STRUCTURED COOPERATION: NEW VARIATIONS FROM

C O N F I D E N T I A L ROME 004907

SIPDIS


DEPT FOR EUR/ERA, EUR/RPM, EUR/WE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/28/2013
TAGS: PREL IT ESDP EUN NATO
SUBJECT: STRUCTURED COOPERATION: NEW VARIATIONS FROM
ITALY'S EU PRESIDENCY


Classified By: AMBASSADOR SEMBLER. REASON: 1.5 (B)(D)

Guidance request. See para 7.


1. (C) SUMMARY. Senate President Pera told Ambassador Sembler
on October 28 that Italy is discussing with other EU partners
a new concept on structured cooperation which would have the
IGC at 25 endorse structured cooperation as a concept. It
would also delegate to the major European military powers the
authority to plan and/and carry out military operations. The
Ambassador emphasized that such a structure would be
inconsistent with Berlin plus. END SUMMARY.


2. (C) On October 28, Ambassador Sembler, accompanied by DCM
and POL Minister-Counselor, hosted a lunch for Senate
President Marcello Pera and two advisors. Pera had requested
the meeting to talk about the EU's deliberations in the
Intergovernmental Conference on structured cooperation for
European defense and security. Pera relayed a variation on
this concept that we had not heard before. He said that he
had been appraised of this new formula by Foreign Minister
Frattini who had called him the previous evening to summarize
ongoing talks among Italy, UK, France and Germany.


3. (C) The proposal as Frattini explained it to Pera would
have the IGC at 25 endorse structured cooperation as a
mechanism. It would also delegate to the major European
military powers - UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, probably
Poland and perhaps the Netherlands - the authority to plan
and carry out military operations. This would not
necessarily be achieved by naming specific countries, but
rather be done indirectly by conferring membership in the
core group on countries that had a certain number of men
under arms, level of capabilities, or some other objective
measure that only certain nations could meet. (This is the
first time Embassy has heard that use of force could be
authorized by anything other than consensus at 25.) Pera and
his advisors were uncertain if the smaller group would
require consensus among its members or a qualified majority
vote (QMV) within the group for a decision.


4. (C) Pera was curious as to what changed UK Prime Minister
Blair's pledge to stand firm against structured cooperation.
It would be very difficult, Pera emphasized, for Italy to
stand up and oppose any proposal that the UK had agreed with
Germany and France. Pera noted the pressure Italy is under --
domestically and within the EU -- to craft an acceptable
outcome in the IGC before the end of the year. He said that
giving a prominent role to Spain and Poland may be a means to
get them to relent on their hard stance on voting weights.
Pera wondered if the UK shifting its position on structured
cooperation should be taken as an indication that Washington
was comfortable with the concept of structured cooperation in
general and the variation described by Frattini.


5. (C) The Ambassador, DCM and POL Minister Counselor
explained to Pera that the USG has deep reservations about
structured cooperation, which could undercut Berlin-plus.
The US is frustrated that many EU members are devoting more
energy into finding ways to bypass Berlin-plus than to
strengthening it. The ideas seen thus far, including this
one, are duplicative of, and potentially competitive with
NATO. The Ambassador emphasized that the formal response to
structured cooperation is still under discussion in
Washington, but reiterated that if the EU insists on
including a reference to structured cooperation in the
constitution, then it should:

- not include a mutual defense clause;

- not propose separate EU planning HQ (Tervuren);

- preserve the principle of EU-wide consensus on decisions to
use military force;

- be open to non-EU NATO members and non-NATO EU members;

- generally reaffirm Berlin plus.


6. (C) Emboffs said that the latest version as described by
Frattini did not seem to reflect an improvement from the US
standpoint. If the EU permanently delegated operations
decisions to a subgroup that could make decisions by less
than unanimity, it might be worse than other variations.
That would be inconsistent with Berlin plus and ignore the
above points, which we have been emphasizing throughout EU


capitals and in Brussels for months.


7. (C) Comment and guidance request: Pera is not in the
Executive Branch, but he's a key leader of the coalition and
a trusted friend of the US. He was not merely floating
Frattini's ideas to register our reaction. He genuinely
wants the EU to make the right decisions on ESDP vis a vis
NATO. He will relay the Embassy reaction to the latest
proposal to Frattini and PM Berlusconi. Post would
appreciate more definitive guidance from Washington to make
clear directly to the PM and FM our stand on structured
cooperation, as well as US reaction should the EU go down the
path Frattini described to Pera. Embassy Rome would also be
interested in hearing whether other posts have heard similar
descriptions of the state of play on structured cooperation
in the IGC from their interlocutors.
SEMBLER


NNNN
2003ROME04907 - Classification: CONFIDENTIAL