Search

 

Cablegate: October 30 G-8 Global Partnership Meeting Focuses

VZCZCXRO6405
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ
DE RUEHRL #2008/01 3061106
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 021106Z NOV 07
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9678
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC
INFO RUCNFRG/FRG COLLECTIVE
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN 0770
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 0121
RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN 0468
RUEHDL/AMEMBASSY DUBLIN 0199
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0012
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 8615
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 1862
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO 0399
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 1084
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 9162
RUEHPG/AMEMBASSY PRAGUE 0464
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0811
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM 0411
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 1153
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 1524
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0303

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 BERLIN 002008

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

SIPDIS
STATE FOR EUR, ISN, WHA, AND EAP
DOE FOR NNSA

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC KNNP CBW TRGY GM JA RS
SUBJECT: OCTOBER 30 G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP MEETING FOCUSES
ON GEOGRAPHIC EXPANSION AND MODALITIES


1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The final G-8 Global Partnership Working
Group (GPWG) meeting of the German G-8 Presidency took place
in Berlin on October 30, and included focused discussions on
geographic expansion and related modalities. The delegates
also heard presentations from implementing agencies
describing progress on specific Global Partnership (GP)
projects and from donor countries on related bilateral
initiatives. Japan tabled a draft Plan of Work for the GPWG
under the 2008 Japanese Presidency and provided dates for the
2008 G-8 Nonproliferation Directors Group (NPDG) and GPWG
meetings in Japan. The delegates reached broad agreement on
the need for geographic expansion, but further discussion on
the modalities thereof will continue under the Japanese
presidency. Germany proposed possible mechanisms for moving
forward on expansion, including the integration of existing
and future bilateral projects into the GP scope of work,
endorsement of new recipient countries by the GPWG itself,
and high-level endorsement at future G-8 Summits.

2. (SBU) SUMMARY CONTINUED: Delegates from Canada, France,
the UK, Italy, the EU Commission, Japan, and the United
States expressed support for expansion and pledged to honor
existing GP commitments to Russia and other former Soviet
Union (FSU) countries. While agreeing in principle to the
need for geographic expansion, Russia proposed a formal,
highly structured selection process and admission procedure.
ISN DAS Andrew Semmel, who headed the U.S. delegation,
pointed to the role GP expansion and extension could play in
countering new and emerging threats. Semmel suggested
admission should be driven by necessity and threat and
expressed concern about creating an overly formalized
mechanism for admitting new recipient countries. The UK
argued that future expansion should be based on clearly
identified needs, should add value to the GP, and should be
consistent with priorities and objectives identified at the
Kananaskis Summit in 2002. The Japanese delegation cited the
need to assess what projects GP countries are currently
undertaking outside of Russia and the FSU. Japanese head of
delegation Yasunari Morino indicated strong interest in close
discussion with the United States on how to move GP expansion
forward. END SUMMARY.

3. (SBU) German Commissioner for International Energy Policy
Viktor Elbing and Thomas Meister, Director of the German
MFA's International Energy and Nuclear Energy Policy and
Nuclear Nonproliferation Division co-chaired an October 30
meeting of G-8 and other donor nations to discuss the Global
Partnership's (GP) geographic scope, as well as possible
modalities and geographic focus of future expansion. In an
effort to spur discussion, the German chair put forward three
ideas for admitting new recipient states: bilateral
initiatives, GPWG endorsement, and high-level endorsement at
the G-8 Summit. Under the bilateral procedure, each country
would define the scope of its own bilateral cooperation
programs and report to the GPWG. Under the second option, a
group of donor countries could recommend a new recipient
country to the GPWG for endorsement. The third option gives
the GPWG the option to seek high-level endorsement of new
recipients by heads of state and government at the annual G-8
Summit.

4. (SBU) Canadian delegate Troy Lulashnyk reiterated Canadian
support for expanding the geographic scope of the GP,
focusing on the importance of modalities. Lulashnyk
suggested the GPWG should build and accelerate the work of
the GP. He noted G-8 partners had agreed to expansion
previously at both Sea Island (2004) and Heiligendamm (2007).
It is not a question of whether the GP expands but, rather,

BERLIN 00002008 002 OF 004


when and by what modalities. Lulashnyk reaffirmed Canada's
position that the GP needs to expand to respond to emerging
global threats, but offered assurances to the Russian
delegation that Canada and other countries remain committed
to fulfilling the core GP objectives vis-a-vis Russia and the
FSU.

------------------------------------
Russia Cautiously Endorses Expansion
------------------------------------

5. (SBU) Russian delegate Oleg Rozhkov said Russia agreed in
principle with geographic expansion. He suggested future
expansion should be modeled on the procedures followed in
2004 when Ukraine joined the GP as a recipient state. As in
the case of Ukraine, Rozkov explained, the GP should
undertake a formal confirmation process that would require a
new recipient state to formally apply and to subscribe to the
Kananaskis principles. Rozhkov discouraged "expansion for
expansion's sake," noting that Russia does not believe all
countries possess the proliferation/terrorism nexus described
in the Kananaskis principles. Rozhkov resisted the idea of
including partners' bilateral projects outside of Russia and
the FSU under the auspices of the GP. He emphasized the GP
is a practical instrument for implementation and cooperation
with dedicated funding, established agreements, and
identifiable, tangible outcomes. Rozhkov questioned whether
GP donors have sufficient funds and human resources to carry
out expansion activities. He concluded by endorsing
geographic expansion but stressed it should be done on a
case-by-case basis, beginning with a review of the 2004
applications from other FSU states, specifically Kazakhstan.

--------------------------------------------- ---
Expansion Necessary to Confront Emerging Threats
--------------------------------------------- ---

6. (SBU) DAS Semmel highlighted the success of the GP and
stressed the need to accelerate efforts inside and outside
Russia and the FSU. Semmel reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to
Russia to finish work started under Kananaskis but emphasized
the importance of expanding the geographic scope of the GP
and extending the partnership beyond 2012. Turning to
modalities for expansion, Semmel stated the U.S. preference
for flexible admissions procedures rather than a formal
admission process. In order to preserve the GP's flexibility
to react to emerging threats, admission criteria and
decisions should be driven by ongoing assessments of needs
and threats. Semmel stated the U.S. will continue its
bilateral threat reduction activities outside Russia and the
FSU and reiterated the need to keep the GP expansion process
as flexible as possible in order to facilitate admission and
to address new and emerging threats, rather than make it more
difficult. DAS Semmel also briefed the GPWG plenary (G-8,
all donor countries, and international organizations) on U.S.
threat reduction programs and activities outside Russia and
the former Soviet Union. The briefing placed special
emphasis on the Biosecurity Engagement Program (BEP) and the
Nuclear Smuggling Outreach Initiative (NSOI).

7. (SBU) UK Delegate Nick Low reaffirmed his government's
commitment to finishing projects in Russia under the
Kananaskis objectives. On modalities for expansion, Low
suggested three criteria for identifying additional
beneficiary countries: (1) the existence of a clear need
and/or threat; (2) new undertakings must add value to the
GP's capacity to address that threat; and, (3) new
undertakings must be coherent and consistent with Kananaskis

BERLIN 00002008 003 OF 004


objectives. Low expressed confidence that the GP would be
able to successfully integrate additional recipient countries
and to confront new challenges. He also assured Russia that
any geographic expansion would not undermine the UK's work in
Russia and the FSU. Low also presented the UK's
"Inter-Governmental Threat Reduction Model Agreement" as a
potentially useful tool for GP donors and recipients to use
to expedite and simplify the negotiation of implementation
agreements. Low stated the Model Agreement could be a
resource for other future recipient countries to see what
provisions a donor nation might expect, particularly in the
areas of taxes and liability, but stressed that the UK will
not seek to have the Model Agreement officially endorsed by
the GPWG.

8. (SBU) Italian delegate Antonio di Melilli suggested the
GPWG revisit the 2004 process used to bring Ukraine in as a
beneficiary. French delegate Jean-Hugues Simon-Michel said
France supports geographic expansion but was ambivalent about
which specific countries should be targeted. He suggested
geographic expansion could focus on nuclear safety and
security.

9. (SBU) European Commission delegate Bruno Dupre lauded the
GPWG as an excellent coordination mechanism and reaffirmed
the EC's commitment to activities in Russia under the EU's
TACIS program. Dupre also explained that the EU is
undertaking additional projects outside Russia and the FSU
under the auspices of an (unspecified) EU Joint Action to
address issues related to export controls, biological safety
and security, and combating illicit trafficking in WMD
materials.

--------------------------------------
Japan Unveils Draft Work Plan for 2008
--------------------------------------

10. (SBU) Japanese delegate Yasunari Morino stated the issue
of expansion has been under GPWG consideration since
Kananaskis. He asked the group to share information about
bilateral and other activities currently underway outside
Russia and the FSU and to consider what more could or should
be done. At the conclusion of the meeting, Morino circulated
a draft plan of work for the 2008 Japanese G-8 Presidency.
He stated the focus would be on how to move forward on
geographic expansion by broadening the GP mandate to include
"promoting existing multilateral instruments" such as UNSCR
1540, safeguards and the Additional Protocol, the UN
Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials
(CPPNM), and others.

11. (SBU) In response to the plan of work, Russian delegate
Rozhkov asked whether Japan will try to reach a decision on
expansion and extension by the June 2008 G-8 Summit. Morino
was non-committal, suggested that Japan will seek maximum
progress but such a decision would be driven by how
discussions at future GPWG meetings develop. The Japanese
delegation also announced a provisional schedule for the GPWG
and NPDG meetings under the Japanese Presidency in 2008.
GPWG dates are as follows: January 30 (G-8 only); February 26
(G-8 plus non-G-8 partners) and February 27 (G8 only); April
23 (G-8 only). All GPWG meetings will be held in Tokyo.
NPDG dates are as follows: January 31; February 28; March 37;
April 24; and June 5. All NPDG meetings will be held in
Tokyo except for June 5, which will take place at a location
to be determined.

--------------------------------

BERLIN 00002008 004 OF 004


Sidebar Consultations with Japan
--------------------------------

12. (SBU) In a meeting with the U.S. delegation before the
GPWG, Morino solicited U.S. input on the Global Partnership
for 2008 and expressed concern about Russian opposition to
expansion. Morino did not propose a new initiative separate
from the GP. (NOTE: Japanese Embassy officials in
Washington had raised the idea several times in earlier
bilateral meetings. END NOTE.) Nonetheless, Semmel conveyed
U.S. concerns on a separate initiative outside the GP, citing
"initiative fatigue," countries' potential difficulties
securing additional funding, and the amount of time required
to formulate a framework and have it endorsed at high levels.
Morino indicated the Japanese delegation would meet with the
Russian delegation to discuss Japanese plans to distribute a
questionnaire to GPWG members on current bilateral projects
outside Russia and the FSU, as well as what possible future
non-Russia/FSU GP projects they may be willing to undertake.
Semmel suggested that the Japanese inform the Russians of
their intent to distribute a questionnaire, rather than
seeking Russian approval. (NOTE: Morino approached Semmel
on the margins of the GPWG and indicated he had followed this
advice and simply informed the Russian about the
questionnaire. END NOTE.)

13. (SBU) In a follow-on meeting after the GPWG, Morino
indicated Japan is extremely interested in U.S. ideas on GP
for 2008 and wants to continue close discussions. Morino
seemed more positive about the possibility of containing
Russian opposition to expansion following Russian statements
on the subject during the plenary. Japan's concerns about
Russian opposition were assuaged after Russia did not object
to Japan's plans to circulate a questionnaire on WMD threat
reduction activities outside of Russia and the FSU. Morino
would not be drawn out on Japan's position on a separate G-8
initiative focusing on Asia but seemed to be heading away
from the idea of a separate initiative given
less-than-anticipated Russian opposition. Semmel and Morino
discussed possible mechanisms for expanding the geographic
scope of the GP. Semmel stressed that expansion should be
flexible and encourage the broadest participation of new
recipients and donors. Morino concurred with this position
but noted the formal admission process used for Ukraine's
admittance would be an obstacle to overcome in the coming
year.

14. (U) DAS Semmel has cleared this cable.

TIMKEN JR

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
World Headlines

 

Ramzy Baroud: Year in Review Will 2018 Usher in a New Palestinian Strategy

2017 will be remembered as the year that the so-called ‘peace process’, at least in its American formulation, has ended. And with its demise, a political framework that has served as the foundation for US foreign policy in the Middle East has also collapsed. More>>

ALSO:


North Korea: NZ Denounces Missile Test

Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has denounced North Korea’s latest ballistic missile test. The test, which took place this morning, is North Korea’s third test flight of an inter-continental ballistic missile. More>>

ALSO:

Campbell On: the US demonising of Iran

Satan may not exist, but the Evil One has always been a handy tool for priests and politicians alike.

Currently, Iran is the latest bogey conjured up by Washington to (a) justify its foreign policy interventions and (b) distract attention from its foreign policy failures.

Once upon a time, the Soviet Union was the nightmare threat for the entire Cold War era – and since then the US has cast the Taliban, al Qaeda, and Islamic State in the same demonic role. Iran is now the latest example…More


Catalan Independence:
Pro-independence parties appear to have a narrow majority. More>>