US embassy cable - 05MADRID1687

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 MADRID 001687 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
UNVIE FOR IAEA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: TBIO, PREL, PTER, SP, WHOA 
SUBJECT: SPAIN NOT SUPPORTIVE ON WHO INTERNATIONAL HEALTH 
REGULATIONS 
 
REF: SECSTATE 73041 
 
1.  (U) ESTHOFF passed reftel points April 21 to appropriate 
MFA and Health Ministry contacts.  POLMILOFF passed reftel 
points that same day to the Defense Ministry.  The MFA 
contacted ESTHOFF to inform the Embassy that it would deliver 
the combined GOS response to our demarche.  This response was 
conveyed to ESTHOFF during an April 29 meeting with MFA 
Deputy Director General for International Technical 
Organizations Enrique Yturriaga Saldanha. 
 
2.  (SBU) Yturriaga began his points by underscoring that the 
Spanish inter-ministerial coordination process in the run-up 
to the May 12-13 WHO Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) 
meeting was still underway and that his comments should not 
be interpreted as representing Spain's "final" position. 
However, he made it quite clear from the start that there was 
serious divergence between Spanish and U.S. views regarding 
what would constitute ideal International Health Regulations 
(IHRs). 
 
3.  (SBU) Yturriaga, who noted that he had spent many years 
in Geneva as a GOS arms control and disarmament negotiator, 
said that the U.S. positions, as outlined in reftel points, 
threatened to "contaminate" the WHO with issues that have 
traditionally been addressed in arms control and disarmament 
fora.  He said he understood the impetus for U.S. policy, 
(e.g., 9/11), but that Spain simply does not agree that the 
WHO is an appropriate forum for such issues.  Yturriaga noted 
that Spain found it somewhat ironic that the U.S. would be 
trying to expand the WHO's mandates, while simultaneously 
arguing in other WHO negotiations to cut the organization's 
overall budget. 
 
4.  (SBU) Yturriaga said that the "intentional/accidental" 
release debate had already taken place in other Geneva 
disarmament negotiations (presumably the CWC and BWC) and 
that the consensus that emerged from these earlier debates 
could be applied to the WHO's IHRs. 
 
5.  (SBU) Regarding the issue of "reservations," Spain 
strongly disagrees with the U.S. proposal to require at least 
a two-thirds threshold for rejection and believes it should 
be much lower.  He said Spain believes countries should not 
sign international legal instruments if they plan to issue 
significant reservations. 
 
6.  (SBU) Regarding "Federal-State" concerns, Yturriaga said 
that this was a domestic U.S. concern and that Washington 
should not bring this up during the negotiation of 
international legal instruments.  He stressed that other 
states, including Spain, also face similar concerns, but 
address them via domestic implementation law/regulation. 
 
7.  (SBU) Finally, regarding applicability to the armed 
forces, Spain believes that such international legal 
instruments automatically apply to all, including the armed 
forces.  Any additional language, such as that suggested in 
the U.S. points, would only serve to weaken IHR reporting 
requirements. 
 
8.  (SBU) COMMENT:  It was immediately clear that Yturriaga's 
views have been colored by his years as a Geneva arms 
control/disarmament negotiator.  His mantra during the entire 
conversation was that virtually every point raised by ESTHOFF 
had already been thrashed over in several Geneva fora.   It 
was also clear that Yturriaga is quite critical of what he 
perceives to be U.S. efforts to address its justified 
terrorism-related concerns in a variety of inappropriate 
multilateral fora.  Finally, Yturriaga made it clear that the 
MFA was in the inter-agency driver's seat and that what he 
was telling ESTHOFF would guide Spain's hand on May 12-3. 
Our bottom line.  Don't look for much help from Spain.  What 
was missing was the new (since Prime Minister Zapatero's 
March 2004 election victory) "EU consensus" line we now 
generally hear from our GOS interlocutors.  However, the 
stronger impetus to follow the EU consensus position may 
indeed be what is driving the GOS position on the WHO IHRs. 
MANZANARES