R 290813Z JUL 08
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
DOD WASHDC
SECSTATE WASHDC 8263
INFO THE WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000427 
 
SIPDIS 
SENSITIVE 
 
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: 07/28/2018 
TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM
 
SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: EXPERTS GROUP JUNE 23 - 
JULY 4 INTERSESSIONAL MEETINGS 
 
REF: STATE 66874 
 
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Geoff Pyatt, Reason 1.4 (d). 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: The U.S. Delegation to the Wassenaar 
Arrangement (WA) Experts Group (EG) intersessional meetings 
had a successful round of negotiations from June 23 ) July 
4, 2008.  The two topics that consumed the most time were the 
Technical Working Groups (TWGs) on low-light level (LLL) 
sensors and vessels.  The LLL TWG took up almost half of the 
time during the first week and developed a number of 
alternative texts to address the issues considered by the 
TWG.  USDEL was successful in getting the Secretariat to 
correct a 2007 mistake in deleting certain space qualified 
focal plane arrays from the sensitive list.  Vessels TWG took 
up more than half of the time during the second week, and 
revealed a number of inconsistencies in the current WA 
controls on the munitions list.  Discussions in the Neural 
Network TWG indicated that the current controls might be an 
empty box.  Discussions on acoustic wave devices and field 
programmable logic devices produced recommended text that 
conforms to U.S. guidance.  The discussions of C3I/C4I, 
software, components and the General Technology Note all 
highlighted the problems with these proposals.   USDEL 
expects them to be either withdrawn or significantly modified 
as a result of intersessional discussions.  The TWG examining 
future topics for a WA EG dialogue with the Missile 
Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Technical Experts Meeting 
(TEM) discovered that the list of related items controlled by 
each of the regimes was far more extensive than anticipated. 
Discussions related to high temperature switching devices 
provided the USDEL a clearer understanding of the hurdles for 
this proposal and will allow more targeted guidance for 
achieving consensus at the fall EG.  Finally, discussion of 
the Russian proposal on fibrous and filamentary materials 
(1.C.10.) shed light on Russian motivations for the proposal 
without providing a clear way forward.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Fifteen countries (Australia, Bulgaria, Canada, 
France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Norway, Romania, 
Russia, Spain, Sweden, the UK and the U.S.) participated in 
the WA EG,s intersessional meetings in Vienna from June 23 
) July 4.  This is two more countries than in 2007.  Of 
special note is the increased support for the work of the EG 
on the part of Italy, France and Japan.  In the case of 
France and Italy the support came from their respective 
Ministries of Defense (MODs).  Italy included Admiral Stefano 
Tortora for four days of discussion on vessels during the 
second week.  The French MOD sent four representatives; two 
delegates each week.  Japan was also more active than normal 
during these intersessional meetings.  In preparation for the 
meetings, Japan tabled five discussion papers and also made a 
number of presentations during the meetings.  Japan also 
chaired three of the meetings (acoustic wave devices, general 
technology note and software).  The Japanese delegation noted 
that this was the first time that they had chaired EG 
meetings. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Another feature of the intersessional meetings that 
should enhance future work of the EG was the participation of 
both the current EG chair and Italy,s designee to chair the 
EG in 2009.  The current EG chair, Martina Feeney of Ireland, 
attended representing Ireland rather than in her capacity as 
the chair, but she used her presence to better prepare for 
the fall EG.  Italy,s designee to chair the EG in 2009, 
Diego Martini, attended both weeks, seconded to the 
Secretariat.  Further demonstrating Italy,s commitment to 
the EG, Captain Martini has been given a new assignment by 
the Italian military that will make him available to chair 
the EG through the end of 2010. 
 
Low-Light Level Sensors 
----------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) The LLL TWG produced texts on six issues for 
consideration at the fall EG.  The TWG also discussed the 
idea of developing performance based controls for cameras in 
6.A.3.  The results of the TWG are presented in WA-EG (08) 
TWG 018.  The six issues on which the TWG developed text were 
multialikali cathodes, remote sensing sensors, "direct view", 
space qualified focal plane arrays, software controls for 
cameras, and underwater cameras. 
 
--  Two texts on multialikali cathodes are being forwarded to 
the fall EG for consideration.  Both are intended to 
streamline the current text without changing the scope of 
control. 
 
-- The TWG discussed whether remote sensing imaging sensors 
were cameras that should more correctly be controlled in 
6.A.3.  Though views differed on the placement of its 
control, there was agreement that the current text was 
written for a technology that is different from that used for 
remote sensing today.  The dated text creates problems of 
interpretation when applied to today,s technology. 
Alternative text that would update this control was discussed 
and forwarded to the fall EG. 
 
-- Part of the discussion of "direct view" in the TWG was 
similar to that of remote sensing imaging systems.  There was 
a debate as to whether the current control text in 6.A.2.c. 
would be more appropriate in 6.A.3.  A second part of the 
discussion regarded how to clarify the differing definitions 
of "direct view" in 6.A.2. and 6.A.3.  Two alternative texts 
were forwarded for consideration in the TWG during the fall 
EG. 
 
-- Two alternatives were also proposed for reducing the 
complexity in the current controls where "space qualified 
focal plane arrays" in the visible range are controlled in 
6.A.2.e., while all other "space qualified focal plane 
arrays" are controlled as "space qualified solid state 
detectors" in 6.A.2.a.1.  Both texts were forwarded for 
consideration in the TWG during the Fall. 
 
-- Discussion of the software controls proposed in US 016 Rev 
1 were complicated by Russian insistence that references to 9 
Hz be dropped from the text.  The Russian objection to the 
reference to 9 Hz concerned the inability of a licensing 
officer to determine if that specific frame rate had been 
exceeded and to control all software that might have that 
capability.  After much work on the text in US 016 Rev 1 that 
failed to remove Russian objections, an alternative text was 
proposed that references the current frame rate control text 
without mentioning 9 Hz.  This text seemed to be acceptable 
to the Russian delegation.  Both texts were forwarded for 
consideration by the TWG during the fall EG. 
 
--  The TWG had a detailed discussion of underwater cameras 
currently controlled in Category 8.  The TWG initially 
considered a text that would have deleted some of the current 
controls in Category 8 on the basis that these items are 
controlled in Category 6, and the current controls in 
Category 8 represent "double coverage".  The discussion 
evolved into a general discussion of whether there was a need 
to control any cameras in Category 8.  The UK expressed a 
strong inclination to consolidate all camera controls in 
Category 6.  Text was also discussed that would delete the 
note associated with 8.A.2.f. (added as a stop-gap measure in 
2005) and reflect the changes made to 6.A.2. in 2007 to 
capture detectors that employ charge multiplication.  Both 
this text and the text that would delete some of the items in 
Category 8 (that some felt are already covered in Category 6) 
were forwarded for further consideration by the TWG during 
the fall EG. 
 
-- Discussion of the idea of developing performance based 
controls for cameras in 6.A.3. was exploratory in nature.  It 
was acknowledged that this would not be an easy task, but the 
majority of the views expressed favored further examination 
of the possibility.  Several delegates spoke of the benefit 
that had derived from simplifying and clarifying the laser 
controls in 2006.  Clarifying the controls has meant that 
less time is needed by licensing officers to rate lasers and 
thus there has been an increase in efficiency.  Delegates 
noted that if a similar result could be achieved for the 
items controlled in 6.A.3., it would also be a great benefit. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) USDEL succeeded in getting the restoration to the 
Sensitive List of space qualified focal plane arrays after 
this entry was inadvertently deleted from the list in 2007. 
USDEL presented the evidence that item 6.A.2.e. had been 
inadvertently deleted from the text.  After doing its own 
research, the Secretariat concluded that the U.S. was 
correct; the deletion had been inadvertent, and that, as it 
was a clerical error, there was no need to seek EG approval 
to correct the error.  The EG chair announced on the last day 
of the intersessional meetings that she concurred with the 
Secretariat,s assessment and would direct that the change be 
made.  Comment: Having the EG chair present at the 
intersessional meetings was very useful.  Her decision means 
that time will not have to be spent during the fall EG 
correcting this omission.  End Comment. 
 
Neural Networks 
--------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) The UK delegation opened the neural network 
discussions with a presentation.  There followed a lively 
discussion spread over two days.  Several conclusions 
reported in WA-EG (08) TWG 019 were drawn by the TWG.  The 
current control language is ineffective as there is no common 
understanding of what, if anything, it controls.  It was 
noted that there were parallels between neural network 
technology and nano technology.  Both were often touted as 
having great promise, but to date there had been little 
practical result from a large amount of research effort. 
Another problem with the current control text is that it 
applies to hardware, however, almost all, if not all, current 
implementations of neural technology are the result of 
weighted algorithms that would best be described as software 
or technology.  The idea of controlling "pattern recognition" 
capability was offered as possibly a more appropriate and 
definable way of addressing the concerns currently addressed 
by the controls on neural networks.  There was inconclusive 
discussion as to whether current controls for field 
programmable logic devices (3.A.1.a.7) and application 
specific integrated circuits (3.A.1.a.10.) did not adequately 
control what is desired by the neural network integrated 
circuit (3.A.1.a.9.) control.  The chair expressed the hope 
that with the information shared during these discussions, it 
would be possible to find consensus on a TWG recommendation 
for the EG in the fall after reflection in capitals. 
 
C3I/C4I 
------- 
 
¶7.  (SBU) The discussion of C3I/C4I during the intersessional 
meetings addressed two topics.  The first was the Russian 
idea for adding command and communications systems to the ML. 
  Several options for addressing this issue were left open 
for further consideration at the fall EG.  These include: (1) 
leaving the current text unaltered and considering a 
definition or SOU to ensure a common understanding that 
communication systems are controlled, (2) adding an entry to 
the illustrative list in ML 11 and (3) adding a new control 
in ML 17.  The second topic addressed was the UK proposal (GB 
006) to add  a dual-use control for C3I/C4I software.  It 
appears after discussion in the TWG, with critical comments 
made by Japan, the USDEL and UK industry, that the UK will 
drop this proposal in the Fall.  In its place the UK still 
wants to explore the idea of additional changes to ML 21. 
 
Field Programmable Logic Devices (FPLDs) 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Good progress was made during the intersessional 
meetings in developing a plan for agreement on US 017 and JP 
005 in the fall EG.  Japan agreed to delete the control 
parameter for basic gate propagation delay time from JP 005. 
This leaves US 017 as the only text under consideration for 
3.A.1.a.7.  The UK, Japan and Canada were all on study 
reserve for US 017 at the end of the Spring EG.  USDEL seemed 
to be able to satisfy their concerns during the 
intersessional discussions.  With respect to discussion of JP 
005, there were a wide range of opinions expressed with 
little resolution.  USDEL suggested that the basic gate 
propagation time should be 0.02 nanoseconds rather than 0.01. 
 
EG-TEM Dialogue 
--------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) Peter Szorenyi of Australia produced a 47 page 
document showing where controls in WA and MTCR controlled 
like items.   The extent of this commonality surprised all of 
those present.  The TWG chair,s report, WA-EG (08) TWG 016, 
will be considered during the fall EG with a view to having 
the EG chair provide this document to her TEM counterpart as 
a possible reference for any future dialogue. 
 
High Temperature Switching Devices (HTSDs) 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶10. (SBU) USDEL used the opportunity to expand the 
information that it had previously presented in support of US 
004 to add new controls for high temperature switches and to 
better understand the concerns of others.  The Japanese 
delegation presented a paper (WA-EG (08) JP 020) expressing 
Japan,s concerns about this control.  The Japanese paper 
confirmed the justification for US 004 that 200 degrees 
Celsius (C) will be the maximum temperature anticipated for 
automotive use by the year 2010, but it also argued this 
temperature is likely to continue to rise and that the usage 
of these switches is also likely to become widespread in a 
variety of industries.  Questions about the controllability 
of these switches were raised mostly by the representatives 
from Japan, but by representatives from Italy, Canada, France 
and Australia, as well.   A question was raised about whether 
junction temperature was an adequate control parameter and 
whether or not device demand should also be considered.  It 
was suggested that the illustrative note be deleted and the 
chapeau be changed to read "Solid state switching devices 
(diodes, transistors, thyristors and rectifiers) having all 
of the following:".  It was requested that the U.S. produce a 
matrix that would show the performance parameters used by 
different applications. 
 
¶11. (C)  Comment: Some delegation,s unease that greeted the 
previous 2004 and 2005 U.S. proposals that failed to win 
consensus for controlling high temperature switches appears 
to remain in the EG.  Other participating states appear to be 
willing to work with the U.S., but want to make sure that the 
thresholds are properly drafted.  To successfully reach 
consensus on US 004, the U.S. should clearly identify why 
certain commercially available high temperature switches are 
militarily critical and focus on controlling those.  While 
the Japanese data indicates that 200 degrees C will be the 
maximum junction temperature in use in 2010, Japan,s 
forecast shows this temperature rising to 250 degrees by 2020 
and these devices being produced in very large quantities. 
To achieve consensus this year, the U.S. needs to find a 
satisfactory response to these concerns. End Comment. 
 
1.C.10. 
------- 
 
¶12. (SBU)  The Russian-led discussion of RU 001 Rev 1 to 
decontrol certain fibrous and filamentary materials was 
enlightening.  The Russian proposal to decontrol up to 70 
kilograms of this material as a sample (Note 3) continued to 
meet with stiff resistance.  It was noted that agreement on 
Note 2 would greatly reduce or eliminate the need for Note 3. 
 It appears from discussion that Russia is mainly interested 
in exporting thread to be woven into fabric after export, 
although the chair contradicted himself on this point later 
in the discussion.  The chair stressed the market for sail 
fabric as the target market, not body armor or protective 
clothing. 
 
¶13.  (C)  Comment:  The Russian head of delegation 
(Postnikov) struggled in chairing this meeting.  His expert 
(Ivan Slugin) seemed unable to understand the thrust of the 
discussion or to clearly answer the technical questions 
posed.  The Russian chair seemed to contradict himself on a 
number of points.  At one point he said that Russia would 
mainly be exporting thread to be woven into fabric and that 
the manufacturer in the receiving country would have to add 
the surface modifiers so that it could be woven into fabric. 
At another point, he indicated that most of the exports would 
have the surface modifier applied in Russia and thus Note 2 
would be adequate to meet most of Russia,s desire for 
decontrol.  He indicated that Russia wanted to keep large 
quantities of this material subject to license, but if most 
of the exports have a surface modifier, then Note 2 would 
allow an unlimited quantity to be exported license free. 
Based on the chair,s comments, Russian motivation behind 
this proposal seems to be to develop a commercial export 
trade for items that were previously primarily produced for 
the military and the nuclear industry.  It also seems to be 
driven by the differences between WA controls and NSG 
controls.  Whatever its motivation, Russia did not make a 
very strong case for supporting its proposal during this 
meeting.  End Comment. 
 
Vessels 
------- 
 
¶14.  (SBU) The Vessels TWG highlighted current 
inconsistencies between controls on the WA Munition List (ML) 
for ground vehicles, vessels and aircraft.  The controls for 
ground vehicles (ML6) and aircraft (ML10) are not limited to 
vehicles with offensive or defensive capability.  In the case 
of ground vehicles, all vehicles specially designed or 
modified for military use are controlled.  ML6 also controls 
off-road vehicles with certain ballistic protection.  The 
only components controlled are those specially designed or 
modified for military use.  ML10 controls not only combat 
aircraft, but also support aircraft such as transports, 
training aircraft and reconnaissance aircraft.  Components 
are controlled when specially designed for military use. 
Current controls in ML9 only control vessels of war with 
offensive or defensive capability, meaning that most naval 
support vessels are not controlled.  Components in ML9 are 
also only controlled when specially designed for military 
use, but the wording of the chapeau is awkward.  The UK 
proposal for restructuring ML9 has three aims: (1) to clarify 
the existing text (and particularly the chapeau), (2) to 
expand the controls to include naval support vessels, and (3) 
to expand the controls to include vessels that have certain 
characteristics that define significant military capability. 
 Italy made a presentation the opening day of the TWG 
highlighting the difficulties in determining the military 
capability of a given vessel and focusing particular 
attention on the fact that a given hull is capable of a great 
deal of modification during the course of it existence.  The 
TWG conducted a detailed examination of the ideas presented 
in CA 008 on militarily significant vessels. 
 
¶15. (SBU)  Comment: What can be achieved during the fall EG 
on this topic remains unclear.  The current formulation being 
explored by the TWG of controlling both naval vessels and 
vessels with clear military capability in ML9 has a better 
chance of success than the proposals for dual-use controls, 
CA 004 and GB 014.  Italy, Spain, Russia and Germany have all 
expressed reservations about expanding the current controls. 
Whether these objections can be overcome remains to be seen. 
End comment. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Another issue assigned to the Vessels TWG for 
discussion was the topic of diver deterrent systems (CA 005) 
and diver detection sonar (GB 018).  These discussions proved 
inconclusive.  The TWG determined that moving GB 018, to 
6.A.1.a.1.b. was not feasible.  The TWG also agreed that it 
was not possible to combine GB 018 with CA 005 as had been 
suggested during the Spring EG.  Questions were raised 
whether any military was known to rely on the systems 
proposed for control in CA 005 or had even purchased them for 
test of trial.  Italy commented that it was actively 
exploring the possibility of acquiring such a system.  Both 
of these proposals will remain on the table for resolution in 
the fall EG. 
 
Components 
---------- 
 
¶17. (SBU) The discussion of the Australian proposal for a 
Statement of Understanding (SOU) for components, WA-EG (08) 
AU 002, made little progress. Many delegations were 
sympathetic to the problems associated with licensing a 
component that has become &unserviceable8 or 
&unrepairable8, but there was no agreement that an SOU 
would help resolve the problems.  Most delegations felt this 
was an issue best left to national discretion. 
 
General Technology Note (GTN) 
----------------------------- 
 
¶18. (SBU) The Japanese-led discussion of "basic scientific 
research" and possible amendment of the GTN focused on 
possible amendments to JP 001 Rev 1.  These amendments were 
circulated in a discussion paper, JP 021.  Several 
delegations noted that "use" controls are not generally used 
in the dual-use list.  With respect to a new definition of 
"basic scientific research", several delegations pointed out 
the problem with the revised Japanese definition that would 
rely on "intentions".   It was suggested that rather than the 
elaborate note on publication the same objective could be 
accomplished by adding the phrase, "with no restriction on 
the published results" after "facts" in the current 
definition.  Japan cancelled a second session on this topic, 
saying that the information provided in the first discussion 
was satisfactory for Tokyo to decide whether or not to 
further modify JP 001 before the fall EG.  Comment:  It would 
appear that the purpose of this proposal is to assist Japan 
domestically with implementing controls on technology 
transfers.  Other delegations are therefore working with 
Japan to make the current controls more understandable 
without changing them.  It may be that as Japan develops a 
better understanding of how other participating states 
implement such controls, it will come to the conclusion that 
it no longer needs to request changes in the current 
language.  End Comment. 
 
Software 
-------- 
 
¶19. (SBU) The Japanese-led discussion to expand software 
controls focused on JP 022.  Questions were raised about the 
first option in this paper that would modify the current 
control in 6.D.2. adding a reference to 6.A.2.a.3.f.  It was 
pointed out that a reference to 6.A.2.a.3.f., 
microbolometers, would probably be an empty box.  If the 
reference was changed to 6.A.3.b.4., it would catch all 
software used in cameras that contain focal plane arrays. 
The U.S. pointed out that it only aimed at controlling very 
specific software that would be used to upgrade a camera that 
was uncontrolled to one that should be controlled.  Problems 
were also raised with the second Japanese option of modifying 
the General Software Note.  Canada made a strong appeal for 
addressing software issues on a case by case basis and 
pointed out that this had already been done in 1.D.3., 
2.D.1., and 7.D.3.a. and b., in addition to the 2.D.2. 
reference in JP 022. 
 
¶20. (SBU) On the margins, the Japanese delegation continued 
to assure USDEL that Japan does not intend to use JP 017 to 
bock consensus on US 016. 
 
Other Objectives 
---------------- 
 
¶21.  (SBU) USDEL had the following discussion on the margins 
of the intersessional meetings in an attempt to prepare for 
the fall EG: 
 
-- US 014, Decontrol of Personal Area Network Encryption: 
USDEL circulated the idea of modifying US 014 Rev 1 by 
substituting the word "nominally" for "typically".  The 
change was welcomed by Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan and 
the UK.  All undertook to relay the idea to capitals for 
final approval by the appropriate experts. 
 
-- JP 007, Multilayer Phase Shift Masks: USDEL raised the 
concern that we have heard the claim that a single mask can 
be used for more than one device.  USDEL suggested limiting 
the control to devices with certain feature sizes.  Japan 
will take this idea under consideration. 
 
-- US 010, Ultraviolet Non-line-of-sight Communication 
Systems: Germany and Japan asked for more background 
information on this proposal.  USDEL provided the requested 
information.  Both delegations agreed to forward this 
information to capitals to inform their position for the fall 
EG.  USDEL also provided additional information to the UK 
delegation. 
 
-- US 012, MMIC Amplifiers:  Interaction with the German 
delegation on this issue was positive.  As Germany was on 
favorable study reserve at the end of the Spring EG, this is 
consistent.  Canada, on study reserve at the end of the 
Spring EG, raised a question that will need to be addressed. 
Canada believes that Note 3 of the MMIC entry in Category 3, 
that states that 3.A.1.b.2. does not apply to MMICs specially 
designed for telecommunications, could make it impossible to 
control MMICs technology in Category 5 unless the MMIC 
control parameters are inserted in 5.E.1. 
 
-- US 002, CMM Machines:  USDEL also shared language that the 
U.S. is considering for use in revising US 002 using "6 
percent of the longest axis" rather than the more complicated 
note currently in the text.  This text was shared with 
Canada, Germany, Japan, the UK, Spain and Sweden.  The 
initial response was favorable from all of these delegations, 
but all will need time in capitals to fully evaluate. 
 
PYATT