Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 51122 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 09MOSCOW501, FOLLOW-UP TO UNSCR 1540 PROGRAM OF WORK DEMARCHE

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #09MOSCOW501.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
09MOSCOW501 2009-03-02 04:36 2011-08-24 01:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Moscow
VZCZCXRO6164
RR RUEHDBU RUEHIK RUEHLN RUEHPOD RUEHSK RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHMO #0501/01 0610436
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 020436Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY MOSCOW
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 2183
INFO RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 5279
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0547
RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHXD/MOSCOW POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MOSCOW 000501 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL AORC KPAO PTER UNSC
 
SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP TO UNSCR 1540 PROGRAM OF WORK DEMARCHE 
 
REF: A. STATE 10774 
 B. USG EDITS TO DRAFT POW 
 
1. (SBU) Summary:  On February 26 we followed up ref A demarche to 
MFA DVBR Export Control Section Chief Aleksandr Deyneko, who told us 
the GOR's main priority for the 1540 Committee was to conduct a 
comprehensive review of the Committee's work.  He said Russia was 
prepared to accept almost all of the USG-proposed revisions to the 
Program of Work (POW), with the exception of Section 6, which deal 
with the POW's implementation.  The GOR broke silence on February 20 
because it did not have enough time to respond to the U.S. proposals 
in detail and believed the proposal to establish new working groups 
should be considered during the Comprehensive Review.  Deyneko told 
us the GOR detected some overlapping responsibilities among the 
proposed working groups, and proposed combining the three proposed 
working groups that deal with outreach into one working group. 
Deyneko expressed GOR concerns that it might not have enough 
manpower to staff four new working groups.  He also pressed for 
greater inclusion of Non-Aligned Movement Countries and for no 
deadlines to be imposed on the working groups.  End summary. 
 
------------------------------ 
GOR Wants Comprehensive Review 
------------------------------ 
 
2. (SBU) Deyneko told us the GOR's main priority for the 1540 
Committee was to conduct a comprehensive review of the Committee's 
work at set out in UNSCR 1810.  He said the GOR was "upset" because 
the proposed comprehensive review of UNSCR 1540 has not yet 
happened.  Deyneko told us the idea of establishing working groups 
should be considered by the 1540 Committee during the Comprehensive 
Review. 
 
---------------------------- 
GOR Surprised, Broke Silence 
---------------------------- 
 
3. (SBU) Deyneko told us the GOR is not opposed to USG proposals to 
revise the UNSC's 1540 Committee POW in principle, but he said the 
GOR was surprised by the ref B edits received in January.  The GOR, 
he said, had received the U.S. proposals too late to respond to them 
in detail before the February 20 deadline for silence, and so 
decided to break silence. 
 
--------------------------------------------- - 
GOR Concerns about the Proposed Working Groups 
--------------------------------------------- - 
 
4. (SBU) The GOR, Deyneko said, had concerns about the proposal to 
establish new working groups, both because of apparent overlap and 
inconsistencies in the proposals and because of staffing concerns. 
Thus, while Moscow was essentially ready to agree to the 
USG-suggested changes to the POW, with the exception of Section 6, 
"Implementation of the Program of Work," the GOR would like to 
remove the first sentence from this section, and move the rest of 
the section to Annex B. 
 
5. (SBU) Deyneko told us the GOR saw discrepancies in the division 
of labor for the working groups.  In particular, the GOR wanted to 
know how the proposed Working Group 1, which, according to Annex B 
(i) would focus mostly on matrices and modalities, would differ from 
the existing three working groups that also focus on matrices.  The 
GOR would also like to know how the groups would work together. 
 
6. (SBU) Deyneko pointed out that Annex B (ii), first tick, which 
said the Assistance and Outreach working group would "encourage, and 
provide assistance to...all states in preparing...summary action 
plans" fell under the heading that this working group would monitor 
progress on part 3 of the Eighth Program of Work, and yet in the 
body of the POW, it said that this action was under part 2.   The 
GOR also felt there was overlap between the second, third and fourth 
proposed working groups, since they all principally focused on 
outreach.  Russia proposed that these three groups be merged into 
one.  We pointed out that the different groups had different 
audiences and purposes, and would likely be staffed be people with 
different expertises. 
 
----------------- 
Manpower Shortage 
----------------- 
 
7. (SBU) Deyneko raised GOR concerns that the manpower might not be 
readily available to create the additional working groups.  Each 
working group, he said, would require a chair, members, experts, and 
 
MOSCOW 00000501  002 OF 002 
 
 
support staff.  Deyneko said that the financial crisis could make it 
difficult for the GOR to find enough people to staff new positions. 
 
 
8. (SBU) Deyneko said the GOR was also concerned by a provision in 
Annex B(i) of ref B that stipulates a Monitoring and Implementation 
working group would "consider quantitative measures of success 
within the terms of resolutions 1540 (2004), 1673 (2006), and 1810 
(2008)."  Deyneko said this would require much cumbersome work to 
accomplish and was not likely produce any useful results. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
Wanted:  Greater Inclusion of Non-Aligned Movement 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
9. (SBU) Deyneko told us that Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) states 
have complained that the P5 largely dictates the work of UN 
programs.  It may be necessary, he said, to expand the 1540 
Committee to give NAM states a greater voice in its activities. 
This would make the 1540 Committee more effective and promote 
transparency, he argued. 
 
------------------- 
No Deadlines Wanted 
------------------- 
 
10. (SBU) Deyneko told us the GOR was wary to impose deadlines on 
the working groups.  The UNSCR 1810 Committee, he argued, has a 
history of not meeting deadlines, and so it is unrealistic to expect 
the proposed Monitoring and Implementation working group to make its 
recommendations for revisions of matrices by June 2009, as 
stipulated in Annex B of ref B.  He also doubted that the proposed 
Assistance and Outreach working group would meet its deadline of 
December 31, 2009.  Deyneko also argued that the Committee, in some 
manner, should evaluate its last five years of work.  We pushed 
back, arguing that deadlines were necessary to focus and move 
forward the work of the working groups. 
 
BEYRLE