Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07BERLIN244
2007-02-07 10:41:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy Berlin
Cable title:  

JANUARY 23 MEETING OF G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP

Tags:  PARM PREL ETTC KNNP CBW TRGY GM JA RS CA 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0014
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHRL #0244/01 0381041
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 071041Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6948
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 7911
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 1693
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 0953
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 8436
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 0190
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 1363
UNCLAS BERLIN 000244 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR ISN/CTR, EUR, WHA/CAN, AND EAP/J

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC KNNP CBW TRGY GM JA RS CA
SUBJECT: JANUARY 23 MEETING OF G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP
WORKING GROUP IN BERLIN


UNCLAS BERLIN 000244

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR ISN/CTR, EUR, WHA/CAN, AND EAP/J

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC KNNP CBW TRGY GM JA RS CA
SUBJECT: JANUARY 23 MEETING OF G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP
WORKING GROUP IN BERLIN



1. (SBU) Summary: The G-8 Global Partnership Working Group
(GPWG) met January 23 in Berlin under the German Presidency.
The Chair informed partners that the next meeting, February
27-28, would focus on the mid-term review of the 10-year
Global Partnership (GP) program, with the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and NGOs being invited to attend.
The Chair then addressed preparations for a review and
assessment report of the GP's first five years, noting the
need to produce a review prior to the June 6-8 G-8 Summit.
After the Chair requested responses to a German-produced
questionnaire and a French-prepared matrix of GP projects,
the Russian delegation stated it opposed any reference in a
GP document to Russia as "a proliferation threat." Following
that discussion, the group discussed the review document and
the status of Chemical Weapons Destruction (CWD) projects in
Russia, with the Russian delegation complaining about the
slow pace of receiving funds. The Russian delegation next
gave a presentation on removing and securing Radioisotopic
Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs),and the group discussed the
status of decommissioning and dismantling Russian nuclear
submarines. Canada's delegation announced the construction
of a biosecurity facility in Bishkek; the U.S. delegation
raised the issue of the future of the science centers in
Russia and Ukraine. The Chair closed with the announcement
that Germany would send procedural information concerning the
review process to the delegations and requested they consider
options for presenting the review report at the G-8 Summit.
End Summary.


2. (SBU) German MFA Commissioner for Economic Affairs and
Sustainable Development Viktor Elbling chaired the opening
session and began by informing the delegations that the
GPWG's February 27 session will include presentations by NGOs
or other invitees selected from a list of proposed invitees
by GP members. Elbling also announced that Germany had

invited the IAEA to give a general overview of the global
threat of unsecured nuclear material, that Germany's Federal
Intelligence Service (BND) will contribute a segment on the
threat of nuclear material to Germany's overall presentation,
and that all partners are invited to include input from their
intelligence services in their presentations. He added that
the think tank, Foundation for Science and Policy, (Stiftung
fuer Wissenschaft und Politik, SWP),is the German NGO
designated to address the first day of February's session.
Elbling asked all members to respond by January 31 with their
proposed invitees. With little discussion, it was agreed
that GP donor states will also be invited to send proposed
NGO participants.


3. (SBU) Elbling turned to the major item for consideration,
the review/assessment report of the GP's first five years.
To encourage a structured discussion, he requested responses
to a previously circulated German-produced questionnaire and
a French-produced matrix evaluation scheme. French Delegate
Camille Grand suggested the matrix might be useful as a
quantitative tool for assessing the progress of GP projects.
Before discussion could begin, Russian Delegate Anatoly
Antonov said Russia would not permit any GP document to refer
to Russia "as a proliferation threat." Antonov reiterated
the statement several times and mentioned dissatisfaction
with the status of the CWD projects in Russia. He claimed
contributors to the CWD projects are lagging in their
allocation of funds and added Russia could not support the
German-produced questionnaire. Nevertheless, Antonov
insisted Russia wanted to improve cooperation with members on
CWD.


4. (SBU) The British, Canadian, French, EU Commission, and
Italian delegates, along with Deputy Assistant Secretary
Semmel, all acknowledged Russia's concerns about the slow
pace of some projects' funding, but reaffirmed their
continued commitment to all projects under way. The
delegates agreed the review/assessment was the basis for
moving the GP forward during the next five years and beyond
and said Russia would not be singled out as a "proliferation
threat." Italian Delegate Antonio Catalano pointed out that
Russia itself has voiced concerns over the CWD program,
thereby acknowledging concerns over proliferation on its
territory.


5. (SBU) Antonov continued, however, despite comments from
partners that emphasized the common threats faced by all
states. He claimed the U.S. has only given 10 percent of its

pledged amount for CWD. Noting the proliferation threats
around the world, including in the U.S., DAS Semmel pointed
out that pledged funds are not disbursed all at once but in
incremental amounts, typically annually, in accordance with
government budgets. He said the proper calculation is not
the percentage spent of the total pledged amount but the
percentage of funds made available by donor countries up to
that point.


6. (SBU) After Elbling brought the discussion back to the
review document, the delegates generally agreed the document
must be succinct and clear to leaders and the public. DAS
Semmel urged that members use the review to reflect on GPWG
assumptions. He suggested that as the review process
continues, some surprises may lie ahead and the members will
be compelled to consider what happens after the GP program
ends in 2012.


7. (SBU) At this point, German MFA International Energy and
Nuclear Energy Policy Office Director Thomas Meister replaced
Elbling as Chair. Meister gave a short presentation on the
status of CWD progress. Russian Delegate Antonov announced
that the process of donor countries funding CWD projects
through G-8 members, known as piggybacking, is not working.
He claimed the UK, Canada, and others are lagging far behind
in the work on their projects, and cited the need to finish
the current projects by the end of 2009. He also reiterated
an announcement made at the November 2006 meeting that Russia
plans to allocate four billion dollars, in addition to the
two billion already on record, to complete the CWD goals by

2012.


8. (SBU) The EU Commission, Italy, the UK, and Canada, and
others disputed Antonov's claims. Canadian Delegate Troy
Lulashnyk stated piggybacking is working and that Canada and
all other participants are completely committed to resolving
the current project delays. DAS Semmel noted some delays
have resulted from disagreements over estimates and took
satisfactory note of Russia's additional four billion dollar
commitment to the GP process. Antonov suggested members flag
the issue of discrepancies between Russia's figures and those
of other member states.


9. (SBU) Turning to RTGs, Meister noted the need for improved
cooperation on their removal. The Russian delegation gave a
status report on RTG removals and referred to a master plan
scheduled for completion March 8 that will be a guide for
funding the removals. The Russians calculated that, of the
581 remaining RTGs, about 35 will be removed annually until
all are gone. The UK delegates informed the group that the
UK has a good relationship with Rosatom, the Russian Ministry
for Atomic Energy Agency. The Canadian delegates announced
that, with U.S. cooperation, the removal of 16 RTGs will be
completed in Russia's Northern areas in 2007.


10. (SBU) The discussion of Russian nuclear submarine
dismantlement took place without incident. All delegates
delivered positive statements about the status of their
respective dismantlement efforts. The Canadian delegates
spoke of their plan to work with other members to dismantle
two Russian nuclear submarines per year "until there are none
left," and announced they are shifting their efforts to the
Far East. (Note: Submarine dismantlement in the Russian Far
East lags behind that in the Northern Baltic area. End
Note.) DAS Semmel drew attention to recent reports that
scrap metal from the submarines is generating funds that help
offset the costs of dismantlement.


11. (SBU) Canadian Delegate Ann Pollack announced a new
biosecurity project was under way at a human and animal
research facility in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, and informed
members that both the International Science and Technology
Center in Russia and the Science and Technology Center in
Ukraine are also working on five-year reviews. She said
Canada is considering sending a science center representative
to the NGO session in February. DAS Semmel added that, as
the evolution of the science centers is being considered,
they are, in some ways, going through an assessment similar
to that of the GP. Their future must also reflect the new
global realities in which the Russian economy has improved
since 2001 and can pay for the work of nuclear scientists
without so much outside support. Russian Delegate Valery
Biryukov informed the group Russia enjoys good cooperation

with the UK on working with former weapons scientists.
Biryukov expressed satisfaction with the current "Nuclear
Cities" project and announced that Rosatom is ready to sign a
new agreement.


12. (SBU) Meister closed with an announcement that all
members will soon receive information on the procedures for
the next steps in the review process and options to be
considered for presenting the review at the G-8 Summit. One
option is to replace the GP annual report with the review.
The other is to cite the review in the report and disseminate
the report as a stand-alone document.


13. (SBU) Canada followed with an announcement it will host a
reception at its Embassy the evening of February after the
NGO presentations. At that event, the Canadian Delegation
will present materials to show the positive results of GP
cooperation over the past five years.


14. (SBU) Comment: The GPWG partners are looking for ways to
bring some G-8 Summit attention to GP's successes to date, to
use the process to underscore the need to expand GP
priorities, and to re-energize the GP as a tool for reducing
the global threat of WMD. Over lunch, the Germans confirmed
our view that Russia,s primary, perhaps only, concern is
that the results of the review process might cause members to
stray away from CWD and submarine dismantlement commitments
toward new "priorities." The NGO session on February 27 will
be an important event in the GP process this year. It
appears our German hosts are carefully structuring the NGO
presentations in order to stimulate the review process and
perhaps defuse or reduce political differences among the
members over what the review should say. End Comment.


15. (U) Heads of Delegations:

--Viktor Elbling, Germany
--Anatoly Antonov, Russian Federation
--Camille Grand, France
--Antonio Catalano di Mellili, Italy
--Atsushi Kato, Japan
--Berenice Gare, United Kingdom
--Andrew Semmel, United States
--Troy Lulashnyk, Canada
--Lars-Erik Lundin, European Commission
--Tomas Reyes Ortega, EU Council


16. (U) DAS Semmel has cleared this cable.
TIMKEN JR