VZCZCXRO4707
OO RUEHTRO
DE RUEHC #7434/01 3472205
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O P 132203Z DEC 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK IMMEDIATE 9054
INFO RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA PRIORITY 1181
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING PRIORITY 2031
RUEHHI/AMEMBASSY HANOI PRIORITY 0786
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 8347
RUEHME/AMEMBASSY MEXICO PRIORITY 6187
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 5944
RUEHOU/AMEMBASSY OUAGADOUGOU PRIORITY 9260
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 7616
RUEHSJ/AMEMBASSY SAN JOSE PRIORITY 0264
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 1602
RUEHVI/AMEMBASSY VIENNA PRIORITY 0269
RUEHVB/AMEMBASSY ZAGREB PRIORITY 3612
RUEHKM/AMEMBASSY KAMPALA PRIORITY 0013
RUEHTRO/AMEMBASSY TRIPOLI PRIORITY 1448
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 6419
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 6073
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY 5917

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 STATE 127434 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL AORC KPAO PTER UNSC
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE FOR CONSULTATIONS ON UNSCR 1540 
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW REPORT 
 
REF: A. STATE 17394 
     ¶B. USUN 964 (C) 
     ¶C. STATE 122725 
     ¶D. STATE 26339 
     ¶E. COMMON STRATEGY PAPER 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED -- PLEASE PROTECT ACCORDINGLY 
 
¶1.  (U) This is an action request, see para 3.  USUN may also 
leave para 6 points as a non-paper. 
 
¶2.  (U) Background:  Security Council member Mexico, in its 
capacity as Vice Chairman of the 1540 Committee, is leading 
the Committee Working Group currently focused on finalizing 
an outcome document from the September-October 1540 
Comprehensive Review (CR), a review that was a major U.S. 
objective connected to the extension of the 1540 Committee's 
mandate (see REFs A and B).  The Working Group is 
deliberating on 68 recommendations generated by Committee 
Experts and national delegations.  These recommendations will 
ultimately form the basis for the Committee's work in the 
short- and medium-term, including possible extension of the 
Committee's mandate beyond 2011.  The Working Group seeks to 
report to the Committee on the results of its consideration 
and the way ahead by January 2010.  A paramount U.S. concern 
will be the provision of sustained resources for the 
Committee's functioning (see REF C on U.S. proposal for a new 
voluntary fund).  End background. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
OBJECTIVES FOR WORKING GROUP CONSULTATIONS 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶3.  (SBU) USUN should emphasize the provision of sustained 
resources as the most important meeting outcome and to press 
for the inclusion of substantive findings and recommendations 
in the outcome document.  While the current Chair wants to 
present final recommendations prior to his departure, USUN 
should remind Working Group members that the review 
modalities set a reporting deadline of January 31.  In 
particular, Working Group findings/recommendations should 
include these USG redlines which are to be circulated in 
writing to the entire Committee -- see also REFs D and E and 
para 6. 
 
Begin text 
 
The review outcome should: 
 
-- Point out at least three-four accomplishments that speak 
to what the Comprehensive Review has revealed about the 
effect of UNSCR 1540 in quantifiable terms (apart from 
outreach). 
 
 -- Assess implementation challenges specific to the Security 
Council, UN Office of Disarmament Affairs (ODA), the 
Committee's Panel of Experts, and UN delegations in general. 
 
-- Discuss possible extension of the Committee's mandate in 
specific terms. 
 
-- Articulate the 1540 funding landscape (i.e., future 
activities for planning and what are the personnel and budget 
constraints under which UN ODA is operating to support the 
work of the Committee and its 8-member Panel of Experts). 
 
-- Establish modalities for Committee cooperation with 
relevant Inter-governmental Organizations (IGOs) (e.g., IAEA, 
OPCW, BWC ISU, WCO, EU, OSCE, OAS, NATO, CIS, ARF, African 
Union, Arab League, etc. as included in Comprehensive Review). 
 
STATE 00127434  002 OF 004 
 
 
-- Outline the need for a clear role for 1540 
non-proliferation issues in the Common Strategy paper for the 
Security Council committees established pursuant to 
resolutions 1267, 1373, and 1540 committees. 
 
-- Stress the linkage between Committee analysis and the 
assessment matrix and note the benefits of the Committee 
providing periodic updates of data it has collected for use 
by national agencies (e.g., to inform such areas as export 
control dialogues). 
 
-- Include recommendations that encourage the use of national 
penalties and both national and regional preventive 
enforcement measures against violators of export control laws 
or other 1540 obligations, as well as efforts to develop 
models of regional cooperation such as the EU-control lists. 
 
-- Refrain from linking improving export controls or other 
1540 obligations with a humanitarian assistance or human 
rights agenda. 
 
-- Provide reference to and support for work with civil 
society, especially industry and nongovernmental 
organizations that provide 1540-related expertise and 
assistance. 
 
End text 
 
¶4.  (U) Reporting deadline.  Post is requested to deliver 
para 3 points during informal working group meetings and 
report results NLT December 18, 2009. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Washington's assessment of the comprehensive review 
stresses the following: 
 
-- The Comprehensive Review gave states and Intergovernmental 
Organizations (IGOs) the opportunity to present views on the 
future of UNSCR 1540.  The process has laid a good foundation 
but we remain largely the only state providing both ideas and 
significant funding, aside from the European Union, Norway, 
and Canada (who unfortunately do not sit on the Council 
Committee). 
 
-- The results of outreach and initiatives since the adoption 
of UNSCR 1540 demonstrated international commitment to the 
non-proliferation goals of the resolution, and commitment to 
developing the broadest ideas for the Comprehensive Review 
outcome. 
 
-- Capacity building and encouragement of further 
implementation of resolution 1540 ) not sanctions ) is the 
clear way forward.  Moreover, the United States recognizes 
that a "one size fits all" approach is not suitable for the 
various requirements unique to each state. 
 
-- UN Member States strongly support the Committee because 
they view the United Nations as a vehicle for ensuring that 
infrastructure is in place to implement Security Council 
resolutions. 
 
-- States see regional efforts as important to complement and 
support the work of the 1540 Committee and its 
recommendations.  Effective nonproliferation cooperation is 
now imbedded in over two-dozen regional and intergovernmental 
organizations because of UNSCR 1540. 
 
-- The Stanley Foundation and UN ODA co-sponsored a 
conference of civil society organizations on the sidelines of 
the UNSCR 1540 Comprehensive Review, focusing on the 
challenges of implementation.  Several dozen NGOs 
 
STATE 00127434  003 OF 004 
 
 
participated, along with some industry groups.   The EU 
intervened with a call for more civil society involvement in 
1540 implementation, which we support. 
 
-- This committee apparatus is potentially a powerful policy 
tool, yet some broader UN membership still sees these 
structures imposing burdensome requirements (particularly 
reporting requirements) and other legal obligations without 
the benefit of tangible capacity-building. 
 
-- There is support for yet another Committee extension 
provided we work toward an even better coordinated, better 
funded, and more inclusive approach toward the work of the 
1540 Committee. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
TEXT TO USE IN EXPLAINING USG VIEWS ON COMMON STRATEGY 
--------------------------------------------- --------- 
 
¶6.  (U) USUN should draw from the following non-paper which 
was previously shared with P3 capitals. 
 
Begin non-paper: 
 
The Committee established pursuant to resolution 1540, 
stemming from the wake of the unraveling of the elaborate 
black market nuclear network of AQ Khan, is directed against 
the proliferation of WMD, their means of delivery, and 
related items.  While the scope of the resolution includes 
terrorist activities, the resolution was designed to address 
the full range of proliferation activity, including any 
non-state actor providing proliferation-related services. 
The resolution also places requirements on states to ensure 
they do not in any way contribute to or support proliferation 
activities. 
 
A robust outreach program has energized a broad 
nonproliferation dialogue in our community that encompasses 
both Treaty-based activities (NPT, CWC) as well as the 
nonproliferation dialogue in such regimes as Missile 
Technology Control Regime, Wassenaar Arrangement, Australia 
Group, and others.  We have not objected to efforts to 
refine/coordinate the two CT (1267/1373) Committees and such 
efforts should proceed.  However, the nonproliferation 
community in nearly all aspects is a different group with a 
core set of assistance programs and less direct overlaps.  We 
have supported joint briefings, workshops. and presentations 
for late-reporting states, but have not viewed efforts to 
consolidate reporting requirements or technical 
implementation workshops as needed. 
 
Each committee features legally binding obligations imposed 
under Chapter VII of the Charter, together with mechanisms 
for capacity building and technical assistance to encourage 
more robust Member State implementation of these obligations. 
 This committee apparatus is potentially a powerful policy 
tool, yet broader UN membership often sees these structures 
imposing burdensome requirements (particularly reporting 
requirements) and other legal obligations in which all but 15 
Member States have no real say.  We have been constantly 
vigilant against attempts to shift the center of gravity 
within the UN system from the UNSC to the UNGA. 
 
We seek views to ensure the Security Council carefully 
addresses efforts designed to rationalize the work of all 
three Committees.  Carefully addressing such efforts does not 
reflect opposition to improving efficiencies but does support 
the need to maintain the independence and uniqueness of the 
nonproliferation treaties and regimes.  We are interested in 
your thoughts on how, as the UNGA proceeds to implement the 
CT Strategy, and the UNSC continues its implementation of the 
CT and NP-related resolutions, there is coordination and 
cooperation between these principal organs as they go down 
their separate, mandated tracks together. 
 
 
STATE 00127434  004 OF 004 
 
 
End non-paper. 
 
¶7.  (U) Further questions or information on UNSCR 1540 can be 
directed to Tom Wuchte, U.S. 1540 Coordinator.  Basic 
background can be found on http://www.un.org/sc/1540. 
Washington appreciates Post's assistance. 
CLINTON