VZCZCXYZ0001
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHKO #3002 3020233
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 280233Z OCT 08
FM AMEMBASSY TOKYO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 8325
INFO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 2295
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY 0495

UNCLAS TOKYO 003002 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR EAP/J, ISN/RA, NEA/IR 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: AORC IR MNUC TRGY JA
SUBJECT: JAPANESE QUESTIONS REGARDING IRANIAN NUCLEAR 
CONFERENCE DEMARCHE 
 
REF: SECSTATE 112229 
 
Sensitive but unclassified.  Please handle accordingly. 
 
¶1. (U) This is an action request.  Please see para 5. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) Econ officer delivered demarche and non-paper in 
ref to officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) 
Non-proliferation, Science, and Nuclear Energy Department on 
October 23.  Similarly, Pol officer delivered the demarche 
and non-paper to officials of MOFA's Second Middle East 
Division. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Officials in MOFA's Non-proliferation office noted 
they would coordinate Japan's handling of the conference. 
They made no commitments to take action, but agreed the 
conference seemed problematic and noted they would work with 
the U.S. on how to best respond.  Second Middle East Division 
officials reported they have not received any communications 
yet from the Iranians about this conference, and that when 
they called the Iranian Embassy in Tokyo to inquire it was 
evident that the Embassy was also unaware of the details of 
the conference. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Foreign Ministry Non-proliferation officials came 
back with a series of questions not covered in the initial 
demarche.  Their questions about U.S. actions and on the 
details of NSG guidelines suggest MOFA officials are looking 
more deeply into the conference. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Action requested: Post would appreciate further 
points to use in responding to the following questions from 
MOFA: 
 
     ¶A.  What measures is the U.S. taking to discourage 
attendance by U.S. institutions or citizens? 
     ¶B.  Is the U.S. informing the IAEA, and what, if 
anything, is the USG asking of the IAEA? 
     ¶C.  Does the U.S. expect Iran's neighbors to send 
representatives?  If so, does the USG have any plans to 
approach them regarding the conference? 
     ¶D.  MOFA's understanding of the NSG guidelines is that 
controls on technology transfer do not apply to information 
in the public domain.  Given this understanding, would it be 
appropriate to invoke the guidelines as legal support for NSG 
participating governments to stop their nationals from taking 
part in the conference? 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  MOFA officials made no promises regarding reftel 
request for host governments to discourage other countries 
from attending the conference.  However, they asked if they 
could use the information we provided to make such demarches. 
 Officials further requested that we contact them before 
raising the issue with any other government organizations. 
They noted they would begin considering how to respond to the 
conference but would await further information in response to 
their questions. 
SCHIEFFER