VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHRL #1412/01 3101556
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 061556Z NOV 09
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5706
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 0424
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 2089
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 0001
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 0942
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 2452
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 1629
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0877

UNCLAS BERLIN 001412 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KNNP MNUC PARM PGOV PREL GM
SUBJECT: READOUT OF 1540 EXPERTS MEETING IN BERLIN 
 
¶1. (U) Summary.  UNSCR 1540 implementation experts from the 
G8 met in Berlin from October 22-23, 2009 at the invitation 
of the German Foreign Office.  All participants felt this was 
a useful and successful undertaking.  The purpose of the 
meeting was to exchange views on the status of 1540 
implementation, share information about their ongoing and 
planned activities supporting 1540 implementation, and 
generate ideas for the way ahead and a G8 response to the 
1540 Committee,s letter to the G8 of August 14, 2008. The 
meeting was not intended to make formal decisions or 
recommendations.  See para 7 for way ahead ideas.  End 
summary. 
 
------------------------------ 
General Background on Outcomes 
------------------------------ 
 
¶2. (U) Participants noted that while there have been some 
signs of progress in 1540 implementation (such as more states 
adopting legislation with regard to various aspects of the 
resolution) there still are considerable gaps in 
implementation and that the quality of reporting to the 1540 
Committee is highly variable. They also noted that even 
though states may adopt legislation, it may not always be 
followed with effective implementation. Key areas noted: 
 
-- Outreach and assistance projects have helped to raise 
awareness of 1540 obligations and promote the implementation 
of some of its key substantive obligations. Over time, 
projects should move towards detailed implementation. There 
was general agreement that the 1540 Committee has focused 
primarily on export controls and border controls to date, and 
that attention is needed on all areas involving obligations 
imposed by UNSCR 1540 on Member States.  These areas include, 
among others,  border controls, proliferation financing, 
effective measures to account for and secure WMD-related 
items in production, use, storage or transport, and effective 
physical protection measures. This effort will require 
stronger, ongoing regional and bilateral efforts, engagement 
of officials from across a range of government departments 
responsible for 1540-related obligations (e.g. foreign 
affairs, customs, and transportation), and tailored 
activities such as country-visits by experts. 
 
-- Participants discussed the prominent role of the 1540 
Committee in implementation, and the support of the UNODA for 
several outreach events. The limited capacity of these bodies 
-- for instance, the Committee has only eight experts and an 
annual budget of less than US $2 million -- was noted. The 
Committee performs an important clearing-house function for 
offers of and requests for assistance. Participants observed 
that coordination in this mechanism could be improved, 
entailing more timely processing of assistance offers and 
requests, and in the future perhaps active match-making 
between the two. 
 
-- Attendees agreed that the G8 can be more effective in 
advancing 1540 implementation than issuing an annual demarche 
to non-reporting states. To achieve this objective, they 
surveyed a range of options for sustainable action on the 
national level, with regional organizations and international 
organizations, possibly including NGOs, and among the G8. 
 
-------------------------------- 
Options For Future Consideration 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) The following items were raised as potential areas for 
further consideration. Consistent with the G8,s emphasis on 
consensus, no state was bound to support or participate in 
the following items. The German MFA indicated that it would 
provide these ideas informally to the Nonproliferation 
Director,s Group (NPDG). 
 
¶4. (U) Tools 
 
-- Adjust strategy of demarching non-reporting states. This 
could include demarching reporting states with regional 
influence and/or regional organizations that may be able to 
encourage non-reporting neighbors and members to change their 
behavior. 
 
-- Update information on opportunities for direct assistance, 
assistance through international organizations, and points of 
contact for the 1540 Committee website, and engage the 1540 
Committee to ensure that these updates are posted promptly. 
 
-- Consult internally on possible development of lists of 
1540 implementation experts who could be drawn upon to 
provide capacity-building information to states which request 
it. The modalities of these requests would still require 
discussion, and the role of national points of contact in 
facilitating assistance requests should be respected. 
 
-- Agree on procedures for providing information on 1540 
assistance activities to other G8 members to review overlap 
and identify potential areas of coordination and 
specialization, and then consult informally with the 1540 
Committee and its experts. 
 
-- Review opportunities to prepare summary action plans to 
demonstrate G8 leadership and engage the G20. Such leadership 
could help to catalyze other states to also file these 
reports, which would assist them in identifying their 
capacity-building requirements. 
 
¶5. (U) Funding 
 
-- Following UNSCR 1887 and acknowledging the capacity 
limitations of the 1540 Committee, continue to explore 
options for sustainable funding for 1540 capacity-building. 
These options could include a new 1540 voluntary fund, the 
use of existing UN-based funding mechanisms, and the Global 
Partnership Program. 
 
¶6. (U) Engagement 
 
-- Prepare a reply under the G8 Presidency to the 1540 
Committee Chair,s letter of August 14, 2008, outlining the 
G8,s responses to the 1540 Committee,s specific items for 
consideration (incorporating capacity-building to enhance 
implementation of the resolution in its own discussions and 
activities; information from G8 member states on their 
technical assistance programs; promoting states, reporting; 
summary action plans; working with relevant regional 
international and regional organizations to promote 1540 
implementation; and information on 1540-related training 
events or workshops that G8 member-states are organizing). 
 
-- Hold a follow-up meeting of the G8,s 1540 implementation 
experts in the first quarter of 2010 to review progress. 
 
-- Approach the 1540 Committee regarding a potential meeting 
with the larger community of 1540 partners to discuss 
respective planned projects and coordination issues. 
 
-- Hold a meeting between the 2010 G8 Presidency and the 1540 
Committee Chair to discuss the G8,s contribution to 1540 
implementation and opportunities for further work together, 
and/or invite the Chair to a NPDG meeting after the 
completion of the Comprehensive Review report. 
 
--------- 
Way Ahead 
--------- 
 
¶7. (U) We asked Germany and Canada to support the summary as 
a first-step in an informal process to gain good ideas and 
not to haggle over wording in an outcome document. Canada 
particularly noted its frustration with the NPDG group 
meeting conducting too many drafting sessions.  We 
underscored our support and that this was an expert-level 
brainstorming and not redefining 1540.  Canada helped 
considerably to set agenda in tandem with Italy as a smooth 
transition between Presidencies.  Canada wants to work hard 
on UNSCR 1540 among other items in its Presidency.  Japan 
thought US-Japan export control outreach coordination was 
quite good and Deputy Director Church encouraged improvement 
of information-sharing and seeking to coordinate as early as 
possible, ideally during the planning process.  UK, France, 
and EU Council reps discussed separately the future of 
funding and we agreed that there needed to be a small group 
meeting to further refine a joint strategy -- before the EU 
issues its next joint action on UNSCR 1540.  Among all the 
issues discussed the immediate three priorities were: 
 
-- To endorse a follow-on meeting to coincide before or after 
the March NPDG -- to turn this first effort into building on 
the ideas outlined above and to put them into some practical 
application before the next G8 Summit. 
 
-- Support G8 Presidency communicating with 1540 Committee on 
behalf of G8, and to share a summary with the Committee. 
 
-- Last, Russian participation was one of listening per 
admitted instructions from Moscow by the attendee.  However, 
we noted to him that we are comfortable with all the ideas 
proposed and view them as consistent with the UNSCR 1540 
Program of Work, UNSCR 1887, and the letter from the 
Committee to the G8 (all which Russia approved by consensus). 
 
¶8. (U) This cable was cleared with the 1540 Coordinator, 
Thomas Wuchte. 
MURPHY