US embassy cable - 05THEHAGUE1560

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 001560 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/02/2015 
TAGS: PARM, PREL, NL 
SUBJECT: THE NETHERLANDS ON SA/LW NEGOTIATIONS ON MARKING 
AND TRACING 
 
REF: A. STATE 99866 
 
     B. DEAN-PICO EMAIL 06/01/05 (NOTAL) 
 
Classified By: CLASSIFIED BY POLITICAL COUNSELOR ANDREW SCHOFER FOR REA 
SONS 1.4 (B AND D) 
 
 1. (C) PolMilOff delivered ref A demarche points to Dutch 
MFA Arms Transfer Policy Office Director Paul van den IJssel 
on June 1 (reported ref B) and followed up with him and 
action officer Marijn van Blom on June 3.  Van den IJssel 
said that after the recent NPT RevCon, a positive result at 
the June 6-17 session of negotiations on marking and tracing 
of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SA/LW) would at least give a 
"glimmer of hope" in the realm of multilateral disarmament. 
The GONL wants concrete results on marking and tracing, as 
well as on brokering and arms transfers, which perhaps might 
one day lead to an international agreement.  While 
acknowledging the U.S. preference for a politically binding 
agreement, van den IJssel said the Dutch (and the EU) attach 
great importance to securing a legally binding instrument. 
Van den IJssel said the U.S. position was harder to 
understand since U.S. legislation on the subject is 
"exemplary."  In addition, he said the U.S. view also seemed 
inconsistent with its concerns that the EU's Code of Conduct 
on arms transfers is not legally binding as noted in 
discussions about the EU China arms embargo.  Finally, given 
that the UN Firearms Protocol is legally binding, van den 
IJssel said that a subsequent agreement that is not legally 
binding might dilute the force of the former.  The GONL 
understands that if the USG makes political commitments they 
will be kept; however, it believes this instrument may be 
more important for "less well-administered" states such as in 
Africa.  According to van den IJssel, African governments 
have told the GONL they need a legally binding instruments to 
force compliance by their own personnel. 
 
2. (C) Concerning ammunition, the GONL (along with the EU) 
still believes this would be a helpful addition to an 
agreement.  Van den IJssel said the GONL understands that a 
change in U.S. legislation would be required, "but that's 
part of any negotiation."  He conceded the U.S. point that 
much ammunition had a short life cycle but said that some 
remains in stocks for longer periods of time.  The Dutch note 
that the language on arms is legally binding, while the 
current text on ammunition is not as strong.  Regarding 
additional U.S. points as noted ref A, van den IJssel said 
other countries have also expressed concern about the 30-year 
requirement for record keeping and suggested this be 
discussed further in New York.  The GONL agrees with U.S. 
position on marking at the time of importation (as does the 
rest of the EU). 
 
3. (C) The Dutch hope that a consensus document can be 
achieved in New York that includes all major arms producing 
and exporting countries.  Van den IJssel said the issue had 
been discussed in regular EU Troika meetings with other 
countries, and the Dutch impression is that most states 
support a legally binding agreement.  He was surprised that 
the Russians did not express particular concern about the 
agreement.  They expect the Chinese to follow consensus.  The 
Dutch would appreciate the chance to discuss this issue 
further with U.S. delegation members further next week in New 
York. 
SOBEL