DOD U/S FOR POLICY EDELMAN'S PARIS CONSULTATIONS:

S E C R E T PARIS 007699 SIPDIS SIPDIS USDP FOR DAS DAN FATA E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/06/2016 TAGS: PREL MARR ECPS NATO MNUC AF FR SUBJECT: DOD U/S FOR POLICY EDELMAN'S PARIS CONSULTATIONS: MAKING PROGRESS ON AFGHANISTAN Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Karl Hofmann, Reason 1.4 B/D ¶1. (C) Summary: Senior French officials agreed with U/S of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman that significant progress had been made on Afghanistan at the NATO Riga Summit. The GOF highlighted its recent decisions to ensure that its Tajikistan-based planes continue to support ISAF and OEF through 2007, to increase the number of French trainers of the Afghan army, and to authorize the temporary deployment of French forces outside the Kabul zone to assist fellow allies, although only on "a case by case basis." France explained that its proposal for a Contact Group for Afghanistan is essentially an effort to ensure more effective coordination and delivery of international assistance and reconstruction efforts, and welcomed U.S. suggestions. The question of whether to include Iran in the contact group was left open. ¶2. (S) French officials were cautiously receptive to U/S Edelman's proposal that France join the U.S. and the UK in a counter-insurgency conference to share past experiences and lessons learned. The MOD confirmed French and European interest in exploring potential military uses for the Galileo satellite network, with U/S Edelman strongly warning against violating the agreement not to overlay the GPS signal and the dangers of technology transfer to China; both sides agreed that further discussions were warranted. France conveyed its intention to avoid a trainwreck on Turkey's EU accession negotiations at the EU's 14 December Council meeting. End Summary. Afghanistan: French open to suggestions -------------- ¶3. (C) On December 1, Department of Defense Under Secretary for Policy Eric Edelman met with MFA Political Director Gerard Araud, MFA Strategic Affairs Director Philippe Carre, MOD Strategic Affairs Director Jean de Ponton d'Amecourt, and Presidential Diplomatic Advisor Maurice Gourdault-Montagne. U/S Edelman and his French interlocutors expressed general satisfaction with the outcome of the NATO Riga Summit, focusing on Afghanistan and next steps for the international community. U/S Edelman concurred with an assessment presented at Riga by Defense Minister Alliot-Marie that the challenge in Afghanistan was greater than had been anticipated, especially with reference to the reconstruction needs. U/S Edelman accordingly stressed that NATO will need to better coordinate reconstruction efforts, and ensure that commanders have the required flexibility on deciding how to use NATO forces on the ground. ¶4. (C) MFA Political Director Araud agreed, noting that France had taken on board Washington's message that Alliance members needed to do more in Afghanistan. He reviewed the major steps France had decided to undertake in support of ISAF, including keeping French planes in Dushanbe through 2007 for ISAF and OEF missions and allowing French forces in Kabul to support Allies in other Afghan regions on a "case by case basis." French Director for Strategic Affairs Philippe Carre emphasized the "case by case" nature of these potential temporary deployments, but without providing any further clarification on modalities. (Comment: In a subsequent discussion with Carre's deputy, we were told that the GOF had not worked out how the "case by case" decisions would be made, but more than likely these would be handled through French military channels, as opposed to requiring commanders to seek a political decision on potential troop deployments. End comment.) Contact Group for Afghanistan -------------- ¶5. (C) Carre stated that France had concluded that ISAF was the only successful institution operating in Afghanistan. Coordination and reconstruction efforts by the UN, G8-coordinator, and the EU, among others, were not satisfactory or up to the standards, he added. It is therefore important for "shareholders" to drive the reconstruction process, hence the French proposal for a "Contact Group." The intent behind the creation of a contact group was not to manage technical assistance, but to provide political and intellectual guidance for reconstruction efforts, he concluded. Araud volunteered that France would share further elaboration of this proposal with the U.S. and the UK, and also welcomed our suggestions. He added that it was important to develop a pragmatic process of coordination for reconstruction efforts; that it was important that the UN maintain a highly visible profile, and at the same time, that the international community provide the moral and political authority to persuade NGOs, warlords and others to work together in Afghanistan. U/S Edelman replied that the U.S. did not favor one particular institution over another for reconstruction, so long as the economic reconstruction and military efforts were coordinated. ¶6. (C) Ponton d'Amecourt, expanding on the contact group idea, said the aim was to demonstrate that the international community had a political strategy for Afghanistan and that it was not just "about bombs and destruction." Ponton d'Amecourt also highlighted the new French initiatives for Afghanistan, including the addition of 50 military personnel to train the Afghan army. He was particularly pleased that France was able to do more, noting that he had been made aware in meetings with his Canadian counterparts how much the Canadians had felt betrayed by the lack of Allied support for its troops in southern Afghanistan. ¶7. (C) Presidential Diplomatic advisor (NSA-equivalent) Gourdault-Montagne reiterated his colleagues' assessments that the international community needed to be more engaged on the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Referring to France's proposal for a contact group, Gourdault-Montagne suggested the inclusion of regional partners, such as Pakistan and Tajikistan. Gourdault-Montagne said excluding Iran from the contact group would be "regrettable," although he conceded that it might be necessary to find some other channel for engaging the Iranians on Afghanistan. U/S Edelman pushed back by noting that not all Iranian behavior in Afghanistan had been as constructive as MGM seemed to believe. It was important that the international community not reward Iran for bad behavior. MGM suggested it might be possible to include Iran in discussions on countering Afghanistan's drug production problem. He noted that Iran had previously sought French assistance (e.g., night-vision systems) in developing its border monitoring capabilities (ostensibly for counter-narcotics purposes). Further, with respect to the formation of a contact group, U/S Edelman stressed that it was essential that the contact group not be viewed as "running Afghanistan," and undercutting President Karzai's efforts to extend Kabul's authority. GOF cautious on counter-insurgency conference idea -------------- -------------- ¶8. (C) U/S Edelman explained that with the expansion of ISAF to other regions, NATO had taken on the formal responsibility for counter-insurgency. In support of these Allied efforts, U/S Edelman proposed to Araud and Ponton d'Amecourt a NATO counter-insurgency conference with French, British and U.S. participants to draw on their respective and painful counter-insurgency experiences in Algeria, Vietnam, Malaya and in other areas. U/S Edelman also shared with the French a compilation of articles edited by General Petraeus on the lessons learned from various counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency operations. ¶9. (C) Araud, although receptive in principle to the idea of a conference, cautioned that it should not be a public event, as the "memories of Algeria were still very sensitive in France." Ponton d'Amecourt echoed this view, observing that Algeria remained a delicate topic because of the role the French armed forces played, and which had almost resulted in a coup attempt. Relations with Algeria remain difficult, he added, hence it was important that the conference be properly packaged. (Comment: On the margins of Araud's meeting, his special assistant informed us that in the minds of many in the French public, the military role in Algeria is closely identified with the practice of torture. He suggested that for France it might be useful if the conference had a broader mandate than counter-insurgency. End comment.) U/S Edelman, seeking to address French concerns, suggested that the conference could be held at the NATO college in Rome or at Oberammergau and that it include commanders, colonels, and maybe some civilians. All agreed to follow up discussions on the concept of a conference. Missile Defense; looking for a third site -------------- ¶10. (S) U/S Edelman confirmed to Araud and Ponton d'Amecourt that the U.S. was considering a third missile defense site to be located in Europe. In order to allay Russian concerns, U/S Edelman and Missile Defense Agency's General Obering had briefed the NATO-Russia Council on U.S. intentions and capabilities, noting that U.S. interceptors could not realistically intercept Russian ICBMs from a site in Central Europe. "We think the Russians understood our message," U/S Edelman observed. Araud responded that the Russians had conveyed their political concerns to France. Russia is interested in venting its resentment at having interceptors based in former Warsaw Pact territory, he added. Carre stated that the Russians had expressed greater concern over the interceptors than with the accompanying radars. Galileo -------------- ¶11. (S) In response to U/S Edelman's query about reported French interest in using Galileo for military purposes, Araud agreed to look into the issue, as he had no immediate information on French planning. Ponton d'Amecourt said many EU members were interested in the potential military uses of Galileo, hence the French decision to raise it at a technical level at NATO. France and others are keen on having a secure European signal for such activities as police operations, fire fighting and sea rescue operations. It is an encryption issue for the police and the military services, Ponton d'Amecourt added, explaining further why France had presented it at NATO as a means to provide extra security. U/S Edelman strongly conveyed U.S. concerns that the Europeans adhere to their agreement to maintain the separation of GPS and Galileo. There is a danger of overlay onto the GPS signal, he stressed. There is also a danger of transfer of technology to China. Ponton d'Amecourt agreed about the danger with China and ventured that this concern would be factored into the discussions. (Comment: Ponton d'Amecourt explained that questions on Galileo policy were the responsibility of the Prime Minister's office, which may explain why the MFA had not had an immediate response. End comment.) U/S Edelman and Ponton d'Amecourt agreed that the Embassy would follow up on U.S. concerns. Other Issues -- Turkey -------------- ¶12. (C) Araud volunteered that in an effort to avoid a train wreck, France would seek to find a way forward on Turkey's EU candidacy at the 14 December EU Council meeting. It was essential not to close the door on Turkey, he stated. France believes that Turkish PM Erdogan had been surprised by the adverse conclusions in the Commission's recent report on Turkey, and he hoped that Erdogan would take stronger action to reinforce Turkey's candidacy. Araud observed that French President Chirac had two main issues of concern: EU membership is seen as "a machine to provide European norms" to applicant countries; it was therefore unfortunate that Turkey was not subscribing fully by the accession criteria. His second concern was to maintain GOF support for Turkey in the face of a French public which does not favor Turkey's EU candidacy. ¶13. (U) This message was approved by U/S Edelman. Please visit Paris' Classified Website at: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/paris/index.c fm STAPLETON