JANUARY 23 MEETING OF G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP

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