SPAIN'S RESPONSE TO DEMARCHES ON NATO ISSUES

C O N F I D E N T I A L MADRID 001037 SIPDIS SIPDIS EUR/RPM FOR EVA SHINAGEL USNATO FOR TOM UNDERWOOD AND PETER CHISHOLM OSD FOR DAVID DES ROCHES E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/24/2016 TAGS: NATO PREL MARR SP SUBJECT: SPAIN'S RESPONSE TO DEMARCHES ON NATO ISSUES REF: A. SECSTATE 51994 ¶B. SECSTATE 56334 ¶C. SECSTATE 63202 ¶D. K VOLKER E-MAIL DTD 4/24/06 Classified By: PolCouns Kathy Fitzpatrick for reasons 1.4 (b) & (d). ¶1. (U) Poloff discussed reftels with MFA Deputy Director General for International Security Affairs Manuel Acerete and his deputy on April 24. Acerete had previously accepted some of the information, but lacked instructions on how to respond. Following are his responses. ¶2. (C) On Georgia's request for Intensified Dialogue (ref A), Acerete said that Spain is generally positive but wants to be prudent. He explained that Spain understands and accepts the US position, but wants to continue to review Georgia's evolution. ¶3. (C) On Global Partnership (ref B),Acerete said that Spain continues to study the US proposal. He acknowledged that it will be a major part of the discussion at the ministerial, but said that a decision is not urgently needed. Spain believes that it is critical to preserve the existing programs, which are working reasonably well. Acerete said that new is not necessarily better, and that anything new should demonstrably improve on what already exists. He also said that it is important to ensure that specialized programs, like the Med Dialog, stay focused. ¶4. (C) On Middle East Security Cooperation Center (ref C), Acerete said that Spain supports the general concept, but has some particular concerns. He said that the proposal seems to mix the Gulf countries with Mediterranean countries. Both regions are important, but they are different and should be handled differently. Again, there are existing programs that work well, and they should not be blended. He also raised questions about footprint and ownership, saying that while it could be helpful to have NATO training sites outside NATO borders in the mid-term, it could be difficult, and even dangerous, in the short term. He suggested that in the short term, this project should focus on using existing sites within NATO countries, which could partner with the involved countries. If it works well, it could be enhanced later. ¶5. (C) Acerete said on April 24 that he was aware of the CFE/Roadmap issue (ref D),understands the US position, and would discuss it with his Disarmament colleagues. Acerete said on April 25 that because both he and the top disarmament policy official are traveling, it is still too soon for MFA to coordinate its answer on this issue. AGUIRRE