US embassy cable - 05WELLINGTON275

C O N F I D E N T I A L WELLINGTON 000275 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR NP/CBM VAN DIEPEN; EAP/ANZ 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/01/2015 
TAGS: KSCA, PARM, PREL, MNUC, ETTC, TSPA 
SUBJECT: MISSILE TECHNOLOGY CONTROL REGIME (MTCR) -- NEW 
ZEALAND CHEWS OVER 2006 CHAIRMANSHIP 
 
REF: A. HADDA/VAN DIEPEN 3/31 E-MAILS (NOTAL) 
     B. SECSTATE 57321 
 
Classified By: Political-Economic Counselor Katherine Hadda, 
for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D). 
 
1.  (C) Summary: New Zealand officials are considering 
whether the country should serve as the Missile Technology 
Control Regime (MTCR) Chair for 2006-7, as suggested by 
current Chair South Korea and quietly endorsed by the United 
States and Australia.  The officials will be unable to make a 
decision by the April 6 RPOC, although they hope to have an 
answer later that week.  A key concern seems to be whether 
GNZ has enough personnel on hand to manage the work 
associated with Chairmanship.  End Summary. 
 
2. (C) Reftel asked the Embassy to encourage New Zealand 
officials to consider positively South Korea's suggestion 
that New Zealand host the 2006 Missile Technology Control 
Regime (MTCR) Plenary and serve as MTCR Chair for 2006-7.  On 
March 31, Pol-Econ Counselor delivered the request to 
Caroline McDonald, Director of the Disarmament Division at 
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT). 
 
3.  (C) McDonald said that the South Koreans had raised this 
suggestion with New Zealand's Ambassador in Seoul, and then 
again through the South Korean Embassy in Wellington.  She 
said that as the initial request was made just before last 
week's Easter break, Ministers were only just now having the 
question put to them whether New Zealand should accept the 
Chair.  For this reason, the Kiwis will be unable to reach a 
decision before the April 5 RPOC meeting.  McDonald said she 
hopes a decision will be made shortly thereafter. 
 
4.  (C) McDonald noted with a bit of consternation that the 
South Koreans had implied to the NZ Ambassador that very 
little work would be involved in chairing the MTCR.  In 
reality, the scale of operations would be large, requiring 
the hosting of two meetings in parallel with the plenary, an 
April RPOC meeting, and others.  There would also be a lot of 
outreach required, McDonald said, listing as examples South 
Korea's contacts with Pakistan, India, Syria, Iran, the UAE, 
and Egypt, all slated between now and June.  McDonald 
stressed that MFAT has just 6 officials covering all 
disarmament and non-proliferation issues in addition to 
export controls. She added as a comparative afterthought that 
there would of course be other considerations Ministers would 
take into account in making their decision, but she did not 
elaborate on what these would be. 
 
5.  (C) Pol-Econ Couns acknowledged that MFAT's staff is 
small.  She told McDonald that in similar circumstances, USG 
agencies often make use of secondments from other sections 
and even other agencies.  McDonald agreed this might be 
possible in New Zealand, although other ministries may also 
be short of extra staff.  Following an e-mail exchange with 
NP/CBM Acting Director Van Diepen, Pol-Econ Counselor also 
told McDonald that New Zealand could also rely on the 
expertise of past Chairs and other MTCR members.  McDonald 
appreciated the suggestion. 
 
6.  (C) Comment: Undoubtedly factors other than staffing will 
go into Ministers' decision on whether to take the Chair, but 
in this small government the views of working-level officials 
will be taken seriously into account.  When DCM and Pol-Econ 
Counselor meet (on an unrelated matter) with Minister for 
Disarmament Marion Hobbs on April 4, we will again encourage 
New Zealand to consider the Chairmanship and highlight that 
there are ways to handle the manpower problem. 
 
. 
Burnett