Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 97115 / 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
ETRD EAGR ETTC EAID ECON EFIN ECIN EINV ELAB EAIR ENRG EPET EWWT ECPS EIND EMIN ELTN EC ETMIN EUC EZ ET ELECTIONS ENVR EU EUN EG EINT ER ECONOMICS ES EMS ENIV EEB EN ECE ECOSOC EK ENVIRONMENT EFIS EI EWT ENGRD ECPSN EXIM EIAD ERIN ECPC EDEV ENGY ECTRD EPA ESTH ECCT EINVECON ENGR ERTD EUR EAP EWWC ELTD EL EXIMOPIC EXTERNAL ETRDEC ESCAP ECO EGAD ELNT ECONOMIC ENV ETRN EIAR EUMEM ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID EREL ECOM ECONETRDEAGRJA ETCC ETRG ECONOMY EMED ETR ENERG EITC EFINOECD EURM EENG ERA EXPORT ENRD ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EGEN EBRD EVIN ETRAD ECOWAS EFTA ECONETRDBESPAR EGOVSY EPIN EID ECONENRG EDRC ESENV ETT EB ENER ELTNSNAR ECHEVARRIA ETRC EPIT EDUC ESA EFI ENRGY ESCI EE EAIDXMXAXBXFFR EETC ECIP EIAID EIVN EBEXP ESTN EING EGOV ETRA EPETEIND ELAN ETRDGK EAIDRW ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ENVI ELN EAG EPCS EPRT EPTED ETRB EUM EAIDS EFIC EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM EAIDAR ESF EIDN ELAM EDU EV EAIDAF ECN EDA EXBS EINTECPS ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EPREL EAC EINVEFIN ETA EAGER EINDIR ECA ECLAC ELAP EITI EUCOM ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID EARG ELDIN EINVKSCA ENNP EFINECONCS EFINTS ECCP ETC EAIRASECCASCID EINN ETRP EAIDNI EFQ ECOQKPKO EGPHUM EBUD ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ENERGY ELB EINDETRD EMI ECONEFIN EIB EURN ETRDEINVTINTCS EIN EFIM ETIO ELAINE EMN EATO EWTR EIPR EINVETC ETTD ETDR EIQ ECONCS EPPD ENRGIZ EISL ESPINOSA ELEC EAIG ESLCO EUREM ENTG ERD EINVECONSENVCSJA EEPET EUNCH ECINECONCS ETRO ETRDECONWTOCS ECUN EFND EPECO EAIRECONRP ERGR ETRDPGOV ECPN ENRGMO EPWR EET EAIS EAGRE EDUARDO EAGRRP EAIDPHUMPRELUG EICN ECONQH EVN EGHG ELBR EINF EAIDHO EENV ETEX ERNG ED
KMDR KPAO KPKO KJUS KCRM KGHG KFRD KWMN KDEM KTFN KHIV KGIC KIDE KSCA KNNP KHUM KIPR KSUM KISL KIRF KCOR KRCM KPAL KWBG KN KS KOMC KSEP KFLU KPWR KTIA KSEO KMPI KHLS KICC KSTH KMCA KVPR KPRM KE KU KZ KFLO KSAF KTIP KTEX KBCT KOCI KOLY KOR KAWC KACT KUNR KTDB KSTC KLIG KSKN KNN KCFE KCIP KGHA KHDP KPOW KUNC KDRL KV KPREL KCRS KPOL KRVC KRIM KGIT KWIR KT KIRC KOMO KRFD KUWAIT KG KFIN KSCI KTFIN KFTN KGOV KPRV KSAC KGIV KCRIM KPIR KSOC KBIO KW KGLB KMWN KPO KFSC KSEAO KSTCPL KSI KPRP KREC KFPC KUNH KCSA KMRS KNDP KR KICCPUR KPPAO KCSY KTBT KCIS KNEP KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNNB KGCC KINR KPOP KMFO KENV KNAR KVIR KDRG KDMR KFCE KNAO KDEN KGCN KICA KIMMITT KMCC KLFU KMSG KSEC KUM KCUL KMNP KSMT KCOM KOMCSG KSPR KPMI KRAD KIND KCRP KAUST KWAWC KTER KCHG KRDP KPAS KITA KTSC KPAOPREL KWGB KIRP KJUST KMIG KLAB KTFR KSEI KSTT KAPO KSTS KLSO KWNN KPOA KHSA KNPP KPAONZ KBTS KWWW KY KJRE KPAOKMDRKE KCRCM KSCS KWMNCI KESO KWUN KPLS KIIP KEDEM KPAOY KRIF KGICKS KREF KTRD KFRDSOCIRO KTAO KJU KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KEN KO KNEI KEMR KKIV KEAI KWAC KRCIM KWCI KFIU KWIC KCORR KOMS KNNO KPAI KBWG KTTB KTBD KTIALG KILS KFEM KTDM KESS KNUC KPA KOMCCO KCEM KRCS KWBGSY KNPPIS KNNPMNUC KWN KERG KLTN KALM KCCP KSUMPHUM KREL KGH KLIP KTLA KAWK KWMM KVRP KVRC KAID KSLG KDEMK KX KIF KNPR KCFC KFTFN KTFM KPDD KCERS KMOC KDEMAF KMEPI KEMS KDRM KEPREL KBTR KEDU KNP KIRL KNNR KMPT KISLPINR KTPN KA KJUSTH KPIN KDEV KTDD KAKA KFRP KWNM KTSD KINL KJUSKUNR KWWMN KECF KWBC KPRO KVBL KOM KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KEDM KFLD KLPM KRGY KNNF KICR KIFR KM KWMNCS KAWS KLAP KPAK KDDG KCGC KID KNSD KMPF KPFO KDP KCMR KRMS KNPT KNNNP KTIAPARM KDTB KNUP KPGOV KNAP KNNC KUK KSRE KREISLER KIVP KQ KTIAEUN KPALAOIS KRM KISLAO KWM KFLOA
PHUM PINR PTER PGOV PREL PREF PL PM PHSA PE PARM PINS PK PUNE PO PALESTINIAN PU PBTS PROP PTBS POL POLI PA PGOVZI POLMIL POLITICAL PARTIES POLM PD POLITICS POLICY PAS PMIL PINT PNAT PV PKO PPOL PERSONS PING PBIO PH PETR PARMS PRES PCON PETERS PRELBR PT PLAB PP PAK PDEM PKPA PSOCI PF PLO PTERM PJUS PSOE PELOSI PROPERTY PGOVPREL PARP PRL PNIR PHUMKPAL PG PREZ PGIC PBOV PAO PKK PROV PHSAK PHUMPREL PROTECTION PGOVBL PSI PRELPK PGOVENRG PUM PRELKPKO PATTY PSOC PRIVATIZATION PRELSP PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PMIG PREC PAIGH PROG PSHA PARK PETER POG PHUS PPREL PS PTERPREL PRELPGOV POV PKPO PGOVECON POUS PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PWBG PMAR PREM PAR PNR PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PARMIR PGOVGM PHUH PARTM PN PRE PTE PY POLUN PPEL PDOV PGOVSOCI PIRF PGOVPM PBST PRELEVU PGOR PBTSRU PRM PRELKPAOIZ PGVO PERL PGOC PAGR PMIN PHUMR PVIP PPD PGV PRAM PINL PKPAL PTERE PGOF PINO PHAS PODC PRHUM PHUMA PREO PPA PEPFAR PGO PRGOV PAC PRESL PORG PKFK PEPR PRELP PREFA PNG PGOVPHUMKPAO PRELECON PINOCHET PFOR PGOVLO PHUMBA PRELC PREK PHUME PHJM POLINT PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PGOVE PHALANAGE PARTY PECON PEACE PROCESS PLN PRELSW PAHO PEDRO PRELA PASS PPAO PGPV PNUM PCUL PGGV PSA PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PGIV PRFE POGOV PEL PBT PAMQ PINF PSEPC POSTS PHUMPGOV PVOV PHSAPREL PROLIFERATION PENA PRELTBIOBA PIN PRELL PGOVPTER PHAM PHYTRP PTEL PTERPGOV PHARM PROTESTS PRELAF PKBL PRELKPAO PKNP PARMP PHUML PFOV PERM PUOS PRELGOV PHUMPTER PARAGRAPH PERURENA PBTSEWWT PCI PETROL PINSO PINSCE PQL PEREZ PBS

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 06LONDON5615, INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO): REPORT OF THE

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. #06LONDON5615.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
06LONDON5615 2006-08-01 15:10 2011-08-25 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED Embassy London
VZCZCXRO7220
RR RUEHHM RUEHLN RUEHMA RUEHPB
DE RUEHLO #5615/01 2131510
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 011510Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY LONDON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7898
INFO RUWDQAC/COMDT COGARD WASHINGTON DC//G-CI/G-L/G-M/G-MS/G-MW
RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE
RHEFHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHINGTON DC
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 LONDON 005615 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE PLEASE PASS TO IO/OIC FOR M. MORRISSEY, DOD, NOAA, FCC, AND 
MARAD 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: IMO PSHA SENV PBTS KSCA UK
SUBJECT:  INTERNATIONAL MARITIME ORGANIZATION (IMO):  REPORT OF THE 
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SAFETY OF NAVIGATION, 52ND SESSION, 17 - 21 JULY 
2006. 
 
SUMMARY:  The 52nd Session of the Safety of Navigation (NAV) S/C was 
held July 17 to 21, 2006 under the chairmanship of Mr. K. Polderman 
(Netherlands).  The session was attended by 53 member governments, 
one associate member government, one non-member, and 14 
intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations.  The S/C 
unanimously re-elected Mr. K. Polderman as chairman and Mr. J. M. 
Sollosi (United States) as vice-chairman for 2007.  All U.S. 
objectives were achieved.  Major accomplishments of NAV52 were:  the 
S/C approved the U.S. amendment to the traffic separation scheme 
(TSS) in the approach to Boston.  The S/C approved a substantial 
number of additional routing measures.  A proposal by Norway to 
establish a mandatory TSS and a proposal by Ecuador for a mandatory 
area to be avoided (ATBA) near the Galapagos were adopted after 
significant alterations proposed by the U.S.  The S/C established a 
correspondence group under the chairmanship of the UK to address 
enhanced navigation (E-NAV). Amended performance standards for ECDIS 
were approved.  Japan intervened to condemn DPRK missile launches. 
USDEL intervened in support of Japan and was joined by statements of 
concern from the Russian Federation, UK, France, Italy, Korea, and 
Finland.  DPRK responded in an invective-filled discourse condemning 
the UNSC and the USG.  USDEL intervened in support of Singapore's 
statement opposing Australia's mandatory pilotage regime in the 
Torres Strait.  END SUMMARY. 
 
1.  ROUTING OF SHIPS, SHIP REPORTING AND RELATED MATTERS: 
The S/C approved all proposals on the agenda, with amendments as 
appropriate. The S/C noted, at Ecuador's request, but did not 
consider or approve two traffic separation schemes (TSS) because the 
U.S. intervened to clarify that these TSS's provide entry and exit 
to/from an area to be avoided (ATBA) around the Galapagos 
archipelago by ships bound to/from the Galapagos. The U.S. proposal 
to amend the TSS in the approach to Boston to reduce the risk of 
ship strikes of right and other whales was approved without debate. 
The proposal by Norway for a series of TSS joined by a recommended 
route from Vardo to Rost was approved after significant revisions. 
Norway expressed appreciation to the U.S. for assistance in revising 
their proposal. Italy's proposed ATBA and mandatory no anchorage 
area to protect shipping in the vicinity of a proposed LNG 
offloading and regasification facility in the Italian territorial 
sea was approved. The proposal originally included a safety zone, 
which is not an IMO recognized routing measure.  Italy noted for the 
record that the associated 2000 meter safety zone would apply only 
to ships calling at the LNG facility or Italian ports.  The S/C 
approved a mandatory ship reporting measure by Ecuador for the 
Galapagos ATBA after significant assistance from the U.S. to put the 
proposal in proper form.  The S/C approved all other proposals on 
its agenda, all of which were unremarkable.  Quality of submitted 
proposals improved markedly after the chairman had agreed at NAV51 
to conduct a preliminary review of proposals in conjunction with 
submitting states.  However, some proposals still needed revisions 
in order to be in complete conformance with the General Provisions 
on Ships Routeing. 
 
2. AMENDMENTS TO THE ELECTRONIC CHART DISPLAY AND INFORMATION SYSTEM 
(ECDIS) PERFORMANCE STANDARDS: After noting a comprehensive report 
prepared by the correspondence group on ECDIS led by Norway, the S/C 
agreed to approve the draft performance standards for ECDIS and 
invite the Committee to adopt them as a resolution at its 82nd 
session.  Recognizing the need to make progress on this issue, U.S. 
supported this position. 
 
3.  REVISION OF THE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR INTEGRATED NAVIGATION 
SYSTEM (INS) AND INTEGRATED BRIDGE SYSTEM (IBS): 
The S/C considered all input documents on INS/IBS. The S/C approved 
the continuation of the correspondence group on INS and IBS and 
revised its terms of reference.  The S/C requested the committee to 
extend the target completion date for the review of performance 
standards for INS and IBS to 2007. 
 
4.  EVALUATION OF THE USE OF (ECDIS) AND ELECTRONIC NAVIGATIONAL 
CHART (ENC) DEVELOPMENT: 
The S/C considered Australia's proposal to amend the circular 
SN/Circ. 207 relating to differences between raster nautical charts 
(RNC) and electronic navigational charts (ENC). Norway stated that 
observations by a lone member state should not be sufficient 
justification to change a S/N Circular.  Denmark stated that based 
on a limited test that Australia performed it also does not want to 
amend the circular.  Although U.S. supported Australia's proposal, 
the S/C agreed to defer refining S/N Circ 207 until after proposed 
amendments to the ECDIS performance standards were adopted by the 
committee. The S/C discussed whether the International Hydrographic 
Organization (IHO) catalogue should focus on ENC and show RNC only 
where ENC is not available.  The S/C agreed that the IHO catalogue 
should include ENC, RNC where ENC is not available, a coastal state 
recommendation on the appropriate folio of up-to-date paper charts 
for areas where paper charts might be necessary in the event there 
 
LONDON 00005615  002.2 OF 002 
 
2006. 
 
is not an ENC and RNC provides a limited display, and an index of 
all available paper charts. 
 
5. GUIDELINES FOR THE INSTALLATION OF RADAR, TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS TO 
THE COLLISION REGULATIONS (COLREGS), INTERNATIONAL 
TELECOMMUNICATIONS UNION (ITU) MATTERS, AND OTHER TECHNICAL 
MATTERS: 
The S/C considered a guideline on the installation of shipborne 
radar equipment that was intended to allow ships to realize the 
maximum performance potential of the equipment.  Target completion 
date for this issue is 2008. The S/C considered a proposal by Norway 
to amend Annex I of the COLREGS with respect to the color 
specification of navigation lights.  Given that the International 
Commission on Illumination has revised the definitions of colors 
specified in Annex I, the Annex is in need of revision in order to 
reflect these changes.  These revisions are necessary due to 
increased use of light emitting diodes in place of incandescent 
light sources.  Target completion date for this issue is 2007.  The 
S/C approved a liaison statement to ITU on maintenance and 
administration of Automatic Identification System binary messages. 
The S/C also approved draft performance standards for shipborne 
Galileo receiver equipment and forwarded them to Committee. 
 
6. ENHANCED NAVIGATION (E-NAV): 
The S/C established a correspondence group under the chairmanship of 
the UK to address the emerging e-NAV concept.  Terms of reference 
for the correspondence group direct them to define the concept of 
e-Navigation; identify issues and priorities in a policy framework 
on e-Navigation; identify benefits and obstacles that may arise; 
identify the roles of the organization, its member states, other 
bodies and industry; and formulate a work program for further 
development of the concept.  Target completion for this work is 
2008. 
 
7. NAVIGATIONAL WARNINGS: 
Japan, responding to multiple missile launches conducted by North 
Korea (DPRK), called attention to Assembly resolution A 706(17) and 
MSC Circular 893 which recommends all member States give prior 
notice of operations which might endanger safety of navigation, 
expressly including missile launches, and noted that North Korea 
failed to give such notice prior to its missile launches earlier 
this month.  U.S. supported Japan along with Russian Federation, UK, 
France, Italy, Republic of Korea and Finland.  U.S. intervention 
called attention to recent Security Council resolution condemning 
DPRK actions and failure to provide required navigation warnings. 
U.S. further noted additional maritime safety deficiencies 
associated with DPRK flag ships. Russia urged IMO action on the 
matter while expressing support for efforts to achieve a peaceful 
conclusion to this situation.  UK largely echoed the statements of 
the U.S. and Japanese delegations.  France, Italy, Korea and Finland 
also expressed concern over DPRK's disregard for IMO resolutions and 
the threat to maritime navigation.  DPRK delegation responded with a 
statement accusing Japan of slander and stating that its right to 
launch missiles is a sovereign matter not to be discussed in 
international fora.  DPRK then quoted from a statement condemning 
the UNSC resolution and stating the U.S. created a dangerous 
situation on the Korean peninsula.  The Chairman interrupted to end 
the DPRK intervention by reminding the DPRK delegation that NAV 52 
was a forum for safety of navigation and not the appropriate venue 
to express political opinions on UNSC resolutions.  Complete U.S 
intervention to be included as an annex to the S/C report. 
 
8. MANDATORY PILOTAGE: 
Singapore stated opposition to Australia's recently declared 
mandatory pilotage regime in the Torres Strait.  U.S. intervened 
stating mandatory pilotage should apply only to ships bound to or 
from Australian ports and not to ships in transit passage.  Position 
was supported by Russian Federation, Japan, Panama, China, Norway, 
Greece, Liberia, Brazil, UK, Cyprus, Bahamas, South Africa, ICS and 
BIMCO.  Australia responded by stating they were confident they were 
acting in accordance with international law and that they felt it 
was not appropriate to discuss the matter at NAV. 
 
JOHNSON