Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06USNATO668
2006-11-13 16:33:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Mission USNATO
Cable title:  

EAPC CONSULTATIONS ON THE TRANSFORMATION OF NATO,S

Tags:  MARR MOPS NATO PREL EAPC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO6556
OO RUEHAST RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMA RUEHMRE RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHNO #0668/01 3171633
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 131633Z NOV 06
FM USMISSION USNATO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0220
INFO RUCNOSC/OSCE POST COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/USNMR SHAPE BE//INTAFF// PRIORITY
RUFNPKD/USDOCO SOUTH NAPLES IT//INTAF// PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE//AEAGC-ATA/AEAGE-EX//
RUCBTEC/USLO SACLANT NORFOLK VA
RUEHNO/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE
RHMFIUU/HQ USAFE RAMSTEIN AB GE//POLAD//
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
-------

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