wikileaks ico  Home papers ico  Cables mirror and Afghan War Diary privacy policy Privacy
2005-07-19 04:53:00
Embassy Brussels
Cable title:  


pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
						C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 002730 



E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/18/2015

Classified By: PRMOFF MARC J. MEZNAR. REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D).

1. (C) Summary. Although the European Commission (EC) has
reservations about expanding the African Union Mission in
Sudan (AMIS IIe) beyond 7000 peacekeepers, it nonetheless is
considering a third funding tranche from its Africa Peace
Facility (APF). Even if the EC uses most of the APF balance,
funding would only extend AMIS IIe through April 2006. The
EC hopes that other donors, like the U.S., will also provide
additional significant contributions in order to extend the
expanded operation for at least a year beyond October 2005.
While the Commission's main objective in contributing to AMIS
is strengthening the AU's future capacity, the European
Council's focus is on reducing violence in Darfur and in
raising the profile of the EU internationally. End Summary.


AMIS II Expansion (AMIS IIe)


2. (U) The original sum allocated from the APF to support the
Darfur mission was 80 million euros. Two tranches have so
far been released by the EC to the AU, each of 23.1 million
euros, leaving a balance of 33.8 million euros. (Note. The
EC releases the tranches when the AU shows good budget
figures of having spent 70% of the previous tranche so as to
maintain the AU's cash flow. End Note.)

3. (U) The EC calculates that its current funding lines are
sufficient to cover requirements up to October 20, 2005, as
AU expenditures on allowances have been less due to delays in
deploying additional personnel.

4. (C) While fully supporting an expanded AMIS of up to 7000
peacekeepers, the EC is lukewarm towards a larger operation.
First, the EC is concerned that the AU does not have the
institutional capacity to manage a large expansion. The
operation risks becoming an AU mission in name only, with the
overall control being in the hands of outsiders (i.e., the
EU, U.S. and NATO). According to DG DEV policy officer for
the APF, Ranieri Sabatucci, this would defeat the fundamental
purpose of the APF, which was established with development
funds to strengthen the AU,s institutional capacity. The
medium-term goal of the 250 million euro APF funding line is
to raise the profile of the AU; the long-term goal is to
develop a genuine African-owned and operated mechanism for
peace enforcement throughout the continent.

5. (C) Second, unless other donors step forward with
significant contributions for AMIS IIe, the EC's funding
simply does not exist for sustaining a larger operation.
Sabatucci pointed out that even if the EC uses the rest of
the APF on Darfur (more than doubling its contribution),
funding will run out by April 2006 because AMIS IIe will cost

about 17 million euros per month to operate. Commission
officials like Ranieri suggest that since the U.S. is most
enthusiastic for expanding the number beyond 7000, it would
seem logical the U.S. to provide the funding for the expanded
AMIS mission. Before allocating and dispersing APF funds,
the EC needs assurances from the AU that there is financial
support for the entire proposed budget (preferably for a full
year of operations). The EC will not do partial funding in
hopes that other monies can be found later.

6. (C) One EC option for funding a third tranche is to reduce
the number of elements in the AMIS budget (i.e., budget
lines) which the EC funds. By narrowing the scope of its
funds, the EC can guarantee that the part of the operation it
commits to can be carried out for a full year (instead of
ending in April 2006). It would be up to the AU to propose
which budget lines would be cut.


Council versus Commission


7. (C) Two factors weigh in favor of a third EC tranche for
AMIS. The AU reportedly supports this, as does the EU
Council. The Council, while paying lip service to the EC,s
overall objective of strengthening AU institutions and
capacity through the APF, is far more interested in the
short-term goal of reducing violence in Darfur. This is one
reason the Council has been more aggressive in urging the EC
to condition its funding on the AU accepting technical and
logistical support. The EC agreed with this conditionality
in order to ensure operational success of the mission, thus
strengthening the AU politically.

8. (C/NF) However, the friction between the EC and Council
remains over Darfur. The EC does not fully share the
Council's political objective of raising the EU's profile by
intervening in Darfur. Sabatucci (protect) explained that
for this reason the EC resisted the Council's attempt to
block NATO involvement in Darfur. Reportedly, the Council
asked the EC to use its funding prerogative to dissuade the
AU from requesting NATO assistance, but the EC declined to

9. (C) According to EuropeAid's APF technical expert Peter
Stamps, the PSC will have to take up the question of a third
tranche to support AMIS IIe no later than this week or risk
interrupting the cash flow to the AU. His personal opinion
is "we've all tacked our colors to the mast" in support of
the AU so it would be politically impossible to back off now.
Therefore, he anticipates PSC agreement to a 3rd cooperation
agreement to establish funding for AMIS IIe after October 20,

2005. Reportedly, the EC would consider using the balance of
the APF -- apart from 15 million euros for a possible AU
mission in Somalia -- for this third tranche allocation.




10. (C) The competing interests in Darfur - both intra-EU and
transatlantic - are not mutually exclusive. Increased
involvement by the various players, together with their
assets and funds, can help achieve multiple objectives,
including: strengthening the AU as an institution, reducing
violence in Darfur, raising the international profile of the
EU, expanding NATO's role in Africa and improving peace
enforcement capabilities. The EC is poised to commit
additional funds for AMIS. Significant contributions by
other donors could clinch the decision and help sustain an
expanded operation. Meanwhile, the EC also continues to
study the possibility of replenishing the APF as it
approaches the end of its seven-year budget cycle.