EAPC CONSULTATIONS ON THE TRANSFORMATION OF NATO,S

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USNATO 000668 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: MARR MOPS NATO PREL EAPC SUBJECT: EAPC CONSULTATIONS ON THE TRANSFORMATION OF NATO,S PARTNERSHIPS AT RIGA REF: SG(2006)0711 AND REVISIONS E-MAILED TO EUR/RPM SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (U) Partner Ambassadors responded positively to the Secretary-General,s briefing on plans to transform NATO,s SIPDIS partnerships at Riga in their last consultations with Allied PermReps before the November 28-29 Summit. They voiced support for expanding access to proven PfP tools to other nations engaged in NATO-led operations and for more flexible consultative formats. At the same time, several Partners called for retaining the "specificity" of NATO's several existing partnership structures. Neither France nor Russia spoke. End Summary. ¶2. (U) Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) Chairman, Secretary-General (SYG) Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, briefed SIPDIS Partner Ambassadors in a special session of the EAPC on November 11 on the status of Allied discussions of transforming NATO,s partnerships at the Riga summit. At the request of Ambassador Nuland and three other Allied PermReps, the meeting was advanced six days to provide Partner nations an opportunity to comment on plans for Partnership before Allies finalized their proposals for approval by Heads of State and Government (HOSG) at Riga. A RIGA STATUS REPORT -------------- ¶3. (SBU) The SYG drew on a paper he had prepared for Allied PermReps, discussions over recent weeks (Ref) to inform Partners of the broad objectives of Allied discussions: (1) to more fully develop existing Partnership cooperation programs with existing Partners, participants in the Mediterranean Dialogue (MD) and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI),Non-NATO Troop Contributors (NNTC) and other selected Contact Countries (CC); (2) to increase the &operational relevance8 of relations with these nations, particularly those contributing to NATO-led operations; and (3) to foster defense reform and institution-building in countries and regions where NATO was engaged. To accomplish those objectives, the SYG continued, Allies were looking at three general proposals: (1) making consultations with Partner nations &more focused and reflective of priorities8 by adapting the EAPC processes; (2) using flexible formats to allow ad hoc interactions among PfP, MD, ICI, NNTCs, and other selected contributors to NATO-led ops; and (3) opening the Partnership &toolbox8 of training, exercise, and consultative mechanisms to that broader group of nations. DEMAND-SIDE PARTNERSHIP TRANSFORMATION -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Partner nations reactions to the SYG,s report were uniformly positive. While several expressed regret that no document ) even a work in progress ) had been shared for their capitals to review, they recognized that this followed from Allied interest in hearing their views before the proposals had coalesced into inflexible language. Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Finland, and Ireland voiced support for the key U.S. objective of &opening the toolbox8 to MD and ICI countries, and other contributing "Contact Countries." Most of the same nations specifically endorsed more flexible consultative mechanisms of various &26 N8 formulae for issue- or region-specific consultations with fluid groups of participants. Georgia, Ukraine, Macedonia, and Croatia attested to the benefits they derived from Partnership interoperability and defense reform tools. Neutral West European Partners repeated familiar calls for earlier Allied consultations with troop contributors and potential contributors to NATO-led ops and for participation not only on the ground, but in the chain of command. Only Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Ireland called for retaining the EAPC in its present form, with regular meetings &at 468 ) evidently fearing that their current access to deliberations with Allies through sometimes stilted EAPC discussions might be diluted or worse by introducing more USNATO 00000668 002 OF 002 flexible and operationally-oriented consultative formats. ON TO IMPLEMENTATION -------------- ¶5. (SBU) The UK, Spain, and Italy expanded on their views of what was on offer to Partners. All expressed encouragement at Partners, generally upbeat contributions to the debate. Like a number of Partners, they also stressed the need to maintain agreed Partnership values standards as consultations and practical cooperation was expanded to MD and ICI countries (who have signed onto no such statements) and beyond. Neither France nor Russia spoke at the meeting. In summation, the SYG proposed to meet again soon after Riga to begin implementing the decisions taken there by Allied HOSG. NULAND