O 131323Z OCT 08
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA IMMEDIATE

UNCLAS STATE 109383 
 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETTC PARM PREL MASS
 
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE FOR OCTOBER WASSENAAR GENERAL WORKING 
GROUP (GWG) 
 
¶1. (SBU) Following is guidance for the October 14-17 
meetings of the Wassenaar Arrangement (WA) General 
Working Group (GWG).  The Security and Intelligence 
Experts Sub-Group will meet on October 14; the GWG will 
meet 
October 15-16.  In addition, there will be an Outreach 
meeting with Belarus on October 17.  The U.S. will 
continue to press for support on several outstanding 
issues and also use the October GWG to present its 
Africa regional view paper. 
 
---------------------------- 
General Information Exchange 
---------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) The Ad-Hoc Group of Security and Intelligence 
Experts will present the report of their October 14 
meeting during the regular GWG.  No papers have been 
tabled for discussion yet. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Regional Views: The U.S. will present its paper 
on Africa arms trafficking.  Russia is likely to use 
this section to again raise arms transfers to Georgia. 
Head of USDEL should use guidance below in responding to 
Russian papers on arms transfers to Georgia. 
 
Begin Georgia-Specific Guidance: 
 
--The United States supports the efforts of its friends 
and allies to provide for their own self-defense, 
including the acquisition of legitimate defense 
equipment.  The U.S. recognizes that defense exports 
have important foreign policy and national security 
implications.  Accordingly, the U.S. adopted a 
comprehensive conventional arms transfer policy ? or CAT 
policy - governing transfers of conventional arms in 
¶1995. 
 
--This policy supports transfers that meet the 
continuing security needs of the United States, its 
friends, and allies, while at the same time restraining 
arms transfers that may be destabilizing or threatening 
to regional peace and security. 
 
--Judging when a transfer will meet that test requires 
examination of the dynamics of regional power balances 
and the potential for destabilizing changes in those 
regions.  The criteria laid out in this policy guide 
case-by-case examinations of potential arms transfers. 
Primary among these criteria are: consistency with 
international agreements and arms control initiatives; 
appropriateness of the transfer in responding to 
legitimate U.S. and recipient security needs; and 
consistency with U.S. regional stability interests. 
 
--Work in the Wassenaar Arrangement is central to U.S. 
efforts to increase transparency of transfers of 
conventional arms and related technology, to establish 
effective international controls, and to promote 
restraint. 
 
--One of the areas the 2007 Assessment examined was how 
well Wassenaar is meeting its stated goal of preventing 
destabilizing accumulations of conventional weapons and 
related dual-use goods and technology.  It was agreed 
that in general Wassenaar is meeting this goal, though 
there are areas for improvement. 
 
--One such area is increasing transparency in our 
reporting, particularly on arms transfers.  Though there 
is disagreement within Wassenaar on how best to increase 
the transparency (whether through arms denial 
reporting/consultation or through broader arms transfer 
reporting), there is agreement that more transparency is 
needed.  We look forward to continued, cooperative 
discussion on this subject. 
 
--Another area under discussion is developing Best 
Practices on Re-Export Controls.  This is a very 
important proposal.  Discussions over the past three 
years have brought us very close to agreement on a Best 
Practices document.  The U.S. supports continued efforts 
to come to agreement on the existing proposal. 
 
--With regard to concerns raised on arms transfers to 
Georgia, the U.S. supports Georgia's territorial 
integrity and its right to procure arms for its self- 
defense.  Since 2003, the United States has provided 
modest military assistance to Georgia. 
 
--That assistance has consisted overwhelmingly of non- 
lethal items such as transportation, communications 
equipment, uniforms and training, as well as small arms 
and the accompanying ammunition. 
 
--This assistance facilitated Georgian deployments to 
Iraq as well as allowing the Georgian armed forces to 
establish central-government control over the lawless 
Pankisi Gorge and eliminate the threat to Russia posed 
by Chechen fighters. 
 
--All U.S. military assistance to Georgia has been 
notified to the U.S. Congress, and is a matter of public 
record.  All U.S. arms transfers to Georgia, or any 
other country, are carefully evaluated against the CAT 
policy. 
 
--The U.S. has not noted any arms transfers to Georgia 
that it believes to have been excessive to the 
legitimate defense needs of Georgia. 
 
End Georgia-Specific Guidance 
 
¶4. (SBU) Technologies/Programs of Concern: U.S. 
participants in Ad Hoc group raised some issues with 
regard to add-on components for weapons systems in the 
May GWG.  If appropriate, those issues may be raised at 
this time again. 
 
----------------------------- 
Specific Information Exchange 
----------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Arms Denial Reporting and Consultation; Dual- 
Use Denial Consultation; and Geographic Scope of 
Transparency remain on the agenda without consensus. 
The U.S. still supports adding dual-use denial 
consultations, and could accept arms denial reporting 
and consultation as part of a package addition to 
Wassenaar?s procedures.  The U.S. continues to have 
questions regarding the value of intra-Arrangement 
reporting. 
 
--USDEL should continue to press for dual-use denial 
consultation and may support efforts to add arms denial 
reporting and consultation, but will not support without 
agreement on dual-use denial consultations. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Controls, Licensing, Enforcement 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) The 2007 Plenary adopted the German proposal 
for Best Practices on End-Use Control.  However, it is 
limited to dual-use items.  The U.S. supports expanding 
the document to include munitions items and encourages a 
discussion of end-use controls for munitions items.  The 
U.S. also continues to support adoption of a Best 
Practice Document on Re-Export Control, but one that 
does not cover bilateral issues, such as expired 
licensing agreements.  Japan has developed a draft Best 
Practices for Internal Compliance Programs. 
 
--USDEL should propose a discussion on end-use controls 
for munitions items. 
 
--USDEL should note its continued support for the 
adoption of Best Practices on Re-Export Control and 
carefully review any new language proposed for the 
existing draft. 
 
--USDEL should support development of Best Practices for 
Internal Compliance Programs, noting any drafts will 
have to be reviewed in Washington. 
 
 
¶7. (SBU) If countries discuss the 2003 Statement of 
Understanding on Non-Listed Dual-Use Items, the USDEL 
may note that it is continuing its examination of 
applying the 2003 SOU by assessing the overall impact of 
items on our industry. 
 
---------------------- 
Outreach/Participation 
---------------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) Cyprus has resubmitted its application for 
membership.  The U.S. has proposed that Wassenaar 
conduct Outreach on changes to the control lists for 
countries that have unilaterally decided to adhere to 
the Wassenaar control lists.  The U.S. has proposed a 
post-Plenary briefing in early 2009 for the United Arab 
Emirites (UAE).  An Outreach meeting with Belarus will 
be held on October 17. 
 
--USDEL should note its continued support for Cyprus? 
membership. 
 
--USDEL should discuss its proposal for briefing on 
changes to the control lists. 
 
--USDEL should support a post-Plenary briefing for the 
UAE. 
 
--USDEL should participate in the Belarus Outreach. 
 
----USDEl should consider a strategy for further 
outreach to China, focused on obtaining a report from 
the PRC regarding their progress in 
adopting/implementing meaningful export controls, 
notably in the dual-use area. 
 
--USDEL should request an update from the Secretariat on 
communication with ECOWAS and should encourage further 
Secretariat exchanges with ECOWAS. 
 
-- USDEL should note that as a number of states have 
begun to unilaterally adhere to the WA lists, it might 
be useful for Wassenaar to offer those states an annual 
briefing on changes to the lists to aid them in their 
non-proliferation efforts.  USDEL may draw on the 
following points: 
 
--The Experts Group has been very effective in the last 
several years making a significant number of changes to 
the Wassenaar control lists. 
 
--Keeping up with these changes can be a challenge for 
states that choose to follow the Wassenaar Participating 
States lead, but do not have ready access to any 
documents that might explain the list changes. 
 
--The U.S. has proposed that Particiapting States 
consider holding an annual meeting when list changes 
might be explained to non-Participating States who 
unilaterally have chosen to adhere to the lists. 
 
--Such a briefing could best be done by members of the 
EG. 
 
--For ease to logistics, the U.S. proposes that this 
briefing could be done in Vienna immediately before the 
Spring EG to explain changes to the list approved at the 
previous Plenary meeting in December. 
 
-------------------- 
Adminstrative Issues 
-------------------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU) The Vienna Points of Contact (VPOC) supported 
the Friends of the Chair-WAIS (FOC-WAIS) recommendations 
for WAIS-related actions for 2008, including a technical 
solution regarding revocation of SL and VSL 
notifications, the draft IT Strategy for 2009-2011, and 
the Draft IT 3-Year Rolling Work Plan for 2009-2011, 
with only minor editorial changes.  Consulations 
regarding the next chairperson of the group are still 
ongoing. 
 
¶10. (SBU) The VPOC did not reach agreement on a use for 
the disputed funds and will continue consideration of 
options.  The VPOC will revisit the issue of 
implementation of the arbitrator?s award after receiving 
further information from the Secretariat at the next 
VPOC meeting.  The VPOC participating states generally 
strongly supported the Draft 2009 Budget.  The VPOC 
supported the idea and draft terms of reference for a 
contingency roster of national officers with regard to 
risk management. 
 
--USDEL should support endorsing a draft Plenary 
decision to adopt the 2009 Budget as proposed by the 
Secrertariat. 
 
--USDEL should support endorsing a draft Plenary 
decision to approve a contingency roster of national 
officers with regard to risk management and support 
approving the terms of reference as proposed by the 
Secretariat. 
 
--USDEL should support endorsing a draft Plenary 
decision approving the technical solution for SL and VSL 
denial notifications, the updated WAIS Strategy, and the 
updated 3-year IT Action Plan.  USDEL should also 
support a draft Plenary decision to renew its mandate 
for the FOC_WAIS group.  USDEL may join consensus on the 
selection of the next FOC-WAIS chairperson, should 
recommendations be forthcoming. 
 
--USDEL should note that it encourages the VPOC to reach 
consensus on dipostion of the disputed funds and 
implementation of the arbitrator?s award as soon as 
possible. 
RICE 
 
 
NNNN 
 



End Cable Text