UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 USOSCE 000039
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,
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
Â¶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.
Â¶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.
Â¶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.
Â¶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
Security Dialogue on Small Arms and Light Weapons
Â¶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.
Â¶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.
Â¶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.
Â¶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.)
Â¶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"
Â¶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
Â¶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
"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.
Â¶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
Â¶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
The UK's Vienna Document "package"
Â¶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.)
Â¶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
Â¶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
Â¶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.
Â¶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.
Â¶19. (SBU) The next FSC Plenary and Working Groups are
scheduled for February 17.