VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #4039 0450323
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O P 140306Z FEB 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA IMMEDIATE 0000
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 0000
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 0000

UNCLAS STATE 014039 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS, GENEVA FOR CD DEL, USUN FOR POL 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM MCAP UNGA CDG MASS SIPDIS
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE FOR THE 2009 UN GROUP OF GOVERNMENTAL 
EXPERTS FOR THE UN REGISTER OF CONVENTIONAL ARMS 
 
REF: (A)06 STATE 31283, (B)STATE 106474 
 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY:  This message provides guidance for 
the U.S. Expert to the 2009 UN Group of Governmental 
Experts (GGE) on the Continuing Operation of the UN 
Register of Conventional Arms.  The 2009 GGE will meet 
February 16 - 20, April 27 - May 3, and July 13-17.  The 
February and April meetings will be held in Geneva and 
the July meeting in New York. 
 
¶2.  (SBU) The U.S. should continue its strong advocacy 
in the GGE for increased transparency on arms transfers 
and encouraging greater participation in the Register. 
In addition to its traditional role as a global 
confidence-building measure, the Register's equipment 
categories have been increasingly looked to in recent 
years as a template for international arms embargoes (as 
the UN Security Council did on North Korea and Iran). 
The U.S. has been a leading force in the development of 
the Register, including advocating for adding MANPADS to 
the Register and lowering the artillery threshold to 
75mm in 2003. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) The overarching U.S. objective for the 2009 
GGE is ensuring that the Register supports the U.S. 
conventional arms transfer policy goal of increasing the 
transparency of arms transfers.  In pursuit of this 
objective, priority U.S. objectives for the 2009 GGE 
include: 
 
-- Promoting universal participation in the Register; 
-- Raising the profile of both the Register process and 
the information exchanged; 
-- Ensuring that the Register addresses current threats; 
-- Not opposing creation of a category on transfers of 
small arms and light weapons (SA/LW); 
-- Increasing support for the U.S. practice of reporting 
of model/type data for imports and exports; 
-- Encouraging reporting of procurement through national 
production (PTNP) and military holdings on the same 
basis as imports and exports (i.e., "request" vice 
"invite" Member States to provide such information) in a 
manner consistent with existing U.S. reporting practices 
but ensuring that such reporting is not required for 
SA/LW); 
-- Ensuring that transfers of armed unmanned aerial 
vehicles are reported to the Register as a separate 
category or sub-category; 
-- Making other technical adjustments and/or refinements 
to the existing categories; and 
-- Maintaining the Register's exclusive focus on 
conventional weapons. 
 
END SUMMARY 
 
********************************************* *** 
Guidance on Continuing Operation of the Register 
********************************************* *** 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Procedural aspects of the Register: 
 
-- U.S. Expert should once again seek language in the 
final report encouraging bilateral, multilateral, 
regional, and sub-regional consultations to discuss 
individual submissions of data.  This step would 
increase the confidence-building value of the 
information annually exchanged and help promote greater 
participation in all aspects of the Register. (This does 
not imply assessments of the data by the UN or regional 
organizations.) 
 
-- Any measures to strengthen UN Office of Disarmament 
Affairs (ODA) support of the Register and to raise the 
Register's profile and accessibility should be done 
within existing resources. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Adjustments and refinements to existing 
categories: 
 
-- The United States supports proposals to ensure the 
Register is relevant to current security concerns. 
Harmonizing the Register's reporting requirements with 
those contained in other regimes, such as the Wassenaar 
Arrangement, may decrease the amount of work required to 
fulfill the different reporting obligations.  However, 
this must be balanced against the different goals in the 
various regimes.  As such, the U.S. can support the 
following: 
 
Category IV (combat aircraft): 
------------------------------ 
-- See para 7 below for discussion of either seeking a 
new category for reporting of UAV transfers or, as a 
fall-back, amending this category by adding a sub- 
category of "Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" and 
changing the category name to "Combat Aircraft and Armed 
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles". 
 
Category VI (naval warships): 
----------------------------- 
-- The U.S. supports lowering the ship tonnage to the 
Wassenaar level of 150 metric tons. 
 
Category VII (missiles and missile launchers): 
--------------------------------------------- - 
-- At the 1992, 1994, 1997, and 2000 GGEs, the U.S. 
supported reducing the missile range limit from 25 km to 
20 km.  However, in 2003 and 2006, to ensure consistency 
with Wassenaar reporting, the U.S. did not pursue a 
lower range threshold.  The U.S. will not seek or 
support a lower range threshold this year. 
 
-- The U.S. supports including all surface-to-air 
missiles (SAMs) in the missile category.  Currently this 
category only includes MANPADS, which were added to the 
Register in 2003.  China will most likely continue to 
oppose adding all SAMs. 
 
Adjustments to other categories: 
-------------------------------- 
 
-- The U.S. continues to be unable to support the UK 
proposal to adjust the definitions in the existing 
categories to better track with the equipment reported 
to Wassenaar.  The U.S. is concerned that these changes 
could have a negative impact on efforts to increase 
participation in the Register by making it appear too 
complex for countries with limited national capacity for 
tracking transfers of defense equipment.  The UK has 
proposed modifying the Register definitions in: 
(A) Category II (Armored Combat Vehicles) to include 
observation, reconnaissance, target designator ACVs, 
tank transporters, armored recovery vehicles, and 
amphibious deep water fording vehicles; 
(B) Category III (Large-Caliber Artillery Systems) to 
include gun carriers specifically designed for towing 
artillery; 
(C) Category IV (Combat Aircraft) to include (1) all 
aircraft (armed or unarmed) designed to perform 
reconnaissance, command of troops, electronic warfare, 
electronic and fire suppression of air defense systems, 
refueling, or air drop missions; (2) unmanned aerial 
vehicles designed to carry out the missions carried out 
by combat aircraft under this category; or (3) systems 
for the control and receiving of information from the 
unmanned aerial vehicles; and 
(D) Category V (Attack Helicopters) to include all 
military helicopters designed to perform target 
acquisition, communication, command of troops, or mine 
laying missions as well as unarmed military helicopters 
designed, equipped or modified to perform reconnaissance 
or electronic warfare missions. 
 
 
********************************************* ** 
Guidance on Further Development of the Register 
(Expansion) 
********************************************* ** 
 
¶6. (SBU) Small Arms and Light Weapons (SA/LW): 
 
-- As the Register's categories are increasingly looked 
to as a template for international arms embargoes (as 
the UN Security Council did on North Korea and Iran by 
referring to the Register's categories in the arms 
embargo resolutions on these countries) and possible 
international instruments, it is important from a 
nonproliferation/export control point of view that SA/LW 
be added to the Register.  Greater transparency in the 
licit transfer of SA/LW will reinforce efforts to curb 
the illicit proliferation of SA/LW, providing direct 
benefits to both the U.S. and the international 
community.  The SA/LW community has made clear in the UN 
Program of Action (POA) to Combat Illicit Trafficking in 
Small Arms and Light Weapons context that transparency 
measures on SA/LW transfers are the province of the UN 
Register, not the POA.  SA/LW transfers are currently 
reported to the Wassenaar Arrangement and the OSCE, but 
this creates incomplete coverage as Wassenaar only 
covers transfers to non-Wassenaar members and the OSCE 
only transfers among OSCE members.  Adding SA/LW to the 
Register will ensure broader global coverage of SA/LW 
transfers and create a norm for both exporters and 
importers to report on SA/LW transfers. 
 
-- Momentum in support of adding SA/LW has been steadily 
building since 2000 to the point where there is a 
realistic prospect for the 2009 GGE to reach consensus 
on doing so.  Failing to do so could call into question 
the Register's ability to make headway in increasing 
participation in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean Islands 
portion of Latin America, whose GGE members have cited 
the Register's failure to include SA/LW as the primary 
obstacle to increasing participation in these regions. 
 
-- Currently the Register allows Member States to report 
SA/LW on a voluntary basis as optional background 
information.  Member States "that are in a position to 
do so [are recommended to] provide data and information 
on small arms and light weapons transfers to the 
Register as part of additional background information on 
the basis of the standardized reporting form...or any 
other methods they deem appropriate".  Since the door 
was first opened to optional reporting of SA/LW 
information by the 2003 GGE, 5 Member States reported 
SA/LW transfers in 2003, 5 in 2004, 4 in 2005, 37 in 
2006, and 48 in 2007.  The substantial increase in SA/LW 
reporting in 2006 coincided with the adoption of an 
optional illustrative reporting form by the 2006 GGE. 
 
-- Reporting SA/LW transfers dominated the GGE 
discussions in 2000, 2003, and 2006, and will likely do 
so in 2009 as well.  Most Experts at these GGEs 
supported adding SA/LW to the Register, arguing that 
doing so would make the Register more relevant to the 
security concerns of a broader swathe of countries, but 
a few key hold-outs (including Russia, China, India, 
Pakistan, and Israel) directly blocked doing so.  The 
U.S. supported measures to strengthen the Register's 
contribution to international efforts to combat illicit 
trafficking in small arms and light weapons, but stopped 
short of supporting adding it as an eighth category. 
The U.S. wanted to develop U.S. capacity to implement 
its existing Wassenaar and OSCE reporting obligations on 
SA/LW and to observe the extent to which others were 
willing to report SA/LW transfers (see Ref B).  Now that 
the U.S. has a number of years of experience under its 
belt in reporting SA/LW transfer data to Wassenaar and 
the OSCE, and a steadily increasing number of Member 
States have been reporting SA/LW transfers (rising from 
5 Member States in 2003 to 48 in 2007), the U.S. should 
not oppose adding SA/LW to the Register. 
 
-- The United States can accept adding reporting on 
transfers of SA/LW to the UN Register.  U.S. Expert 
should oppose efforts to include reporting of military 
holdings of SA/LW or SA/LW procurement through national 
production. 
 
-- The U.S. will not begin reporting transfers of SA/LW 
until the USG takes a separate internal decision to do 
so. 
 
-- In exploring options for reporting transfers of 
SA/LW, U.S. Expert should avoid options that would 
create an onerous reporting burden and discourage 
broader participation in the Register. 
 
-- Any definition of SA/LW in the Register should be 
consistent with the OSCE and Wassenaar definitions and 
should track with the Firearms Protocol and UN Program 
of Action on SA/LW. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs): 
 
-- The United States supports reporting transfers of 
armed UAVs to the Register.  At the 2006 GGE, there was 
substantial discussion of ensuring that UAVs are 
captured by the UN Register.  Some argued that the 
existing categories already covered UAVs and that no 
changes were needed to the existing definitions, while 
others argued that the definitions to Category IV 
(Combat Aircraft) and V (Attack Helicopters) needed to 
be changed to include an explicit reference to UAVs. 
There was also substantial discussion of whether all 
UAVs should be covered or only armed UAVs. 
 
-- The preferred U.S. approach to the UAV issue is to 
add a new category of "Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" 
that would use a definition of "A reusable aerial 
vehicle, specifically-designed for unmanned flight, 
armed and equipped to deliver munitions that are not 
integral components of the vehicle itself."  These 
vehicles are understood to be generally much less 
capable than those currently reported under Category IV 
(Combat Aircraft) or Category V (Attack Helicopters). 
This definition covers fixed or rotary wing vehicles and 
excludes those with warheads, which might be considered 
missiles and therefore captured under Category VII 
(Missiles and Missile Launchers) which explicitly 
includes some remotely piloted vehicles. 
 
-- As a fall-back, the United States can support 
amending existing Category IV (Combat Aircraft) by 
changing the Category to "Combat Aircraft and Unmanned 
Aerial Vehicles" and adding a sub-category of "Armed 
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles" with the definition used 
above.  (Note:  This definition explicitly 
distinguishes armed UAVs from manned combat aircraft.) 
The U.S. expert is instructed to oppose any attempt to 
report UAVs that do not carry a weapons load or warhead 
UAVs or to lump armed UAVs and combat aircraft in 
one new definition.  U.S. Expert should consult with 
Washington as the definition gets negotiated during the 
course of the GGE meetings. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) Reporting equipment by model and type: 
 
-- The United States continues to support strongly the 
universal practice of reporting model/type data on 
transfers (i.e., imports and exports). 
 
¶9.  (SBU) Including data on military holdings and 
procurement through national production (PTNP): 
 
-- U.S. Expert should continue to support expanding the 
Register to have Member States report military holdings 
and PTNP on the same basis as transfers (i.e., Member 
States should be "requested" rather than the current 
practice of "invited") for the existing seven 
categories.  Reporting military holdings and PTNP on the 
same basis as imports and exports would capture 
additional relevant information needed to enhance 
confidence building and contribute to restraint. 
 
-- Military holdings and PTNP should be defined by the 
GGE in a consistent and unambiguous way. 
 
-- The U.S. can accept including only PTNP and not 
military holdings if a consensus emerges to do so. 
 
-- As mentioned in the SA/LW portion of the guidance, 
the U.S. does not support reporting of SA/LW data on 
military holdings and procurement through national 
production.  This would create an unacceptable reporting 
burden for some states and would unnecessarily 
complicate the SA/LW issue.  Continued U.S. support for 
requiring reporting on military holdings and procurement 
through national production is contingent on such 
reporting not including SA/LW data. 
 
¶10.  (SBU) Regional Registers: 
 
-- The U.S. recognizes that, in order to include the 
most threatening weapons in particular regions, regional 
Registers could be used to achieve fuller transparency. 
Such Registers could complement the UN Register by 
responding to the particular needs of states in a 
region. However, they should not undermine the global 
Register, and any specific arrangements for regional 
Registers should be developed in the region by the 
states concerned. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Adding weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and 
high technology with military applications to the 
Register: 
 
-- The 2000 GGE laid this issue to rest in concluding 
that such items are clearly outside the scope of the 
Register; U.S. Expert should oppose strongly any attempt 
to revisit this issue. 
 
¶12.  (SBU) Adding ammunition, including cluster 
munitions: 
 
-- The U.S. opposes adding ammunition to the Register. 
With the exception of missiles, the Register only 
includes weapons and weapon systems.  Adding ammunition 
would change the Register from a confidence-building 
measure to a military planning tool. 
CLINTON