SUBJECT SUBJECT: OSCE: FEB. 10 FSC FOCUS ON SALW AND
DATE 2010-02-12 00:00:00
CLASSIFICATION UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
ORIGIN Mission USOSCE
TEXT 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, 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 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.
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 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 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.
PP RUEHAST RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSL
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
XTAGS: XTAGOSCE, XTAGPARM, XTAGPREL, XTAGKCFE, XTAGRS, XTAGXG
ADDED 2011-08-24 01:00:00
STAMP 2011-08-24 23:01:53