Cablegate: South Africa: International Nucelar Safegurds

VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHSA #5005/01 3461316
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 121316Z DEC 06
FM AMEMBASSY PRETORIA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7275
INFO RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS PRETORIA 005005

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED
SIPDIS

DEPT FOR AF/S ISN/NESS
ENERGY PASS TO MMANNING, JKERR, SFRAZER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ENRG PARM PREL ETTC MNUC AORC KNNP KTIA IAEA
SF
SUBJECT: SOUTH AFRICA: INTERNATIONAL NUCELAR SAFEGURDS
COOPERATION RESPONSE

REF: STATE 190583

1. (SBU) This is an Action Cable -- See paragraphs 6 and 8.

2. (SBU) Summary. South Africa Department of Minerals and
Energy (DME) Nuclear Chief Tseliso Maquebela requested that
the two R&D agreeements under consideration be separated so
that South African approval for one of the agreements can
prcoeed alone. Maquebela also suggests a name change for the
Agreement for Cooperation in Research and Development in
Nuclear Material Safeguards Technologies (Safegurards
Cooperation Agreement), (Catherine - anything to add here?)
End Summary.

3. (SBU) Per reftel, a non-paper regarding the Safeguards
Cooperation Agreement was delivered to the Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA)
on . said
that (Catherine: please complete details here
as to response/reaction from DFA.)

4. (SBU) Econoff met with DME Nuclear Chief Tseliso Maquebela
and delivered a copy of the non-paper December 7. Comment:
Poloff later noted to econoff that it had previously
requested that DFA provide Maquebela with a copy of the
non-paper and that Maquebela had likely received the
non-paper two weeks prior. End Comment. Maquebela stated
that of all the nuclear energy issues between the U.S. and
South Africa, the Safeguards Cooperation Agreement is the
only one that is "making his life difficult". Maquebela said
that his first issue with the agreement, now resolved, was
the need to understand how the agreement fit with a circa
1995 broader nuclear cooperation agreement between the U.S.
and South Africa. Maquebela stated that he now understands
that both the Cooperation Agreement and the other Nuclear
Energy R&D Agreement are subsidiary agreements. Maquebela
then stated that his current issue deals with whether or not
the Safeguards Cooperation Agreement encroaches on the
multilateral function of the IAEA and on the individual IAEA
member states themselves. Maquebela asked econoff "is this
not an IAEA agreement?" Econoff responded to Maquebela by
citing text of the non-paper where the objectives of the
agreement within the context of the IAEA are clearly
deliniated. Maquebela commented that SAG does not have this
type of agreement with any other country and feels that the
agreement encroaches on SAG's ties to multilateral
institutions at the same time they are trying to strengthen
these relations. Note Presumably, Maquebela was referring to
the IAEA as the multilateral institution. End Note.

5. (SBU) Maquebela stated that while he agrees with the
objectives of the agreement, he objects to the use of the
term "Safeguards". He asked if this word could be deleted
from the title of the agreement and instead suggested
entitling the agreement "Verification Technology Cooperation
Agreement". Maquebela said that re-naming the agreement would
make it easier for him to gain SAG approval. He admitted
that the key decision makers regarding the agreement are at
the DFA. (Catherine - should we make a comment or note here
that presumably Maquebela means "Minty"?) Maquebela
requested that Post contact him within the next two weeks
with an answer on changing the name of the agreement. He
said that he may have further comments on the non-paper at
that time.

6. (SBU) Action request. Post requests guidance on re-naming
the Safeguards Cooperation Agreement. If re-naming the
Agreement is approved, Post requests that revised copies of
the agreement, reflecting the name change, be sent to Post.

7. (SBU) Maquebela told Econoff that he can not understand
why or if the Safeguards Cooperation Agreement is linked to
the Nuclear Energy R&D Agreement. He said that SAG would
like to proceed with signing the Nuclear Energy R&D Agreement
now. Maquebela said that the he understood from an un-named
senior U.S. Department of Energy official attending the
September IAEA General Conference that the two agreements
were linked. Maquebela requested that the two agreements be
delinked so that SAG can approve the Nuclear Energy R&D
Agreement.

8. (SBU) Action request. Post requests approval to tell SAG
that the two R&D agreements are not linked and that SAG may
approve the Nuclear Energy R&D Agreement alone.

9. (SBU) Comment: Maquebela spoke in a relaxed confident
style during the meeting with econoff. The meeting covered

the status of other outstanding U.S./SAG nuclear energy
initiatives including the return of U.S.-origin spent fuel
assemblies, the Commodities Identifictation Training program
and GIF. Joining Maquebela in the meeting was DME Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Director Elsie Monale and a newly hired
nuclear technology officer. Maquebela said that he was
pleased that progress had been made on the spent-fuel project
and expressed gratitude for training and support being
provided by the U.S.G. Maquebela further noted that he felt
that his office is finally starting to get the resources it
needs to deal with long-standing issues. End Comment.
BOST

© Scoop Media