Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 4489 / 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
QA
YI YM YE

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 08LONDON2185, UK RESPONSE TO MTCR SMALL GROUP PROPOSAL: AGREEMENT "IN PRINCIPLE" BUT SOME QUESTIONS REF: STATE 85940

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. #08LONDON2185.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
08LONDON2185 2008-08-22 16:04 2011-02-04 21:09 CONFIDENTIAL Embassy London
VZCZCXYZ0020
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHLO #2185 2351628
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 221628Z AUG 08
FM AMEMBASSY LONDON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9578
INFO RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 2669
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 0797
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 3273
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 1165
C O N F I D E N T I A L LONDON 002185 

SIPDIS 

STATE FOR ISN/MTR - PAM DURHAM E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/21/2018 

TAGS: MTCRE ETTC KSCA PARM PREL AU FR GM JA UK

SUBJECT: UK RESPONSE TO MTCR SMALL GROUP PROPOSAL: AGREEMENT "IN PRINCIPLE" BUT SOME QUESTIONS REF: STATE 85940 

Classified By: Political Counselor Richard M. Mills, Jr. for reasons 1.4 (b), (d), (h)

1. (U) This is an action request for State ISN/MTR. Please see paragraph 5.

2. (C) Summary. Although the UK supports "in principle" the U.S. proposal for Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) outreach to non-MTCR countries, HMG has posed several questions regarding the implementation and potential impact of the proposal. These questions are set forth in paragraph

4. End Summary.

3. (C) Martin Gillen, Missile Policy Desk Officer in the WMD Controls Policy Section of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Counter Proliferation Department told Poloff August 18 that the UK supports the notion of getting nations "outside the club a bit closer in" and consequently agrees with the U.S. approach, as outlined in reftel non-paper. In regard to the U.S. revised proposal, he noted that the UK was "happy enough with the U.S. proposal in the first place" and promised a more detailed, written response.

4. (C) Gillen e-mailed Poloff August 21. The text of the substantive portion of his response (slightly edited) follows: "I can confirm that the UK supports the principle of the proposal, and we feel this would be a useful way to engage with a number of interested non-partners in one sitting. However, we do feel that there may be some issues over the practicalities/logistics of holding such an event. Our main thoughts are as follows: --Will non-Partners be willing/able to afford to send a policy and technical representative to a European meeting for one day? Technical experts (possibly more than one) are essential to understand the detail of the presentations that may go over the heads of policy makers. --Could a regional workshop/seminar deliver the same message and would non-Partners favor this approach? --We would have to be cautious over raising expectations over membership/observer status (as recognized in the paper). The scope of the agenda should be limited to informing non-partners of factual information relating to changes to the technical annex -- anything outside this could be contentious. --Consideration should be taken about which MTCR representatives can best deliver the message (i.e. just TEM Chair or various experts from the delegations)? --Questions from non-Partners could pose problems. For example, they can realistically be expected to ask about current work on the stocks or future areas of MTCR technical work; an agreed Q&A is probably needed to avoid exposing some sensitive issues!" End Text.

5.(SBU) Action request for State ISN/MTR: Embassy requests guidance in replying to above response from HMG. Visit London's Classified Website: XXXXXXXXXXXX
LEBARON