FEBRUARY 27-28 MEETING OF THE G-8 GLOBAL

UNCLAS BERLIN 000535

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: FEBRUARY 27-28 MEETING OF THE G-8 GLOBAL
PARTNERSHIP WORKING GROUP IN BERLIN

REF: BERLIN 244


1. (SBU) Summary: The second G-8 Global Partnership Working
Group (GPWG) meeting under the German G-8 Presidency took
place in Berlin February 27-28. The two days of discussion
covered three themes: "Main Achievements Within the Global
Partnership," "Experiences and Lessons Learned," and
"Developments Since 2002 and Future Priorities Including
Geographical Scope." Under achievements, the delegations
covered the GP's work during the first five years,
emphasizing progress in chemical weapons destruction (CWD)
and Russian nuclear submarine dismantlement, GP assistance
projects in Ukraine, and re-employment of former weapons
scientists through Moscow International Science and
Technology Center (ISTC). Under lessons learned, delegations
emphasized the importance of close cooperation with local
authorities, the success of "piggybacking" new projects
through existing country arrangements, getting resource
support from donor states for GP projects, and the value of
audits to scrutinize project efficiency. Russian and other
delegates complained about slowness in implementing some
projects, but others cautioned that CWD and submarine
dismantlement require careful planning. A German Federal
Intelligence Service (BND) representative provided a
terrorism threat analysis and a U.S. delegate urged
identifying and countering diverse terrorist threats while
continuing the work on current GP priorities. Except for
Russia, delegations supported expanding the GP's priorities.
The Dutch delegate mentioned a donor's meeting for March 12
in The Hague on CWD.


2. (SBU) On February 28, the GP partners held a closed
session and, with slight differences, highlighted primarily
by Russian concerns over the GP ability to sustain its
current commitments while pursuing global expansion, reached
general consensus on the basic successes and lessons learned
to date, and agreement that the GP should attempt to address
the evolving challenges that global terrorism presents. End
Summary.

--------------
First Day's Session
--------------


3. (SBU) The second meeting of this year's GPWG under the
German presidency took place in Berlin February 27-28.
Attending the first day's session were representatives of all
GP donor states and the regular G-8 partners, in addition to
the EU. In all, some 18 presentations were made, including
talks by invited representatives from the International
Atomic Energy Agency, the (German) Institute for
International and Security Affairs, the German BND, and the
U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Participation in the
second day's session was limited to G-8 partners. For both
days, the Chair divided the presentations and discussion into
three themes: "Main Achievements with the Global
Partnership," "Experiences and Lessons Learned," and
"Developments Since 2002 and Future Priorities Including
Geographical Scope."


4. (SBU) Achievements Within the GP: Gebhard Geiger, from the
German Institute for International and Security Affairs,
presented a descriptive, neutral overview on what the GP has
accomplished during the first five years. Russian delegate
Oleg Rozhkov spoke of Russia's commitment to two basic GP
priorities. He noted that Russia has received USD 300
million for CWD and USD 493 million for nuclear submarine
dismantlement. (Note: Russia's Foreign Ministry reports that
the figures are actually USD 297 million for CWD and USD 443
million for submarine dismantlement. End note.) Rozhkov
also complained about the slow pace of CWD projects in
Russia. The French, Ukrainian, and Canadian delegates all
commented positively about progress on their projects. The
Canadian Deputy Executive Director of the Moscow
International Science and Technology Center, Leo Owsiacki,
mentioned ISTC's successful efforts to engage 75,000
scientists, 75 percent of whom are former weapons scientists
in the FSU, and noted 470 ISTC partners for research and
development projects. Rozhkov succinctly stated his view
that the task of redirection of former weapons scientists is
"done." Owsiacki responded that ISTC is currently involved
in a strategic planning session on moving toward a more
commercial role for the ISTC and that research and

development efforts are specifically designed to move
scientists in that direction.


5. (SBU) Experiences and Lessons Learned: UK delegate
Berenice Gare cited a report from the British NGO Chatham
House that praised the GP's work, but added the NGO
considered GP weak on biological warfare issues. Canadian
delegate Troy Lulasnyk stated Canada was finding flexibility
in funding direct contracts and predicted speedier work on
submarine dismantlement during the next five years. The
Norwegian delegate also described successful work on the
removal of radioistopic thermoelectric generators (RTGs) and
dismantling of Victor class nuclear submarines, but
complained of access problems at Mayak and other places in
northern Russia. Russian delegate Rozhkov expressed concerns
about excessive administrative infrastructures for projects
and advised all members that in order to comply with
commitments to finish work by 2012, Russia will need all GP
(CWD) funds committed and spent by the end of 2009. Rozhkov
in this and subsequent discussions discounted occasional
complaints about access, noting the GP was "not an occasion
for tourism."


6. (SBU) Developments Since 2002 and Future Priorities:
Several delegates responded to earlier Russian concerns over
the slowness of ongoing projects. The Swedish and UK
delegates, among others, explained while projects start
slowly, most should pick up speed in the second half of the
10-year period. DAS Semmel stated that the U.S. shared
Russia's frustration. He noted delays are in some cases
traceable to legitimate differences in bidding and contract
negotiations, but reiterated U.S. commitment to complete the
work. UK delegates cautioned that the dangerous nature of
CWD and submarine dismantlement must be preceded by
unhurried, careful planning for safety reasons: "You have to
get it right before you start."

7. (SBU) In his terrorist Threat Analysis Update, Dr.
Herrmann of Germany's BND asserted that while the nuclear
capability of terrorist organizations is not yet apparent,
their capabilities in the areas of chemical and biological
weapons are growing. Hermann was followed by a provocative,
well-received presentation entitled, "Global Partnership,
Business as Usual, or Responding to New Challenges," by Anne
Harrington, Director of the Committee on International
Security and Arms Control at the U.S. National Academy of
Sciences. Through slides depicting the global network of
jihad and the future expansion of the use of nuclear power
among sovereign states, she underscored the fundamental need
for the GP and all organizations working to combat terrorism
to identify and counter broad-based terrorist threats that
cut across all regions and continents, while, at the same
time, continuing collective efforts to finish work on current
GP priorities. Anita Nilsson, Director of the Office of
Nuclear Security at the IAEA, addressed the theme: "Nuclear
Security, Preventing the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism." She
also emphasized the critical need to meet the challenge
created by the proliferation of nuclear capabilities of
states and organizations around the world.


8. (SBU) Among the comments from delegations was a detailed
statement by Russia's Rozhkov, who reiterated his country's
position that the time is not right for "radical changes" in
the GP. In response to concerns over the lack of access
expressed by the Norwegians and Japanese, Rozhkov claimed
some of his Russian colleagues had complained about
unnecessary site visits. He also repeated that Russia wants
to see all CWD funds expended by December 31, 2009, in order
to complete destruction of CW in Russia by 2012. Japan and
Norway defended their concerns over access. DAS Semmel
raised the future of the GP up to or beyond 2012, prompting
considerable discussion, with most delegates expressing broad
agreement that the GP needs to adapt to emerging global
threats while also addressing existing priorities in Russia
and the FSU. The UK delegates suggested that perhaps by 2010
there will be the need to begin work on the next "Kananaskis"
plan. (Note: The GP was first announced at the 2002 G-8
Summit in Kananaskis, Canada. End note.) Other delegates
agreed in principle but not necessarily for that specific
year. At the meeting's end, the Dutch delegate spoke about a
donor's meeting on CWD scheduled for The Hague on March 12.

--------------
Second Day's Session

--------------


9. (SBU) In the second day's session for G-8 partners only,
the delegates discussed points made the previous day. The
Chair noted for the record that members agreed the GP review
would be submitted to G-8 Summit leaders as a stand-alone
document. The Chair also distributed a list of points for
discussion compiled from the previous day's discussions and
from G-8 partner responses to a GP questionnaire circulated
in early February. The German Chair agreed with DAS Semmel's
snap-shot that this year's GP plans to produce four products
for the Summit: the annual report, the annex to the annual
report, a stand-alone assessment of the GP, and a short
insertion on the assessment for inclusion in the final Heads
of State statement at the Summit. UK delegate Gare argued
the document needs headline points that encapsulate GP goals
and successes. The delegates reached consensus on the
summary of GP achievements on issues that ranged from the
establishment of coordinating mechanisms for project
completion, the establishment of a legal framework that
includes procedures for liability, transparency and access,
the successful redirection of former weapons scientists and
progress toward self-sustainable commercial scientific
activities, the extension GP activities to include work in
Ukraine, and the acceptance of new participating donor states
into the GP.


10. (SBU) In the summary of lessons learned, delegates noted
the need to reduce bureaucratic obstacles without neglecting
financial control or compliance with the national legislation
of donor and recipient states, that "piggy-backing" is an
appropriate mechanism for combining efforts of donors and
partners, and that local cooperation and direct contracting
have been identified and helpful for swift and flexible
project implementation. They also noted the GP must remain
adaptive to new challenges, that consensus must be reached
among all participants on project development, and that a
balance must be struck between the protection of sensitive
information and the necessary transparency and accountability
in project implementation. Russian delegate Rozhkov raised
the point of showing the low percentage of pledged funds that
have been expended on projects. DAS Semmel was obliged to
repeat that statistic cannot work because pledged funds are
released in increments in annual budgets and obviously cannot
be spent before they are appropriated. He argued a more
appropriate statistic would be the percentage of funds spent
or obligated among those funds actually available from donor
countries. The delegates also determined that long-term
planning can be improved for the second five years of the GP
if recipient and donor states are given an appropriate amount
of time for preparation to identify potential gaps in program
needs so that additional program contributions can be sought.


11. (SBU) The delegates reached a broad consensus on the
summary of developments since 2002, and, except for Russia,
also reached broad consensus on the future of GP priorities.
The Russian delegate objected to the need for GP expansion at
this time. There was unanimous agreement that all ongoing
projects and tasks should be completed. DAS Semmel
underscored this point and mentioned that partners can do
more to sustain and implement ongoing programs while seeking
additional donors. He reminded partners that the Kananaskis
document did not limit GP activity to Russia or the FSU and
that as the global security environment had evolved in recent
years, the GP must adjust by placing greater emphasis on the
"global" in the Global Partnership, while not detracting from
priority requirements in Russian and the FSU. All delegates
also agreed that GP tasks would not disappear after 2012 and
that a framework should be developed to address this
situation. Several members suggested that the assessment of
future directions for the GP might begin in 2010, but the
exact time for the assessment was not determined. The group
noted the economic situation in Russia has improved since
2002 and applauded Russia's additional pledge of USD 4
billion to ongoing CWD and submarine dismantlement. However,
Russian delegates resisted consensus language that referred
to growing global concerns over increased terrorism threats.

--------------
Comment
--------------


12. (SBU) There were predictable differences expressed by the

Russian delegation over GP expansion and Russian resistance
to the efforts of the Germans and other partners to gain GP
consensus on the growing global threat of terrorism.
However, there was still general consensus among members,
including Russia, on other aspects GP achievements, lessons
learned, and the need for the GP to adjust to future
challenges. The two-day session should facilitate a
consensus on the five-year review document. There was a
short, pointed exchange of views over access between the
Russian and the Norwegian and Japanese delegations, but an
overall constructive, congenial working group atmosphere was
sustained throughout both days.


13. (SBU) The German Chair surprised delegates with the first
day's schedule in which Anne Harrington's presentation turned
out to be the only briefing given by a non-governmental
organization other than the two that the Germans had
originally announced weeks ago would participate. We
understand that the UK was unable to get a Chatham House
representative to the meeting and that others had similar
problems. Harrington's presentation was well received in its
basic purpose to emphasize the growing global terrorism
threat and the need for GP response to this challenge. The
presentation by Canada's ISTC Deputy Executive Director Leo
Owsiacki also turned out to be particularly useful. Owsiacki
spurred comments on redirection of former scientists that
allowed partners and donors to hear directly about the
success of the center programs and helped air the issue of
self-sustainability for the two science centers. The only
item that might merit special attention is the GP annex
document. Several members commented after the sessions that
preparation of the annex document will be more important this
year because of the five-year review. Data on the work and
status of projects should be subject to more scrutiny. We
have previously emphasized the importance for GP to prepare
accurate, comprehensible annex data. End Comment.



13. (SBU) Heads of Delegations:

Viktor Elbling, Germany
Benjamin Craig, Australia
Werner Bauwens, Belgium
Troy Lulashnyk, Canada
Ales Macik, Czech Republic
Soren Bollerup, Denmark
Tomas Reyes Ortega, EU Council
Bruno Dupre, EU Commission
Timo Kienanen, Finland
Arnaud Roux, France
Michael Keaveney, Ireland
Antonio Catalano di Melilli, Italy
Takeshi Aoki, Japan
Edwin Keijzer, Netherlands
Robert Kvile, Norway
Agnieszka Walter-Drop, Poland
Kwon Young-dae, Republic of Korea
Oleg Rozhkov, Russian Federation
Jan Lundin, Sweden
Andreas Friedrich, Switzerland
Volodymyr Belashov, Ukraine
Berenice Gare, United Kingdom
Andrew Semmel, USA
Anita Nilsson, IAEA


14. (U) This cable was cleared by ISN subsequent to the
delegation's departure from Berlin.
TIMKEN JR