VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0559/01 2891231
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 151231Z OCT 08
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
RUEKJCS/DOD WASHDC
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8548
INFO RUCNWSN/THE WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT

C O N F I D E N T I A L UNVIE VIENNA 000559 
 
SIPDIS 
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: 10/15/2018 
TAGS: ETTC KSTC PARM
SUBJECT: WASSENAAR ARRANGEMENT: SUCCESSFUL FALL EXPERTS 
GROUP MEETING 
 
REF: A. STATE 098278 
     ¶B. STATE 101240 
     ¶C. UNVIE VIENNA 291 
 
Classified By: Counselor Eric Sandberg, Reason 1.4 (d). 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary: The U.S. Delegation to the Wassenaar 
Arrangement's (WA) Fall Experts Group (EG) successfully 
negotiated agreement on fifteen of the seventeen proposals 
tabled by the U.S. this year.  The final count is likely to 
be sixtenn of seventeen as Russia is the only country 
blocking consensus on one of the two remaining U.S. proposals 
but will request revised instructions with a view to joining 
consensus by October 15.  Overall, the EG agreed to 
thirty-nine changes at the fall meeting, bringing the total 
agreements for 2008 to fifty-two.  Among the most significant 
agreements were new dual-use controls for detonators as well 
as explosives detecting equipment, both of which have 
applications associated with Improvised Explosive Devices 
(IEDs).  The EG also approved recommendations for the 
low-light level (LLL) sensors and associated cameras 
Technical Working Group (TWG) for making four changes to the 
control text.  Significant progress was made in developing a 
new approach to controlling Global Navigation Satellite 
System (GNSS) receivers.   The U.S.-chaired Technical Working 
Group (TWG) on neural networks successfully completed its 
work.  The EG agreed to a significant expansion of the 
control text for vessels on the WA Munitions List (ML) 
bringing it more in line with the United States Munitions 
List (USML).  The EG agreed to request Plenary mandates to 
continue work in 2009 on encryption, low-light level sensors, 
and GNSS receivers.  The working relations in the EG were 
excellent, with delegations actively focused on resolving 
differences.  The Irish chair pushed delegations hard to 
reach agreement.  A full list of the agreed proposals is 
included at the end of the cable.  End Summary. 
 
Agreements on National Proposals 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) During the September 15 ) 26 WA EG meeting, USDEL 
successfully negotiated agreement on eight of the remaining 
ten U.S. proposals not agreed to during the spring EG.  Of 
the two remaining U.S. proposals tabled last February, one 
was the subject of a Japanese counterproposal; the U.S. 
subsequently withdrew its proposal in favor of the Japanese 
counterproposal.  Only Russia remains in study reserve for 
this proposal, because the Russian delegation had 
instructions to support the U.S. proposal, but no 
instructions on the Japanese counterproposal.  Russia asked 
for additional time to get these instructions.  USDEL 
anticipates that Russia will be able to join consensus by 
October 15.  The other U.S. proposal not agreed to will be 
carried forward to 2009.  Among the U.S. proposals agreed to 
by the EG in 2008 are:  (1) new controls for high temperature 
switches and certain oscillators, (2) closing a loophole on 
software that can be used to upgrade thermal imaging cameras, 
(3) decontrols of outdated software and computers, (4) a 
number of clarifications of the control text, (5) a new 
control for the technology associated with ultraviolet 
non-line-of-sight communications and (6) a decontrol for 
personal area networks that use encryption. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) USDEL also played a critical role in promoting and 
achieving agreement on a number of other Participating States 
proposals.  The U.S. played a leadership role on these 
proposals because in some cases the proposals represented 
important U.S. interests and in other cases assisting other 
delegations helped build overall good will.  For example, 
USDEL provided the idea and the language that solved an 
impasse on the UK's proposal to control explosives detection 
equipment.  USDEL also provided language and then subsequent 
active editing to achieve agreement on radio equipment used 
to detonate or block detonation of IEDs.  In addition, USDEL 
played an active part in getting agreement on the Japanese 
proposal on robots, the Russian proposal on automated command 
and control equipment, and the German proposal to clarify 
circular references in the encryption control list entries. 
 
¶4. (SBU) USDEL also succeeded in removing proposals that were 
not in the U.S. interests or modifying them so that they 
were, in the end, acceptable.  For example, USDEL helped 
Russia conclude that no further action was needed on its two 
decontrol notes for composite fabric (fibrous or filamentary 
material).   USDEL's tabling of a counterproposal led to the 
 
withdrawal of the Japanese proposal on phase shift masks.  In 
addition, the USDEL's counter to the German proposal to 
decontrol certain composite material components led to a much 
more clearly defined decontrol. 
 
Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) 
Technical Working Group (TWG) 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) The UK-chaired IED TWG fulfilled the Plenary mandate 
on IEDs.  The results of the TWG are reported in WA-EG (08) 
TWG 021 Rev 2, WA-EG (08) CRP 049 and WA-EG (08) TWG 026.  It 
recommended three new controls (paragraph 14.C., D. and 18.B. 
below).  These were all agreed in the EG.  These new controls 
will bring the WA dual-use list in line with current 
unilateral controls on the U.S. Commerce Control List (CCL). 
 
Low-Light Level Sensor (LLL) TWG 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) The U.S.-chaired LLL TWG recommended four changes in 
the control lists (paragraphs 20.B., C., D. and  22.B. 
below).  These were all approved by the EG.  The results of 
the TWG are reported in WA-EG (08) TWG 027.  There was no 
significant progress made on the issue raised by Canada 
concerning direct view.  There was only a preliminary 
exchange of views concerning redrafting 6.A.3. to incorporate 
performance-based parameters.  While many delegations were in 
favor, most believe that it would be a daunting task.   There 
was a cautionary note sounded that performance-based controls 
might be less effective.  The TWG also discussed possible 
ways forward in addressing the issue of foreign availability 
in 2009.  The TWG recommended, and the EG approved, a draft 
Plenary mandate for continued work in 2009.  The mandates 
notes that areas of special interest left open from 2008 are 
(1) definitions, (2) foreign availability, (3) performance 
and parameter based controls, (4) monospectral and 
multispectral imaging sensors, (5) direct view and (6) 
underwater cameras.  USDEL noted that the actual agenda for 
the TWG in 2009 will be shaped by the submission of proposals 
and non-papers from Participating States and encouraged those 
with ideas to submit them accordingly. 
 
Global Satellite Navigation Systems (GNSS) 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶7. (SBU) After a bumpy start, the Australian-chaired GNSS TWG 
made progress in defining a possible way forward for this 
long-standing, contentious issue of  revising the control 
text related to GNSS receivers.  Negotiations concerning GNSS 
at the fall EG were initially stymied by a clear division 
into two camps.  France, Germany, and Italy all sought to 
preserve that maximum future flexibility for the EU-sponsored 
Galileo GNSS, while the U.S., Russia and the UK sought to 
have all GNSS systems treated equally.  Continued dialogue 
made progress towards a possible solution.  The U.S. proposed 
a new positive control text to capture GNSS systems employing 
encryption.  After much discussion, Germany, France and Italy 
all expressed an interest in exploring this text.  An 
alternative, a decontrol that more clearly defines commercial 
services was also discussed.  The EG chair pushed 
Participating States to find a way to maintain the momentum 
towards a solution.  When a possible extraordinary EG meeting 
prior to the Plenary proved unacceptable, she got agreement 
on a Plenary mandate that encourages Participating States to 
reach agreement not later than the spring EG in 2009.  This 
agreement would focus primarily on a positive control as 
proposed by the U.S., but could also consider a limited 
decontrol as an alternative.  If text can be agreed during 
the spring EG, it would be recommended to the Plenary under a 
silence procedure.  Plenary agreement under a silence 
procedure would offer Participating States the opportunity to 
include this update with those list changes approved by the 
2008 Plenary.  Comment: USDEL came into the discussions of 
GNSS in 2008 with low expectations.  Comments made by a 
German technical expert at the spring EG (ref C) offered the 
possibility of unanticipated progress.  However, a French 
non-paper tabled just before the fall EG seemed to undercut 
that progress.  Negotiations during the fall EG again appear 
to have again opened the door for resolving this issue.  The 
German, French and Italian delegations all seem to engage 
seriously on this issue at the EG.  The fact that European 
governments are again playing a larger role in the Galileo 
project offers hope of progress, but only time will tell. 
End comment. 
 
 
Vessels TWG 
----------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) The UK-chaired Vessels TWG met with unexpected 
success and fulfilled its Plenary mandate producing a 
complete re-write of ML9.  The results this TWG are recorded 
in WA-EG (08) TWG 022 Rev 3.  The revised text clarifies some 
of the ambiguities in the current text as well as 
significantly expanding the text to include vessels that were 
not specially designed for the military, but nevertheless 
have military capability.  Comment:  Strong opposition to the 
revision of ML9 expressed by Russia, Italy, and Germany 
against this revision dissipated in the course of 
negotiation.  The end result brings the WA ML much closer to 
the USML in its coverage.  John King from the UK who chaired 
this TWG showed a doggedness that eventually bore fruit.  End 
comment. 
 
Neural Networks TWG 
------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) The U.S.-chaired Neural Network TWG completed its 
Plenary mandate.  The results of this TWG are recorded in 
WA-EG (08) TWG 024.  There was no consensus within the TWG on 
how to change the text of the current controls on neural 
network integrated circuits and neural computers.   The TWG 
recognized that the shift to digital technology has had an 
impact on the current controls and recommended that 
Participating States submit national proposal or papers to 
address the adequacy of the current controls once they have 
had time to study the results of the TWG. 
 
Dialogue with Missile Technology Control (MTCR) 
Technical Experts Meeting (TEM) 
--------------------------------------------- -- 
 
¶10. (SBU) The EG agreed that the EG Chair should forward to 
her counterpart in the MTCR the table in WA-EG (08) 016 that 
highlights potential overlaps in the controls of the two 
regimes.  Peter Szorenyi, the Australian chair of EG/TEM 
working group, did a great deal of work to assemble this 
table. 
 
Plenary Mandates Requested for 2008 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) In addition to the Plenary mandates requested for 
the LLL TWG and the GNSS TWG described above, the EG also 
agreed to request a Plenary mandate to continue work on 
Category 5 Part 2 in 2009 with a goal of refining the current 
lengthy decontrol note and ensuring that only products of 
concern are controlled (e.g., avoiding control of ancillary 
uses of cryptography).  The EG also agreed to carry forward 
two proposals that were not resolved in 2008.  These are 
US002 on coordinate measuring machines (CMM) and GB018 on 
underwater diver detection systems. 
 
EG Atmospherics 
--------------------- 
 
¶12.  (C) The fall EG had a very constructive atmosphere. 
Thirty-one of the forty Participating States attended at 
least some part of the meeting.  The following highlights are 
offered: 
 
- The Japanese delegation has continued to increase its level 
of activity in the EG.  Atsushi Tanazawa, although young, 
speaks excellent English and is a very good assistant for 
Masaaki Takabatashi, the Japanese Head of Delegation.  The 
U.S. had two very useful bilateral meetings with the Japanese 
delegation to discuss electronics during the second week. 
These meetings solidified four of the six agreements in 
Category 3 and the withdrawal of the Japanese proposal for 
phase shift masks.  The U.S. committed to continue to work 
with the Japanese delegation on Category 3 issues in 
preparation for the 2009 list review. 
 
- The Italian delegation also continue to increase its 
profile in the EG.  Its representation was dominated by the 
Ministry of Defense and included Admiral Stefano Tortora, who 
actively participated in the vessels TWG.  Captain Diego 
Martini will chair the EG in 2009, and Italy will nominate 
him to serve again in 2010 at the December Plenary.  The 
Italian MoD has made the EG chairmanship Martini's primary 
 
job for the next two years. 
 
- Although there were fourten members on the Russian 
delegation, none of them ever engaged in discussion, formal 
or informal, except the Head of Delegation, Oleg Postnikov. 
He is well-versed in the working of the WA EG and has 
successfully screened it from political interference from 
Moscow.  He is scheduled to rotate back to Moscow in the New 
Year, so the nature and level of future Russian engagement in 
the EG is unclear. 
 
- The UK delegation's performance continued to be uneven. 
The UK delegation was energetic and made a positive 
contribution to the work of the EG in that regard.  However, 
the UK continues to table proposals that are not very well 
staffed and to rely on others (often the U.S.) to solve the 
problems this creates.  Poorly staffed UK proposals took up a 
considerable amount of the EG's time.  The UK delegation was 
periodically out of step with the flow of the negotiations, 
making ill-timed suggestions that at times took the 
negotiations backwards.  As an example, during the GNSS 
negotiations when the Galileo group (Italy, Germany and 
France) were moving towards the position espoused by the 
U.S., the UK and Russia, the UK delegation unfortunately took 
the opportunity to charge that U.S. delegation was not being 
forthcoming.  At another point, the UK unhelpfully suggested 
that further discussion of GNSS be deferred for two to three 
years pending further development of Galileo.  The end result 
was that the UK was sidelined through much of these 
discussions, and other delegations continued trying to make 
progress on this issue, resulting in the Plenary mandate to 
seek agreement at the sring EG in 2009 along the lines sought 
by the U.S. 
 
- The French delegation continues to play a more active role. 
 All of the members of the French delegation were from the 
Ministry of Defense.  The French delegation was particularly 
helpful in providing the USDEL with information on French 
licensing practices for thermal imaging cameras. 
 
EG Chair 
-------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) Martina Feeney from Ireland again did an 
outstanding job of chairing the EG.  She was extremely 
helpful in making sure that U.S. proposals were given a fair 
hearing.  She pushed all delegations to reach agreement 
wherever possible.  Next year's EG chair, Diego Martini of 
Italy, continue to understudy the current EG chair as he did 
during the spring EG.  Italy has set an extremely useful 
precedent in committing Captain Martini to a full year of 
preparation prior to assuming the role of EG chair. 
 
Proposals Recommended 
for Plenary Approval by the Fall EG 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) Category 1 (Special Materials and Protective 
Equipment) proposals agreed: 
 
¶A.  New Title for the Category GB013 Rev 1 
 
¶B.  1.A.2. Note 3. Decontrol for certain component made of 
composites and laminates.  DE002/US029 
 
¶C.  1.A.4.d. New control for explosive detection devices. 
TWG021 Rev 2./CRP049 
 
¶D.  1.A.8.  New control for explosive detonators.  TWG021 Rev 
¶2. 
 
¶E. 1.C.8./ 1.A.3.  Deletion of one decontrol note and 
clarification of another. US001 
 
¶F. 1.C.10. Technical Note.  Replacement of Japanese 
Industrial Standard (JIS) with and International Standards 
Organization (ISO) standard.  JP002 
 
¶15.  (SBU) Category 2 (Materials Processing) proposals 
agreed:  None. 
 
¶16.  (SBU) Category 3 (Electronics) proposals agreed: 
 
¶A.   3.A.1.a.7. Revised controls for Field Programmable Logic 
Devices (FPLDs).  US017 Rev 1 
 
 
¶B.  3.A.1.a.10. Revised controls for custom integrated 
circuits. JP005 
 
¶C.  3.A.1.b.10. Oscillators and phase noise instrumentation. 
US003 Rev 2 Corr 
 
¶D. 3.A.1.c. Revised controls for acoustic wave devices. JP006 
Rev 1 
 
¶E. 3.A.1.f. Relaxation of controls on rotary absolute 
position encoders. DE004/GB024 
 
¶F. 3.A.1.h. New control for high temperature switches. US004 
Rev 2 
 
¶17.  (SBU) Category 4 (Computers) proposals agreed: None. 
 
¶18. (SBU) Category 5 Part 1 (Telecommunications) proposals 
agreed: 
 
¶A. 5.A.1.f. Addition to dual-use jammer controls. GB003 Rev 1 
 
¶B. 5.A.1.h. New control for radio equipment used to detonate 
or prevent detonation of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) 
TWG026 
 
¶C. 5.E.1.c.6. New control for the technology for ultraviolet 
non-line-of-sight communications. US010 
 
¶D. 5.E.1.d. New control for the technology for Monolithic 
Microwave Integrated Circuits used in telecommunications. 
US012 Rev 1 
 
¶19.  (SBU) Category 5 Part 2 (Information Security) proposals 
agreed: 
 
¶A. 5.A.2.a.7. A new control for high security Information and 
Communications Technology (ICT) security systems and devices. 
AU002 Rev 2 
 
¶B. 5.A.2. Revised definition for personalized smart cards. 
DE001 Rev 1. 
 
¶C. 5.A.2. Note h.  New decontrol for special equipment 
designed to service mobile devices that employ encryption. 
FI001 Rev 1. 
 
¶D. 5.A.2. Note i. New decontrol for personal area network 
encryption. US014 Rev 2 
 
¶E. 5.B.2., D.2. and E.2.  Clarification of the scope of 
control.  DE008 Rev 1 
 
¶20.  (SBU) Category 6 (Sensors and Lasers) proposals agreed: 
 
¶A.  6.A.1.c. New control for diver deterrent acoustic 
systems.  CA005 
 
¶B. 6.A.2.a.1. Consolidation of the controls for space 
qualified detectors. CRP055 
 
¶C. 6.A.2.a.2.a.3.c. and 6.A.2.a.2.b.3. Conversion of 
decontrol notes to positive control text. CRP055 
 
¶D. 6.A.2.b. New decontrol note for certain mono-spectral 
sensor systems. DE005/CRP055 
 
¶E. 6.A.6. New definition for sensitivity and clarification of 
the controls for magnetometers. CA001 Rev 1 
 
¶F. 6.A.8.j.3. New control for LIDAR coastal surveying 
equipment. GB011 Rev 1 
 
¶G. 6.D.3. New control for camera software.  US016 Rev 2 
 
¶21.  (SBU) Category 7 (Navigation and Avionics) proposals 
agreed: None. 
 
¶22.  (SBU) Category 8 (Marine) proposals agreed: 
 
¶A. 8.A.1.b.  Revised control for submersibles.  GB001 Rev 1. 
 
¶B. 8.A.2.f. Revised control for certain underwater cameras. 
CRP055 
 
 
¶23. (SBU) Category 9 (aerospace and propulsion) one proposal 
agreed: 
 
- 9.A.12.b.2. Clarification of controls on components for 
UAVs. DE006/CA010 
 
¶24.  (SBU) Sensitive  List (SL) proposals agreed: 
 
¶A. 3.A.2.g.1. Correction of Sensitive List to correspond to 
changes made in 2007 for atomic clocks. GB008 Rev 1 
 
¶B. 6.A.6.c.1.  Added certain magnetic gradiometers to the 
Sensitive List. CA002 Rev 1 
 
¶25.  (SBU) Munitions List proposals agreed: 
 
¶A. ML2.a. Note 3. Added a decontrol for &line throwers8. 
GB016 Rev 1 
 
¶B. ML7. e., f., and g. Clarification of NBC equipment 
controls. GB009 Rev 2 
 
¶C. ML9. Restructured and expanded the controls for vessels 
with military capability. GB007 Rev 1/TWG022 Rev 3 
 
¶D. ML11 j. Added Automated Command and Control Systems to the 
illustrative list of controlled electronic equipment. RU002 
Rev 1 
 
¶E. ML17. e.3. Added a Technical Note clarifying the control 
for robots designed to withstand EMP.  JP008 Rev 2. 
 
¶F. ML21. Clarification of the controls on military software. 
GB006 Rev 1 
PYATT