FRANCE AND NATO ID FOR GEORGIA - IT'S ABOUT RUSSIA

C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS 004214

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/16/2016
TAGS: PREL MARR FR NATO RU
SUBJECT: FRANCE AND NATO ID FOR GEORGIA - IT'S ABOUT RUSSIA

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


1. (C) 1. Summary: A French decision on Georgia's candidacy
for NATO Intensified Dialogue is under review, according to
Presidency and MFA officials, and President Chirac will have
the final say. Based on conversations with an Elysee
contact, France continues to view Georgia's future through
the prism of Europe's approach to Russia and Russia's
relationships with its neighbors. French resistance is also
linked to current French reservations about NATO and EU
enlargement more generally. MFA and Elysee contacts have
emphasized that NATO should evaluate carefully Georgia's
candidacy for ID in terms of the benefits Georgian membership
would bring to the Alliance, and not in response to pressures
from Georgia. End Summary.


2. (C) Polmiloff recently discussed NATO initiatives for Riga
separately with Elysee advisor for Strategic Affairs Laurent
Bili and MFA Cabinet advisor for Strategic Affairs Francois
Carrel-Billiard. Both made it clear that France had yet to
take a final position on Georgia's ID candidacy and that such
a decision would be made by President Chirac, who is
personally engaged on all questions pertaining to the future
of Europe.


3. (C) Bili conceded our arguments that, judged on substance
alone, Georgia was on track for ID. He emphasized, however,
that a key consideration for France would be how Russia would
react to the establishment of closer links between NATO and
Georgia. Applying Russia-first logic, he stated that Russia
had not made as much progress internally as the West might
have hoped. It was therefore important that the U.S. and
Europe proceed carefully and not allow Russia to use its
differences with its near neighbors, such as Georgia and
Ukraine, as an excuse to backtrack on its own reforms.
Additionally, Bili argued there was a danger that in response
to NATO's pushing for closer links with Georgia, Russia might
become less willing to find a way forward on resolving the
frozen conflicts in its region.


4. (C) Along similar lines, Carrel-Billiard admitted that the
Alliance could not allow Russia to dictate its membership,
but added that a case could be made for taking a less
confrontational approach with the Russians. We countered
that previous NATO expansion efforts with Poland and the
Baltic states had ultimately proven to be the right decision
and non-threatening to Russia. Carrel-Billiard took the
point, but emphasized that from a Russian perspective,
Georgia and Ukraine were far more critical to Russia's
interests.


5. (C) Carrel-Billiard also noted that ID status was the
first step leading to NATO accession, and hence enlargement
of the Alliance. History had shown that NATO membership had
tracked with EU accession, hence it was important to closely
weigh the benefits new members would bring to the Alliance.
He observed that Poland and Romania, for instance, had
provided significant contributions to the Alliance, but it
was far less clear what Georgia would add. The adverse
outcomes of the 2005 referenda in France and in the
Netherlands showed that the jury was still out in France and
in other countries in Europe on the nature of a future
Europe.


6. (C) Carrel-Billiard and Bili cautioned against rushing an
Alliance decision on ID for Georgia. They readily conceded
that decisions on ID status and MAP were performance-based.
However, Bili said France saw no urgency in pushing for a
quick decision, especially as the Georgians then could be
expected to push harder for a political decision on the next
steps forward, further complicating Europe's handling of
Russia. Carrel-Billiard advised that the MFA could agree to
ID for Georgia by Riga, but wishes to keep the matter open
for now.

Please visit Paris' Classified Website at:
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/paris/index.c fm

STAPLETON