PSI: FRENCH MFA RESPONSE TO U/S JOSEPH ON STATUS

C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS 004655

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR T AND EUR/WE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/30/2015
TAGS: PARM MNUC PREL KNNP FR
SUBJECT: PSI: FRENCH MFA RESPONSE TO U/S JOSEPH ON STATUS
OF THE CORE GROUP

REF: STATE 118547

Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor Josiah Rosenblatt, Reason 1
.4 B/D


1. (C) We delivered on June 24 the reftel letter from
Undersecretary Joseph informing MFA Political Director
Laboulaye of the U.S. wish to dissolve the PSI Core Group by
June 30 through silence procedure. On June 30, Laboulaye's
office conveyed to us his response for U/S Joseph, in which
Laboulaye agrees that elimination of the Core Group could
help ensure greater participation in PSI by non core group
members and dispel any notion that there are different
classes of contributors. Laboulaye suggests further
consultations next week to determine how to make PSI
coordination more effective and inclusive.


2. (C) Begin Text of letter (in English) dated June 29, 2005

Dear Bob,

I am grateful for your letter and to let me know the results
of the review of the full range of Proliferation Security
Initiative (PSI) activities and future priorities by the
United States Government. Since these questions imply an
interagency review in Paris, we will let you know our
position in the course of next week.

The PSI has enabled us to strengthen international
cooperation to prevent the proliferation of WMD, their
delivery systems, and related materials and to stop the flow
of these items to and from states and non-state actors of
proliferation concern. The PSI has proved to be very
effective initiative to reinforce operational cooperations
between partners in this field, and to demonstrate our
commitment to interdict trafficking in weapons of mass
destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials.
Our objective should now focus on the strengthening of this
initiative: how can we achieve broader support to the PSI
and how can we achieve greater efficiency? We have stressed
since the launching of this initiative that inclusiveness and
the capacity to take on board countries willing and able to
contribute would be key factors to its success.

We share your view that some countries have responded
positively to our demarches to support the PSI, but consider
that the PSI has two tiers of participation, and two classes
of participants. This perception could be a political hurdle
for some countries which could bring valuable contribution to
this initiative. We must find a way to associate these
countries to the PSI's activities and to do away with this
perception. Eliminating the formal core-group could be a way
to demonstrate to these countries that the PSI is not made up
of different classes of participants.

However, eliminating the core-group raises two important
issues: how best to ensure coordination among the countries
which play a leading role in counter-proliferation worldwide
and contribute the most to PSI? How best to ensure the
effectiveness and the appropriate participation in the
Operational Experts Group (OEG) in the new context?

In order to keep the focus on the operational character of
this initiative, it is essential that countries contributing
effectively to the activities of the PSI or in a position to
participate in a concrete way, can foster exchanges of views
and reinforce operational cooperations. We should find an
appropriate way to conciliate inclusiveness and efficiency.

I look forward to hearing you back on this issue.

Sincerely,

/S/

Stanislas de Laboulaye

End text.


STAPLETON