VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHUNV #0075 0511503
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 201503Z FEB 09
FM USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9038
INFO RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 0422
RHEBAAA/DOE WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS UNVIE VIENNA 000075 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
FOR IO/T, ISN/MNSA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: IAEA AORC KNNP UN PREL
SUBJECT: POLITICS SATURATE OPENING OF "FUTURE OF THE 
AGENCY" DISCUSSIONS 
 
REF: UNVIE 11 
 
¶1. (U) Summary: The initial meeting of the year-long, Future 
of the Agency (FOA) process got off to a disappointing - if 
predictable - start.  Most Member States had not given 
thought to specific issues and their statements were overtly 
political and unconstructive.  Only the U.S. and Canada 
offered specific topics for discussion beyond the Agency's 
"three pillars" of Science and Technology, Security and 
Safeguards.  Now that the opening session is out of the way, 
there is still hope that substance will creep into subsequent 
sessions.  UNVIE recommends Washington participation in the 
next meeting on Nuclear Techniques for Development, scheduled 
to follow immediately on the heels of the March Board 
(reftel).  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (U) Finnish Ambassador Kirsti Kauppi chaired the opening 
session of the "Future of the Agency" process on February 19. 
 This initial, general meeting was geared toward gaining 
agreement on the year-long process and raising questions to 
be addressed along the lines of "what kind of Agency would 
Member States like to see in the future?"  Kauppit reiterated 
that the FOA process would be open-ended and without any 
decision-making powers.  The final report would be 
consensus-based, and subsequent discussions would revolve 
around the "three pillars" of the Agency (reftel).  The 
meeting was well-attended by a cross-section of Member States 
represented at the ambassadorial level. 
 
¶3. (U) Once the parameters had been agreed, the remainder of 
the meeting was characterized by a series of rote statements 
that highlighted long-standing differences in priorities 
between developed and less developed Member States.  The 
majority of interventions by G-77 Member States focused on 
various aspects of Technical Cooperation (TC), the need for 
predictable TC funding, and the importance of treating TC as 
an equal "pillar" of the Agency with "balanced treatment." 
Some of the more aggressive G-77 statements (Iran, Cuba) 
lamented the public characterization of the IAEA as a 
"nuclear watchdog" agency (instead of, presumably, an "atoms 
for peace" agency or "atoms for development" agency).  Iran 
and Cuba also made calls for nuclear disarmament (though the 
issue clearly lies outside the IAEA's mandate). 
 
¶4. (SBU) Iran became particularly problematic as the day wore 
on, suggesting that the IAEA had been "forced" into exceeding 
its mandates in the area of safeguards.  Egypt cryptically 
suggested that "some states" wished to deny the spread of 
nuclear technology (perhaps a reference to a deadlock at the 
previous Board of Governors meeting over a Syrian TC 
project).  The tone of the discussion, never particularly 
enthusiastic, dampened progressively toward the end of the 
day. 
 
¶5. (U) Contributions by major-donor Members were more 
wide-ranging.  Canada's thoughtful intervention urged other 
Members to help the IAEA become a world leader on nuclear 
technology, while scaling back support for mature 
technologies and out-dated roles.  Canada also spoke in favor 
of TC, but called for timely results and a shift from project 
implementation to norms-setting.  Perhaps anticipating future 
budget discussions, Canada suggested finding ways to include 
both TC and Nuclear Security programs in the regular budget 
(septel).  Canada admitted that the IAEA was well-run "by UN 
standards" but that it lacked focus, transparency and 
accountability.  (Note: Canada has also expressed privately 
the view that DG succession might lead to improved 
management.  End note.)  Germany also delivered a thoughtful 
statement in favor of fuel assurances, and decoupling Cuba's 
links between non-proliferation and disarmament.  The U.S. 
was the only Member State to move deliberately through the 
year's scheduled discussions and proposed specific topics. 
 
¶6. (U) Ambassador Kauppi, apparently unfazed by the 
highly-stylized and political interventions of the day, 
 
determined to move the FOA process forward.  In a side 
conversation, she mentioned that the first topical meeting in 
the process, Nuclear Techniques for Development, would be the 
"true test" of Member States' seriousness.  The meeting 
follows immediately on the heels of the March Board 
(tentatively scheduled for March 5).  Mission invites 
Washington's contributions in the lead-up to and in the 
course of the meeting. 
SCHULTE