction with UNSCR 1540, 
presented to EU Commission and Council experts a detailed 
overview about ways to program EU Stability Instrument 
funding on nonproliferation.  The EU (primarily Germany's 
export control ministry, BAFA) and IAEA programs were 
discussed in more general terms and the EU expressed its 
desire to continue this coordination.  In all, the joint 
U.S.-EU collaboration started in March will complement the 
related USG initiatives.  End background. 
 
------------------------------ 
Workshop I - Nuclear Smuggling 
------------------------------ 
 
¶3.  (SBU) The first day's workshop addressed nuclear 
smuggling.  Michael Stafford, coordinator of the U.S. Nuclear 
Smuggling Outreach Initiative (NSOI), gave a briefing on NSOI 
and its progress to date, and then laid out a menu of 
NSOI-developed projects for the EU to consider supporting 
with Stability Instrument funds.  This menu included projects 
to improve security along green borders in the Kyrgyz 
Republic and Kazakhstan; improve security at fixed border 
crossings in the Kyrgyz Republic; provide long-term, secure 
storage for radioactive sources in Ukraine; improve border 
security in Afghanistan; improve security at fixed border 
crossings and seaports in Ukraine; improve security along 
green borders in Ukraine; improve border security in Georgia, 
Armenia, and Azerbaijan; and fight corruption.  Stafford also 
described anticipated assistance needs for Pakistan and the 
particular sensitivities that would be involved in working 
with the Pakistani government. 
 
¶4.  (U) Other speakers included Anita Nilssen and George 
Moore of the IAEA, who provided a briefing on the IAEA's 
Illicit Trafficking Database, what the database indicates 
about the nuclear smuggling threat, and some general thoughts 
 
BRUSSELS 00001034  002 OF 004 
 
 
about assistance priorities and the need for donor 
coordination; Bruno Gruselle of the French Foundation for 
Strategic Research, who also addressed the nuclear smuggling 
threat; and Francesco Marelli of the UN Interregional Crime 
and Justice Research Institute, who described the work of his 
organization. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Subsequent to the presentations and ensuing 
discussion, EC EuropeAid Cooperation Office Director 
Jean-Paul Joulia informed Stafford that he would be making 
recommendations shortly on allocation of remaining 2008 funds 
and was inclined to support several of the NSOI suggestions. 
This would likely include funding from the Nuclear Safety 
Instrument for the long-term, secure storage facility in 
Ukraine, support from some funding source for anti-corruption 
training, and funding from the Nuclear Stability Instrument 
for fixed border crossings in the Kyrgyz Republic and/or 
Ukraine.  Joulia promised Stafford an update on his planning 
in mid-July, and he said a final decision would be made in 
November.  Lars-Gunnar Wigemark, Security Policy Office 
Director in the EC External Relations Directorate-General, 
told Stafford that he would be formulating recommendations 
for allocation of 2009-11 funds and was also inclined to 
support several NSOI-developed projects.  These included 
projects to improve security at fixed border crossings in 
Afghanistan and possibly Pakistan, as well as projects to 
better secure green borders in several Central Asian 
countries.  He suggested that the sides hold a third meeting 
early in 2009 to firm up the details of the EU contribution, 
and that they remain in informal communication during the 
interim period. 
 
----------------------------- 
Workshop II -- Export Control 
----------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (SBU) The workshop's discussion topic for June 25 was 
"Dual-Use Export Control."  U.S. 1540 Coordinator Tom Wuchte 
started the discussion with an overview of UNSCR 1540 and the 
way ahead, followed by Andrew Church, Deputy Director of 
ISN/ECC, who briefed the group on the Department's Export 
Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) Program.  The 
briefing provided background on the types of assistance 
offered under the EXBS Program and other related USG programs 
that are coordinated through the monthly Interagency Working 
Group chaired by ISN/ECC.  The main focus, however, was on 
the types of assistance the EU could provide to specific 
countries and regions to complement U.S. efforts.  U.S. 
suggestions focused on several areas, including: helping to 
institutionalize strategic trade-related training by 
integrating it into the curricula of national training 
centers, such as customs academies; establishing regional 
centers of excellence that could focus on some or all aspects 
of strategic trade controls (e.g., licensing, targeting 
suspect containers at border crossings) and help foster 
regional networks and collaboration; contributing to 
large-scale, multi-year projects, including refurbishing 
border posts in Central Asia; working in countries and 
regions not covered by EXBS or other related USG program 
assistance, such as sub-Saharan Africa and those that have 
requested assistance under UNSCR 1540 but for which the EXBS 
program does not have funding.  Church also reiterated the 
critical importance of prior coordination in areas of 
increasing nonproliferation outreach interest to the EU, 
particularly Southeast Asia and the Middle East/North Africa, 
given the active ongoing presence of a number of major donors 
already in those regions, including some EU member states. 
Other suggestions focused on specific countries in which the 
EU might be more successful in gaining traction, such as 
Egypt, and countries in which EXBS engagement had just begun 
and a division of labor made sense, such as Afghanistan, 
Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.  Church left behind a list of 
countries in which EXBS is currently active. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) In addition to providing suggestions for EU 
assistance, he also encouraged the EU to use its clout as a 
grouping of 27 countries to help build the political will in 
countries to establish or make meaningful improvements to 
their strategic trade controls.  These remarks helped to 
provide a different perspective from those of Olaf Simonsen 
of Germany's Federal Office of Economics and Export Control 
(BAFA), who presented on BAFA's efforts as the lead 
 
BRUSSELS 00001034  003 OF 004 
 
 
implementer of current EU export control outreach efforts, 
and argued that outreach efforts should be limited to those 
countries that invite donors to help them.  Simonsen also 
proposed a division of labor between the EU and other 
assistance providers based on the "best country cooperation 
principle."  Sergey Yakimov of Russia's Federal Service for 
Technical and Export Control (FSTEC) provided a briefing on 
the ongoing, multi-year EU-Russian Cooperation Program, which 
presumably seeks to harmonize the EU and Russian export 
control systems.  Yakimov mentioned that a comparative 
analysis of the Russian and EU legal frameworks for export 
control had been completed and that FSTEC was making several 
recommendations for changes to the Russian system as a 
result.  Department is seeking to obtain a copy but, if 
unsuccessful, will ask the mission to formally make the 
request.  Mati Tarvainen of the IAEA also presented, with the 
main suggestion being to focus efforts on countries that 
lacked safeguards.  When pressed to suggest specific 
countries for outreach efforts, he would say only that there 
are many countries in Africa that had no safeguards in force. 
 
 
¶8.  (SBU) The EC is clearly interested in broadening its 
outreach efforts to specific regions, including the Middle 
East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia.  It also appears 
willing to explore assistance to Africa, and EC staffer Bruno 
Dupre openly supported comments by UNSCR 1540 Coordinator Tom 
Wuchte that, while African countries might not pose an 
immediate nonproliferation threat, there was value in a 
forward-looking approach, and engagement there would help 
remove excuses by countries in other regions for not 
improving controls due to lack of universality.  Both Church 
and Wuchte underscored the importance of close coordination 
between the U.S. and EU as we move forward. 
 
------------------------------------- 
Workshop III -- Scientist Redirection 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (U) The third day's workshop on June 26th  focused on 
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Scientist Redirection. 
Robin Copeland gave the U.S. Department of State's 
presentation and highlighted the multiple programs underway 
to facilitate the redirection of former WMD scientists and 
also to work with scientists in the biological and chemical 
communities that have valuable dual use knowledge.  She 
reviewed projects underway in Russia and the Former Soviet 
Union (FSU), including ISTC/STCU, Bio Industry Initiative and 
Biosecurity Engagement Program.  She also provided overviews 
of the Iraq and Libya Scientist Engagement Programs, as well 
as the bio and chemical security engagement programs (CSP) 
underway outside the former Soviet Union.  She highlighted 
programs which could benefit from EU involvement, such as 
those in Iraq, and outlined specific projects within program 
categories where the EU might be able to contribute funding 
and expertise. 
 
¶10.  (U) Other speakers included Maurizio Martellini, Landau 
Center, on a theoretical model for identifying new 
communities of scientists and the best ways to engage them, 
as well as how to measure success; Uve Meyer, German Embassy 
on the benefits of using the ISTC as the vehicle for all 
future EU scientist engagement; Greg Kaser, HTSPE, on behalf 
of the UK government about their WMD scientist engagement 
programs in Russia and the FSU and their new initiative to 
assist Libya with isotope production; and Ian Anthony from 
SIPRI presenting on some of the broad issues and questions 
that provided a good framework for the afternoon discussion. 
 
¶11.  (SBU) It was widely held that the nonproliferation 
community needs to move away from the use of the word 
redirection and begin to use the word engagement.  There was 
consensus that individuals with significant dual use 
knowledge, especially from the chemical and biotechnology 
industries, represent a new challenge and need to be engaged. 
 There was some debate about whether the ISTC is the best 
vehicle to use as an umbrella organization for future 
engagement in places such as the DPRK.  Several participants 
strongly advocated for the ISTC, although the general view 
was that the ISTC is overly bureaucratic, has managerial 
challenges and may not be the best vehicle to take 
cooperation forward into new geographic locations and with 
 
BRUSSELS 00001034  004 OF 004 
 
 
new communities, especially where young scientists are 
involved.  Another topic that was consistently highlighted 
was the development of civilian nuclear power in the Middle 
East and the need for this work to be done in a transparent, 
safe and secure manner with a cadre of well trained 
scientists and engineers. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) Currently, the EU's entire budget for WMD 
scientist redirection goes through its Research Division, 
which in turn sends one hundred percent of the funds to the 
ISTC and STCU.  The EU representatives recognize this may 
need to change if the EU is going to respond with flexibility 
to new challenges but the bias towards the ISTC that some 
member countries have will continue to make the routing of 
the funding a contentious issue. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶13.  (U) The EU's Stability Report is due to be considered 
after July 3rd and its recommendations will be discussed in 
September.  Such projects that the EU are likely to sponsor 
include the aforementioned regional CBRN training centers 
located in perhaps the Middle East/North Africa or Southeast 
Asia.  Very few details were provided on the centers except 
that they were presented as a training institution that could 
be utilized by non-member countries.  Overall, the increased 
coordination through UNSCR 1540 and the desire to facilitate 
better deconfliction of 3rd country assistance set a positive 
way forward.  USEU welcomes this effort and will work closely 
with key Washington offices to continue the efforts and 
prepare for the expected next step in early 2009. 
 
¶14.  (U) This cable was cleared by the U.S. 1540 Coordinator 
Tom Wuchte and program officers in attendance. 
 
WOHLERS 
.