VZCZCXRO6845
PP RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHVEN #0212/01 2721123
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 291123Z SEP 09
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6615
INFO RUCNCFE/CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAE
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5-DDPMA-IN/CAC/DDPMA-E//
RUEAHQA/HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC//XONP//

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 USOSCE 000212 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM 
NSC FOR NILSSON, HAYDEN 
JCS FOR J5 NORWOOD, COL SMITH 
OSD FOR ISA (KEHL, WALLENDER) 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL KOMC
SUBJECT: FSC/SMALL ARMS REVIEW MEETING: FEW SURPRISES, BUT 
COMMENTS PORTEND CHALLENGES IN 2010 IN UN AT BMS4  (SBU) 
 
¶1. (SBU)  Summary:  The OSCE Meeting to Review the OSCE 
Document on Small Arms and Light Weapons broke no new ground 
and vacillated between those delegations looking to add more 
instrumentalities and mechanisms to the OSCE's work on SA/LW 
and those, such as the U.S., which advocated more effective 
implementation of the protocols and other commitments that 
were already in place.  Beyond some familiar themes raised 
(e.g., destruction versus transfer of surplus), and the 
limited number of technical suggestions to amend the OSCE 
Document, two interventions stood out. 
 
¶2. (SBU) First, the Chair-designate of the 2010 UN's Biennial 
Meeting of States on the Programme of Action on Small Arms 
and Light Weapons (SA/LW), Ambassador Pablo Macedo (Mexico), 
was "four-for-four" crossing USG redlines as he advocated: 1) 
turning the OSCE documents and decisions on SA/LW into a 
legally-binding instrument; 2) adding a munitions controls 
component to the SA/LW mechanism; 3) applying SA/LW criteria 
from government to private transactions; and, 4) engaging on 
the issue of civilian ownership of arms.  Second, Russia 
(Uliyanov) blamed government-to-government transfers for the 
"unstable accumulation" of SA/LW in Georgia as precipitating 
regional instability.  He called for new SA/LW language that 
would unambiguously constrain the transfer of military 
equipment to Georgia.  Most of the other exchanges were 
reviews of different national and regional instruments and 
practices to control the transfer of SA/LW.  End Summary. 
 
Opening Session: BMS4 Chair-Designate's Comments Portend 
Challenges in 2010 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶3. (SBU)  Two days of discussion September 22-23at the OSCE 
Meeting to Review the OSCE Document on Small Arms and Light 
Weapons (SA/LW) yielded few surprises.  During the Opening 
Session the FSC Chair (UK - Cliff) set the development of a 
roadmap for further work on the OSCE's efforts to improve its 
arms control efforts on SA/LW.  Greece (Marinaki, 
representing the Chair-in Office) tied SA/LW into addressing 
related security risks and emerging threats, including 
asymmetric threats by non-state actors (e.g. trafficking in 
persons).  Greece noted the importance of not duplicating, 
but coordinating and cooperating with other International 
Organizations.  OSCE SecGen Perrin de Brichambaut called for 
an effective regulatory mechanism within the OSCE 
"complementing and strengthening" the UN Programme of Action. 
 
 
¶4. (SBU)  In his keynote remarks, the Chair-Designate of the 
2010 Biennial Meeting of States on the UN Programme of Action 
on SA/LW, Ambassador Macedo (Mexico) spoke about the lack of 
progress on effectively curtailing the movement of SA/LW, 
increasing violence in Mexico and the importance of 
developing common criteria on the export controls and 
stockpile management.  He also acknowledged going beyond his 
role in making specific recommendations to the OSCE 
including: 1) turning the OSCE documents and decisions on 
Small Arms and Light Weapons (SA/LW) into a legally-binding 
instrument; 2) adding a munitions controls component to the 
SA/LW mechanism; 3) applying SA/LW criteria from government 
to private transactions; and 4) engaging on the issue of 
civilian ownership of arms. 
 
Working Session I: Russia Derides Weapons Transfers to 
Georgia 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶5. (SBU)  Spencer Childers of the UK Export Control 
Organization moderated the session on international 
cooperation, assistance, and capacity building.  He 
challenged delegates to improve assistance during the 
economic downturn.  Conflict Prevention Center Director 
Salber suggested amending the information exchange template 
to incorporate plans for prioritizing destruction assistance 
among other improvements aimed at better implementation. 
 
USOSCE 00000212  002 OF 004 
 
 
Russia (Uliyanov) took umbrage that the SA/LW document 
fine-tuning was the issue.  He questioned some states' 
political commitment to established norms against 
destabilizing transfers of SA/LW.  Russia cited grievances 
against those who contributed to Georgia's "massive offensive 
and acts of repression against civilians."  Russia blamed 
ambiguities within the OSCE's SA/LW document for creating 
circumstances that emboldened Georgia to resolve its problems 
militarily. 
 
¶6. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour) refuted the Russian account, 
noting that its transfers were initially aimed at assisting 
Georgia to stop armed insurgents raiding Russia from the 
Pankisi Gorge, then were to help Georgia participate in 
coalition operations in Iraq.  The central point of the U.S. 
intervention, however, was to emphasize the importance of 
implementation of current SA/SW agreements and obligations, 
and the concomitant need for capacity building in addressing 
effectively SA/LW issues.  Georgia rejected the Russian 
accusation, citing the transparency and legality behind 
Georgia's defensive arms imports.  Other delegations remained 
silent on the issue. 
 
Working Session II: Brokering: Two Sides of the Coin 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶7. (SBU)  The afternoon session focusing on import/export 
controls and brokering was moderated by Col. Walter Schweizer 
(Germany).  Chilvers, briefing on the work of the Group of 
Governmental Experts (GGE), noted that by 2008 only 50 states 
incorporated laws on arms brokering.  In response to a U.S. 
question, he elaborated on the challenges of 
"extra-territorial controls" over nationals who seek to 
circumvent a state's arms export regulatory mechanisms in the 
absence of an unambiguous UN embargo.  Chilvers also 
recommended the OSCE assist those who do not have effective 
brokering legislation and that the OSCE amend its document to 
conform to recommendations contained in the GGE reports. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Several delegations described their national 
procedures for End-Use Assurances; Russia offered up 
assistance for those interested in benefiting from its 
experience on effective End-Use Controls.  Russia also 
complained about the lack of "re-export" controls, advocating 
an international treaty of the trade in arms addressing not 
only third party transfers but also "industrial piracy" of 
technology and unlicensed production as the "only way to come 
to terms with the problems of the world trade in armaments." 
 
¶9. (SBU) The U.S. (Costner) cautioned that a 100 percent 
verification scheme was not realistic compared to focusing on 
priorities (e.g., Golden Sentry and Blue Lantern).  The U.S. 
also cautioned that efforts to press for standardization 
could have the unintended effect of creating a lowest common 
denominator that would actually reduce the effectiveness of 
more rigorous SA/LW regimes elsewhere.  Chilver's warned that 
delegations must keep in mind "one size does not fit all." 
 
Session III: Stockpile Management and Security 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶10. (SBU)  Larry Schultz from the U.S. Defense Threat 
Reduction Agency (USA--DTRA) moderated Working Session III, 
which featured presentations from UN Coordinating Actions on 
Small Arms (CASA); Germany's Arms Control and Disarmament 
Agency, and the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  Dr. 
Patrick McCarthy described CASA's work to develop political 
norms for ensuring effective stockpile management and 
security of SA/LW.  Taking center stage was the UN's 
initiative to elaborate a set of International Small Arms 
Control Standards (ISACS), which includes a module on 
stockpile management.  McCarthy called on the OSCE to "push 
the envelope even more than it already has in establishing 
voluntary commitments on stockpile management and security." 
 
 
USOSCE 00000212  003 OF 004 
 
 
¶11. (SBU) Lieutenant Colonel Andreas Nehring (Germany) 
examined the question of disposal of SA/LW through 
destruction versus export.  He described the threat posed by 
increasing surpluses of SA/LW and fixed responsibility on 
governments for countering the threat.  Nehring argued that 
the delta between the introduction of new weapons and the 
disposal of surplus can only be eliminated through increased 
destruction.  He concluded that States must be encouraged to 
destroy surplus stockpiles of SA/LW through financial and 
technical support, "new for old" exchanges, mutual assistance 
and awareness training.  Mr. Stelios Zachariou ended the 
session by comparing stockpile management guidelines between 
the OSCE, UN and EU.  He concluded that a general consensus 
on stockpile management guidelines common to these 
organizations should make achieving globally accepted 
practices for stockpile management much easier to attain. 
 
Session IV: Participating States Share Experience on Post 
Manufacture Marking and Tracing 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶12. (SBU)  Session IV featured presentations on the UN's 
International Tracing Instrument (ITI) and a comparative 
analysis of post manufacturing marking and tracing.  Agnes 
Marcaillou, UN Office for Disarmament Affairs, described the 
UN's ITI and its implications for the OSCE commitments on 
SA/LW.  Marcaillou noted that none of the OSCE's documents or 
supplementary decisions on SA/LW refer to the adoption of the 
ITI by the UNGA.  She argued that it is of great importance 
that participating States (pS) are familiar with the 
provisions for the ITI and effectively implement marking, 
record keeping, and tracing measures.  She proposed that pS 
consider developing region-specific, measurable, and 
time-bound implementation goals for the OSCE region and 
aligning regional implementation with the global cycle of 
SA/LW meetings (i.e. BMS). In response to a question from 
Greece, Marcaillou said that the UN is moving from 
theoretical discussion to the practical training and needs 
equipment from donor countries.  She cited as an example a 
recent meeting in the Czech Republic where participants 
described a "sudden awakening" as the delegates worked 
practical tracing scenarios on the computers provided by 
INTERPOL. 
 
¶13. (SBU)  Giacomo Persi Paoli, UN Institute for Disarmament 
Research outlined the results of a comparative analysis of 
post manufacture marking instruments and practices for SA/LW. 
 He provided a detailed review of international and regional 
regulatory frameworks, national legislation, practices, and 
procedures. Following his presentation, the U.S. (Kullman), 
Russia and Italy summarized national practices and advances 
in post manufacturer marking and tracing.  Kullman sketched 
out the state of U.S. efforts in post manufacturing marking 
and tracing, encouraging pS to consider how far states have 
progressed in this field since 2000.  Russia described new 
methods under development that utilize micro release seals to 
imprint coded information on weapons and shells.  In 
addition, Russia noted that it plans to introduce hidden 
markings on police and military firearms. Finally Italy 
provided a detailed explanation of the advantages and 
disadvantages of various marking techniques. 
 
Closing Session: Time to Summarize...but First, Let's 
Incorporate Ammunition with SA/LW 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶14. (SBU)  Turkey took advantage of the invitation by the 
Chair for any last suggestions to succinctly call for the FSC 
to combine OSCE documents on SA/LW and Ammunition.  Russia 
intervened once more to express its disappointment that the 
two-day session focused solely on technical issues, ignoring 
broader principled problems such as illegal transfers of 
weapons to Georgia. 
 
¶15. (SBU) In summation, the Chair (UK--Cliff) noted that 
 
USOSCE 00000212  004 OF 004 
 
 
SA/LW remains high on the OSCE agenda and that members are 
eager to continue their work on this issue.  He recalled the 
major elements of discussion, highlighting the following main 
themes: 
 
-- The need for full implementation; 
-- The need to update assistance mechanisms; 
-- The need for increased international cooperation; 
-- Consideration of gender issues in the Document; 
-- The need for a common understanding of language and 
terminology; 
-- The need for effective verification measures; 
-- The need for measures to prevent technology transfer and 
diversion; 
-- Consider making some of the elements of existing Best 
Practice Guides politically binding; 
-- The need to share lessons learned; and 
-- Consider assistance for financial, legal and technical 
issues connected with post-manufacture and import markings. 
 
¶16. (SBU)  Finally, Cliff urged pS to take the initiative 
based on the forthcoming detailed survey of suggestions to: 
 
-- Develop suggestions into specific Draft Decisions for 
the FSC; and 
-- Prepare the OSCE's contribution to BMS 4. 
 
¶17. (SBU) Comment.  Despite the lack of substantially new 
information, or changes in national positions, Washington's 
participation, particularly in moderating Session III, seemed 
greatly appreciated by pS and USOSCE.  Strong interventions 
by Costner (PM-WRA) and Kullman (ATF) helped to reinforce 
with OSCE permanent delegations U.S. positions with regard to 
brokering, marking and tracing, and will greatly assist 
Mission in protecting U.S. equities during subsequent 
discussions. 
 
¶18. (SBU)  Note: The Annotated agenda for the meeting was 
issued on 18 September 2009 as FSC.GAL/87/09/Rev.1.  The list 
of participants was issued as SEC.INF/36/09/Rev.2 dated 23 
September 2009.  Requests for these documents or specific 
presentations should be forwarded by email to VCI-CCA-CON-DL. 
End Note. 
CHRISTENSEN