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 09PARIS1194, FRENCH FEEDBACK ON U.S. AUSTRALIA GROUP PROPOSALS

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. #09PARIS1194.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
09PARIS1194 2009-09-01 13:02 2011-08-24 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Embassy Paris
VZCZCXRO6556
RR RUEHAG RUEHAST RUEHDA RUEHDBU RUEHDF RUEHFL RUEHIK RUEHKW RUEHLA
RUEHLN RUEHLZ RUEHNP RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSL RUEHSR RUEHVK
RUEHYG
DE RUEHFR #1194 2441302
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 011302Z SEP 09 ZDS
FM AMEMBASSY PARIS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7072
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
UNCLAS PARIS 001194 
 
C O R R E C T E D COPY (SENSITIVE ADDED) 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
ISN/CB FOR ASOUZA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM ETTC FR
SUBJECT: FRENCH FEEDBACK ON U.S. AUSTRALIA GROUP PROPOSALS 
 
REF: A. STATE 87595 
     B. STATE 87596 
     C. STATE 87597 
     D. STATE 88010 
 
1. (SBU) SUMMARY. With several specific exceptions, France is 
generally supportive of U.S. proposals for the September 
21-25 Australia Group plenary.  Specific feedback is 
summarized below in informal translation, arranged by reftel. 
 The original responses, in French, will be sent separately 
by email to POC.  Post notes that, in response to Ref A, the 
GOF supports the creation of an experts group to discuss 
chemical micro-reactors, but prefers that such a group be 
restricted to government experts and not include industry 
representatives. END SUMMARY. 
 
2. (SBU) Summary of French response to Ref A (STATE 87595): 
The Australia Group (AG) currently does not currently deal 
with micro-reactors, which can however produce between 20 - 
300 milliliters per minute but are small enough to fit into 
compact locations.  They can also produce chemical agents 
with a level of purity that reduces the need for extra 
purification stages and the amount of waste produced.  Before 
submitting these production systems to AG control, it is 
necessary to answer the following questions: what are the 
current production capabilities of micro-reactors? How are 
they integrated into the chemical industry?  What are 
emerging trends?  France also supports the creation of a 
group of experts to examine the proliferation risks of micro- 
and meso-reactors.  However, France prefers that this group 
be restricted to governmental exports, who would be 
responsible for liaising with their national industry. 
 
3. (SBU) Summary of French response to Ref B (STATE 87596): 
The addition of a technical note under the "Valves" section 
(NOTE: French original incorrectly references item "number 9" 
here. END NOTE) clarifying the term "nominal size" is logical 
and acceptable.  However, the technical note under the 
"Pumps" section restricting the term rotors to vacuum pump 
rotors only is too restrictive, since other types of pumps, 
including centrifuge pumps, also have rotors. 
 
4. (SBU) Summary of French response to Ref C (STATE 87597): 
France supports the addition of a technical note specifying 
that listed alloys are those that "contain a higher 
percentage by weight" of the named metal than any other 
metal.  Setting a lower limit of a 35% by weight fluorine 
composition for controlled fluoropolymers is also logical. 
Since the compounds with the lowest amount of fluorine by 
weight contain 39%, the lower limit could even be set at 38% 
or 39%.  Regarding the technical note on ferrosilicon, it 
would be logical to clarify that the controlled ferrosilicon 
alloys in the "Pumps" section are those containing 10-18% 
silicon to distinguish them from other silicon-containing 
alloys.  Due to the anti-corrosive and anti-abrasive 
properties of certain ceramic materials, France also agrees 
on the need to include mention of ceramics in the control 
language in the "Pumps" section.  However, this language 
should also be maintained in the "Valves" section, as 
recently added. 
 
5. (SBU) Summary of French response to Ref D (STATE 88010): 
The argument to add a technical note to set a control 
threshold of 2.5 millimeters or greater for fluoropolymer 
coatings on products is convincing.  However, although a 2.5 
millimeter coating is necessary to protect against abrasion, 
coatings as thin as 0.75 millimeters could protect against 
corrosion.  Therefore, a lower threshold of 1, 1.5, or 2 
millimeters might be considered, although administratively it 
will be necessary for the control limits for anti-corrosion 
and anti-abrasion coatings to be identical, given the 
practical impossibility of determining whether the end user 
wishes to protect against corrosion or abrasion. 
RIVKIN