VZCZCXRO1163
PP RUEHAST RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0219/01 2631551
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 191551Z SEP 08
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5909
INFO RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 1136
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0581

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 USOSCE 000219 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CPI, VCI/CCA, IO/T, EUR/RPM 
USUSN FOR LEGAL, POL 
UNVIE FOR NTEC 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL OSCE AORC KPAO PTER UNSC
SUBJECT: U.S. 1540 COORDINATOR CONSULTS WITH OSCE, UNODC, 
AND IAEA 
 
REF: A. USUNVIE 0434 
     ¶B. USUNVIE 0158 
 
USOSCE 00000219  001.2 OF 004 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: U.S. coordinator for UN Security Council 
Resolution (UNSCR) 1540 Thomas Wuchte met with OSCE, IAEA, 
and UNODC officials to discuss next steps in gaining their 
support for further implementation of UNSCR 1540 and 1810, 
particularly in the OSCE region.  Wuchte met with the chief 
of staff to the OSCE Secretary General and representatives of 
the Actions Against Terrorism (ATU) and Borders Units, as 
well as with UNODC officials from the Terrorism Prevention 
Branch (TPB) and IAEA officials from the Office of Nuclear 
Security, Office of Legal Affairs, and the Office of External 
Relation and Policy Coordination (EXPO).  All were supportive 
and asked for further details of any U.S. strategy aimed at 
better integrating IAEA and UNODC efforts within an OSCE 
framework.  OSCE ATU officials underscored its need for a 
mandate and appropriate funding to undertake 1540 activities. 
 A UK diplomat at the OSCE meetings noted possible UK funding 
for such an initiative. 
 
¶2. (SBU) IAEA and UNODC officials echoed their support for 
making Vienna a 1540 "geographic center of excellence," and 
welcomed closer cooperation with the OSCE, but also 
emphasized the likely need for additional resources.  Wuchte 
undertook to keep the IAEA and UNODC informed of efforts at 
OSCE to give the ATU a larger 1540 coordination role. 
USOSCE/POL will work with the ATU and participating States to 
map out a strategy to enable the ATU to undertake 1540 
activities.  Washington, see para 9 action request.  End 
Summary. 
 
OSCE Office of the Secretary General 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶3. (SBU) Thomas Wuchte, the U.S. coordinator for UNSCR 1540, 
met in Vienna on September 1 with Paul Fritch the chief of 
staff to OSCE Secretary General Marc Perrin de Brichambaut. 
Fritch a U.S. Foreign Service Officer seconded to the OSCE, 
welcomed further work on 1540 implementation.  He noted, 
however, that currently there were no proliferation experts 
in the Secretariat and the OSCE lacked the institutional 
infrastructure for proliferation work. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Fritch also noted, however, that the OSCE is a 
"relatively cheap" international organization that does much 
good work with a small budget.  Vienna could be, he said, 
fertile ground for further work on 1540 in light of the 
non-proliferation programs related to other international 
organizations here.  Fritch urged Wuchte to make concrete 
proposals on next steps on Vienna-based integration. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Fritch cautioned that there was some skepticism at 
the Secretariat of new initiatives from the U.S., recalling 
that U.S. initiatives for OSCE programs in Afghanistan were 
unfortunately simultaneously announced with a 20 percent 
reduction in the U.S.'s contributions to the OSCE's regular 
budget.  Early identification of funding to support increased 
OSCE 1540 activities, Fritch noted, would assist in garnering 
participating States' support for the proposal. 
 
OSCE Actions Against Terrorism and Borders Units 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶6. (SBU) Wuchte met on September 2 with Dimitar Jalnev, OSCE 
ATU deputy, and Jerome Bouyjou, OSCE Conflict Prevention 
Center Border Unit deputy.  Wuchte said the OSCE had 
tremendous capacity for further work on 1540 implementation, 
noting normative work could be done in Vienna at both the 
Forum for Security Cooperation (FSC) and the Permanent 
Council (PC), particularly its Security Committee, while OSCE 
field missions could focus on practical implementation. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Wuchte described specific next steps that OSCE could 
take: 
 
-- an information exchange on the current status of national 
implementation efforts; 
 
-- creation of a technical assistance template for OSCE 
participating States; 
 
-- OSCE Secretariat and field mission support to individual 
participating States in devising national implementation 
plans; 
 
USOSCE 00000219  002.2 OF 004 
 
 
 
-- better coordination and communication with IAEA and UNODC 
in the OSCE region; and 
 
-- development of a framework for concrete integration of 
IAEA and UNODC 1540 implementation activities into OSCE 
programs. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Wuchte described 1540 work at OSCE as potentially 
cross-dimensional, with border security, transshipment, and 
financing all relevant to better OSCE support for 1540 
implementation and requiring the attention of both the PC and 
the FSC.  He noted that some participating States (pS) were 
concerned that the FSC may lack the expertise to undertake 
further, more detailed work on 1540.  Because of this, Wuchte 
recommended work be done in both the FSC and the Permanent 
Council.  He further outlined the synergy that could be 
obtained by stronger OSCE coordination with the IAEA and 
UNODC.  Wuchte recommended the FSC invite the 1540 committee 
chair or deputy to address 1540 at their October 15 meeting. 
 
¶9. (SBU) ACTION REQUEST:  Mission requests U.S. 1540 
coordinator Wuchte attend the October 15 FSC meeting to 
facilitate coordinated U.S. response to the address by the 
1540 committee representative. 
 
ATU: Political Mandate and Funding Needed 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) Jalnev, OSCE Secretariat ATU, agreed that 1540 
implementation was an important aspect of counter-terrorism 
efforts.  But from the ATU's perspective, he said, there was 
a lack of political mandate and resources.  He recalled the 
2005 OSCE decision that divided responsibility on 1540 
issues, apportioning Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) issues 
to the FSC and only civilian radioactive materials/sources to 
the ATU.  As such, some participating States, particularly 
Russia, resisted funding the ATU to do any 1540-related 
capacity building. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Jalnev said ATU thus needed a political mandate to 
undertake 1540 implementation activities and recommended a 
formal decision to clarify the responsibilities of ATU in 
this area.  This might take, he admitted, several months.  He 
noted that, in the past, some pS had rebuked the ATU for 
undertaking initiatives without formal guidance; therefore, a 
clear mandate was critical to any ATU role in 1540 
implementation.  He recommended formal consultations with 
other pS before proceeding. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Wuchte acknowledged the need for consultations and 
said this could be done through the permanent delegations in 
Vienna.  In the meantime, the FSC chair could report to the 
1540 Committee in New York what steps had already been taken. 
 The 1540 Committee will complete its work program soon, he 
said, and immediate follow-up by the OSCE and participating 
States should be considered. 
 
¶13. (SBU) Jalnev further stressed that resources would be a 
key concern to a greater role for any ATU 1540-related 
activities.  He said the ATU would need at least one 
full-time staff member if ATU was to become extensively 
involved with 1540 work.  Further, he noted that 
extra-budgetary contributions were not a long-term cure for 
building expertise within the Secretariat for 
proliferation-related projects. 
 
UK Funding Possible 
------------------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) The UK (Berenice Gare), a strong supporter of 
earlier 1540 work at the OSCE, was present at the OSCE 
meetings and strongly supported Wuchte's proposal for greater 
1540-related activities within the OSCE and stronger 
coordination with IAEA and UNODC on 1540 implementation.  She 
announced the UK might be able to make some funds available. 
Continuing FSC jurisdiction over WMD issues, Gare said, was 
not so much the result of the earlier decision described by 
Jalnev but a certain amount of inertia in the division of 
labor between the two decision-making bodies.  She pledged UK 
support for any initiative to give the ATU a greater 1540 
coordination role. 
 
Borders: Ready to Engage 
------------------------ 
 
USOSCE 00000219  003.2 OF 004 
 
 
 
¶15. (SBU) Bouyjou, OSCE Secretariat Borders Unit, said his 
office was strongly interested in becoming involved in 1540 
implementation efforts.  Wuchte's recommendations fit within 
the "natural mandate" of his office, Bouyjou explained.  Much 
work had already been done of the OSCE's borders security 
concept since it was enacted in 2005.  He noted that the OSCE 
has successfully collaborated with UNODC on some of the 
borders projects but looked forward to further cooperation 
with both the UNODC and the IAEA.  Bouyjou added that, unlike 
the ATU, the Borders unit actually had some funding available 
for additional programs including 1540 implementation 
activities. 
 
UNODC and IAEA Supportive of Coordination with the OSCE 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶16. (SBU) Wuchte met with IAEA and UNODC officials on 
September 3 to update them on his discussions with OSCE 
officials and to review possible next steps.  In a meeting 
with UNODC/TPB officials Walter Gehr, Jo Dedyne-Amman, and 
Karen Kramer, Wuchte underscored the concept of Vienna as a 
"geographic center of excellence," and the benefits of 
greater UNODC/IAEA/OSCE coordination.  All three officials 
welcomed Wuchte's initiative to strengthen the ATU's role in 
1540 implementation.  Gehr noted that UNODC officials were 
aware of the U.S. support for greater coordination with the 
OSCE and the IAEA.  Dedyne-Amman indicated that UNODC/TPB had 
undertaken several programs in cooperation with the OSCE; for 
example, in November both would co-host a workshop in 
Budapest, Hungary, on legislative issues related to 
counter-terrorism and transnational organized crime. 
 
¶17. (SBU) Dedyne-Amman acknowledged the cross-dimensionality 
of counter-terrorism/1540 issues, and she stressed that the 
UNODC, with the TPB as coordinator, was reviewing 
counter-terrorism issues on a thematic basis.  All three 
officials indicated that OSCE-UNODC cooperation would be on a 
cross-dimensional basis. 
 
¶18. (SBU) Gehr also raised the need for greater 1540 
Committee communication with UNODC; he noted that the TPB 
needed more clarity on what action the Committee specifically 
wanted from his branch.  He said the TPB supported the 
establishment of a joint legal working group to identify 
areas where UNODC could be of further 1540 assistance. 
 
¶19. (SBU) Wuchte indicated appreciation for the programs the 
TPB has organized thus far for 1540 implementation; he 
highlighted the positive impact the southern Africa 1540 
reporting workshop had had on participating countries.  All 
three UNODC officials stressed that the TPB was ready to 
assist with further 1540-related activities, such as 
reporting workshops in the Pacific Islands region or the 
Caribbean.  However, the UNODC officials also stressed the 
need for increased funding to support such activities. 
Wuchte undertook to keep UNODC informed of progress within 
the OSCE on strengthening its 1540-implementation role. 
 
IAEA Offers Continued Support 
----------------------------- 
 
¶20. (SBU) Following his meeting with UNODC officials, Wuchte 
met with Tariq Rauf, IAEA EXPO; Lourdes Vez-Carmona, EXPO; 
Tim Andrews, IAEA Office of Nuclear Security; and Wolfram 
Tonhauser, IAEA Office of Legal Affairs.  The IAEA officials 
welcomed Wuchte's readout of his OSCE meetings.  They noted 
continued IAEA support for 1540 implementation.  According to 
Andrews, the Office of Nuclear Security continued to work on 
establishing an electronic portal where member states could 
review general nuclear-security related activities in 
specific countries or regions.  He noted the need for a 
secure way of exchanging information on IAEA programs. 
 
¶21. (SBU) The IAEA officials requested further information on 
how, specifically, the IAEA could cooperate with the OSCE. 
Wuchte noted that the OSCE Borders Unit was already engaged 
in discussions with Office of Nuclear Security officials on 
integrating IAEA expertise into OSCE border security 
assessments in Central Asia.  Meeting participants agreed 
that, particularly in the sensitive Central Asian region, 
greater OSCE-IAEA coordination would be of benefit.  Andrews 
noted that the Border Monitoring Working Group should be 
considered as an avenue for closer cooperation with the OSCE. 
 Wuchte undertook to keep the IAEA informed on progress 
 
USOSCE 00000219  004.2 OF 004 
 
 
within the OSCE to strengthen its 1540-related activities. 
 
Next Steps 
---------- 
 
¶22. (SBU) COMMENT:  OSCE, IAEA, and UNODC all recognized the 
inherent benefits of closer cooperation and coordination on 
1540 implementation activities.  In order for the OSCE to 
adopt a larger role in 1540 implementation, we need to enable 
the ATU to undertake a leadership role within the OSCE on 
1540 coordination. 
 
¶23. (SBU) USOSCE will work with key pS to develop a political 
strategy to this end.  Funding concerns will also have to be 
addressed in order to cement increased OSCE-IAEA-UNODC 
cooperation and programs.  Meanwhile, we will continue to 
encourage greater OSCE-IAEA-UNODC communication, in general 
terms, and look to identify ways to increase coordination 
among the Vienna-based organizations.  End comment. 
FINLEY