Viewing cable 10USOSCE39
Title: SUBJECT: OSCE: FEB. 10 FSC FOCUS ON SALW AND

IdentifierCreatedReleasedClassificationOrigin
10USOSCE392010-02-12 16:43:00 2011-08-30 01:44:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Mission USOSCE
VZCZCXRO2886
PP RUEHAST RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSL
RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0039/01 0431643
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 121643Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6886
INFO RUCNCFE/CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE PRIORITY
RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE PRIORITY
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHMCSUU/EUCOM POLAD VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMCSUU/SACEUR POLAD SHAPE BE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/USAREUR POLAD HEIDELBERG GE PRIORITY
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 USOSCE 000039 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, EUR/CARC, 
SCA/CEN, SCA/RA, PM/WRA, ISN/CPI 
NSC FOR SHERWOOD-RANDALL, HAYDEN, MCFAUL, HOVENIER, 
NILSSON, FRIEDT 
OSD FOR ISA (WALLENDER, KEHL) 
JCS, EUCOM, USAREUR AND CENTCOM: FOR J-5 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OSCE PARM PREL KCFE RS XG
SUBJECT: SUBJECT:  OSCE: FEB. 10 FSC FOCUS ON SALW AND 
VIENNA DOCUMENT 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  This and next week's Forum on Security 
Cooperation focus on Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) in 
accordance with Ministerial Decision 15/09, which tasks the 
FSC to develop a Plan of Action by May 2010.  Working Group 
"A" reviewed the Danish and UK proposals on improving the 
Vienna Document.  Both proposals garnered support around the 
table, though many delegations ) including Russia -- remain 
uninstructed at the moment.  The working group also discussed 
the Austrian proposal for a reference guide in support of the 
Code of Conduct Questionnaire, which now has garnered eight 
co-sponsors.  The U.S. met separately this week with Greece 
and the CPC to work out issues related to the 
Food-for-thought SALW; a draft revision will be shared with 
the U.S. before circulation at the FSC.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Under Agenda Item 1 General Statements, the UK 
(Cliff) announced the MOD's green paper, "adaptability and 
Partnership: Issues for a Strategic Defense Review" was 
available as of February 3 through its webpage (www.mod.uk). 
He said the goal was to decide the future shape and role of 
the armed forces in the first Strategic Review since 1998. 
The UK noted key focal points were 1) Afghanistan remained 
the main effort but the UK must also prepare for the future; 
2) domestic security was dependent upon a stable, rules-based 
international order; 3) the UK Defense posture must be 
adaptable, flexible and agile to respond to risks; 4) 
reaffirmed commitment to strengthen regional organizations 
("like OSCE"); 5) strengthen Allied relations; and support 
international collaboration in defense acquisitions. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The CPC (Salber) briefed on the end-of-January 
conclusion of the first (470 tons) of six cycles for the 
soviet-era rocket fuel (melange) elimination project in 
Ukraine.  CPC noted the second cycle (480 tons) was underway, 
and a progress report would be available in the coming week. 
Salber also noted the need for additional funding to remove 
an estimated 16,000 tons of highly toxic and volatile 
melange, and thanked those pS who have already donated to the 
project.  Salber acknowledged negotiations with the U.S. on a 
possible contribution to this project.  Donor pS Denmark, 
Finland, and Sweden made statements in support of the project 
and appealed for both additional funding and donors to help 
cover the estimated 10 million Euros necessary to fully 
finance the melange elimination project in Ukraine. 
 
¶4. (SBU) The UK announced it was making an extra-budgetary 
donation of 15,000 Euros for Task Nine of the Comprehensive 
Program to address SALW storage site concerns in the 
Kyrgyzstan.  Kyrgyzstan expressed appreciation and asked for 
additional donors. 
 
Security Dialogue on Small Arms and Light Weapons 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Under Agenda Item 2, the FSC received presentations 
from Fabio della Piazza of the Council of the EU Office of 
the High Representative's Personal Representative on 
Non-Proliferation of WMD (which also handles SALW issues), 
and from Daniel Prins, Chief of the Conventional Arms Branch 
of the UN Office on Disarmament Affairs.  (Note: The Greek 
FSC Chair (Marinaki) reminded pS that this plenary was the 
first of two dealing exclusively with SALW issues "in 
accordance with the spirit" of Ministerial Decision 15/09 on 
SALW.  Next week's plenary features Ambassador Sune 
Danielsson, Head of the Secretariat Wassenaar Arrangement. 
End note.) 
 
¶6. (SBU) Piazza's presentation covered the Arms Trade Treaty 
(ATT) from an EU perspective.  Prins focused on the Biennial 
Meeting of States (BMS), noting regional implementation was 
the "least developed" dimension of the UN Plan of Action 
(PoA), and advocating for OSCE to align its regional 
 
USOSCE 00000039  002 OF 004 
 
 
activities to the two-year UN reporting cycle to inform on 
national and regional progress. Spain/EU (Anson) emphasized 
the need for prevention, cooperative strategies, and 
multilateralism in support of an ATT. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour) advocated improved 
implementation of existing measures within the OSCE, 
attention to the UN PoA, support for the UN international 
Tracing Instrument, and recommendations on brokering controls 
from the UN Group of Experts.  Turkey (Bekar) noted linkages 
between illicit trade in SALW and terrorism. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The intervention from a Russian SALW expert from 
Moscow was a singular oddity.  He expressed confusion over 
the relationship between ATT and SALW, asking delegates to 
"bear in mind nuances" as the discussion was "outside the 
scope of the OSCE."  He emphasized the importance of 
establishing controls throughout the SALW life-cycle from 
production to trade and the need for legally binding 
standards to prevent illicit trafficking, and raised concerns 
about trade in SALW to areas of conflict, noting the case of 
weapons to Georgia prior to the August 2008 conflict. 
(Comment: We do not believe he was properly briefed on the 
FSC format and mandate. End comment.) 
 
¶9. (SBU) In a response to Sweden, della Piazza opined that 
linking ammunition to SALW could add value to the UN 
discussion (note:  Russia argued the link was "tenuous" 
because SALW and ammunition were "very different 
discussions."  End note.)  Prins said the OSCE could play a 
role in helping coordinate national responses to UN processes 
to streamline, but not duplicate activities. 
 
Working Groups "B" and "A" 
-------------------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) There were no topics discussed under Working Group 
"B."  Working Group "A" focused on the Danish and UK Food for 
Thought papers respectively on Vienna Document 1999 (VD99); 
the Greek Food for Thought paper on an SALW OSCE Plan of 
Action; and the Austrian "reference guide" to the Code of 
Conduct Questionnaire. 
 
Vienna Document-Plus 
-------------------- 
 
¶11. (SBU) Following Denmark's (re-)presentation of its paper 
on "VD-plus" to establish a procedure for incorporating 
relevant FSC Decisions into VD99 (FSC.DEL/9/10), Germany 
(Risse) made a strong statement in support of the proposal 
and offered up language that ) once accepted ) Germany 
could co-sponsor.  Germany proposed adding to the draft 
decision: 
 
"To include in all upcoming FSC decisions to update the 
Vienna Document precise wording on how to change the 
respective parts of the current version." 
 
Germany also questioned the utility of the proposed five-year 
Vienna Document Review Meeting (VDRM), considering the length 
of time it takes to "take a decision" (sic).  Furthermore 
Germany challenged the association of the proposed VDRM with 
Rules of Procedure that would govern a "special FSC meeting" 
intended for administrative decisions only. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Switzerland (Halter) underscored that "nothing can 
be agreed until everything was agreed," and raised questions 
about the modalities for a VDRM, especially regarding 
"automatic updates."  He called developing a calendar 
"premature", and asked for clarification of the Danish 
proposal in the light of discussions in the Corfu Process. 
Sweden (Byren) pointed out future decisions should be as 
 
USOSCE 00000039  003 OF 004 
 
 
close as possible to the agreed rules of procedure, adding, 
"with a better calendar and following agreed rules of 
procedure Sweden could support the Danish proposal."  Italy 
(Negro) and Austria (Eischer) complemented the proposal as a 
good procedural framework.  Austria agreed to the German 
language addition. 
 
¶13. (SBU Denmark (Petersen) also accepted the German proposed 
language addition as "in line with Denmark's idea."  In 
response to Switzerland, Petersen noted the special challenge 
of attempting to incorporate agreed decisions into VD99 
without having to take a major decision to make additions. 
He said the five-year cycle was precisely to give guidance 
and institutional knowledge to FSC newcomers at regular 
intervals, but Denmark would be open to discuss what 
intervals work best.  In response to Sweden, Petersen pointed 
out the proposal allowed one month for the implementation of 
a VD-plus provision to address any confusion and to sort out 
any resource implications.  Denmark was not planning to issue 
a revised version of its proposal until after input from more 
pS. 
 
The UK's Vienna Document "package" 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶14. (SBU) The UK (Gare) reiterated its intent to provide a 
substantive package on measures for updating VD99 to "kick 
start" negotiations, and was open for co-sponsors.  Denmark 
noted the complementarities between its VD-plus proposal and 
the UK "package."  Sweden called the UK proposal a first step 
on moving forward with strengthening VD99.  France (Simonet) 
called it a sensible way to move forward. 
 
(Note: France told USDel just prior to the FSC, it decided 
not to table its own Food-for-Thought paper to avoid 
complicating the effort to get consensus on the UK 
initiative.  This decision was reached following a 
U.S.-France-UK luncheon on February 9, where the UK (Gare) 
appealed to France to delay circulating the French paper 
until after the UK effort was successful.  Afterwards, Gare 
told Simonet that afterwards she would support the French 
proposal which -- to our understanding ) was circulated only 
among the U.S., UK, and Germany.  End note.) 
 
¶15. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov), though "uninstructed," welcomed 
the Danish and UK proposals as interesting and reasonable. 
He called the German addition "tenable."  Regarding the focus 
on Chapters V and IX of VD99, Ulyanov suggested the proposed 
"package" probably would need to be revised.  He requested 
CPC to circulate a compilation of relevant FSC texts and 
decisions, including Chairman's statements, regarding changes 
to VD99. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Comment:  The Holy See (Tempesta) made a surprising 
intervention recalling the sequence of events that led up to 
the decision creating VD99, including a "line-by-line review 
of the whole document, and advocated for identifying a 
facilitator to assist in keeping the FSC on task.  Luxembourg 
(Pilot) endorsed the idea of a facilitator and supported 
focusing on Chapters V and IX.  Russia was unenthusiastic 
with the suggestion of a facilitator as proven 
"insufficient."  The UK called the suggestion "biting off 
more than we can chew."  We suspect that most delegations 
would wholeheartedly agree with the UK comment.  End comment. 
 
SALW and Code of Conduct 
------------------------ 
 
¶17. (SBU) Sweden, Germany, and France made statements in 
support of the Greek paper on developing an SALW Plan of 
Action (FSC.DEL/213/09).  Russia called the Greek proposal 
"difficult to judge procedurally" and suggested there needed 
 
USOSCE 00000039  004 OF 004 
 
 
more analysis of what has been done and how many pS comply 
with the OSCE Document on SALW.  Note: U.S., Greece, CPC, 
Sweden (as chair of the informal working group on SALW), and 
Hungary (as incoming FSC Chair) went over U.S. comments on 
the Greek proposal separately from the FSC.  Greece will 
provide a marked-up copy for Washington's review before 
moving forward on any revisions for further consideration in 
the FSC Working Group "A."   End note. 
 
¶18. (SBU) Austria's Food for Thought paper on the reference 
guide for the Code of Conduct Questionnaire (FSC.DEL/14/10) 
garnered co-sponsorships from UK, Germany, Norway, Sweden, 
Switzerland, Hungary, Finland and Canada.  Italy said 
preliminary reviews of the Austrian proposal were positive. 
 
¶19. (SBU) The next FSC Plenary and Working Groups are 
scheduled for February 17. 
FULLER