MARCH 29 MEETING OF THE G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP

UNCLAS BERLIN 000791 SIPDIS STATE FOR ISN/CTR, EUR, WHA/CAN, AND EAP/J SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC KNNP CBW TRGY GM JA RS CA SUBJECT: MARCH 29 MEETING OF THE G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP WORKING GROUP IN BERLIN REF: A. BERLIN 535 ¶B. BERLIN 244 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The third G-8 Global Partnership Working Group (GPWG) meeting under the German G-8 Presidency took place in Berlin March 29. The Chair opened with a discussion of a draft document which reviewed the first five years of the Global Partnership (GP). Some delegations complained that they had insufficient time to review the draft properly, and other delegations, including the U.S., noted the lack of mention of the GP's future beyond 2012, even though the delegations during the February 28 GPWG meeting had discussed expanding the GP geographically and in scope. After some discussion, the Chair agreed to redraft the review document and re-circulate it. The GPWG also discussed the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP),recent developments in GP projects, and whether the GPWG would push for a G-8 Leaders' Statement on nonproliferation, which would include mention of the GP. Most delegations agreed that the GP should draft a leaders' statement for this year's G-8 Summit in June. DAS Semmel informed the other delegates that since the item was not on the agenda he would not table a U.S. draft but noted that the issue would surface in the Political Directors meeting the following week. He also mentioned that a U.S. paper proposing an outline for GP expansion would be distributed at the Political Director's meeting. End Summary. ¶2. (SBU) German MFA Commissioner for Economic Affairs and Sustainable Development Viktor Elbling chaired the morning session of the March 29 GPWG meeting. He opened the meeting with a discussion of a German-produced draft, "Global Partnership Review," which had been circulated to GPWG partners on March 26. The partners had agreed at the previous GPWG meeting February 28 that Germany would produce a draft consisting of three parts: I. Main Achievements, II. Lessons Learned, and III. Future Priorities. Elbling explained the Germans' intent was to produce a concise paper versus a comprehensive document and asked for responses. Most delegates expressed appreciation for the brevity of the document, but some complained that it was distributed too late for appropriate consideration or for domestic inter-agency consultations. The British, U.S., and Canadian delegates queried why Part III lacked any mention of the future of GP beyond 2012, when delegations had expressed general support for this at the February 28 meeting. DAS Semmel said the GP needs to consider its priorities beyond 2012, because proliferation threats will not stop then nor remain what they were in 2002, when the GP was created. He outlined the future as: fulfilling existing GP commitments in the next five years, expanding the GP beyond Russia and former Soviet Union states, extending it beyond 2012, determining the threats of the future, and making additional financial commitments to GP projects after 2012. He informed the group that the U.S. would table a paper outlining U.S. thinking on this in the Political Directors' meeting on April 3, 2007. ¶3. (SBU) British Delegate Berenice Gare said the review document, in addition to mentioning expansion, should prompt G-8 leaders to re-state their commitment to GP. Without renewed commitment from the leaders, the GP is liable to diminish in importance after 2012, even though the world will face new threats. To the Chair's comment that the draft review document purposely excluded mentioning expansion beyond 2012 because it is difficult to commit the G-8 leaders to something that far in advance, Canadian Delegate Troy Lulashnyk said even if the GPWG cannot bind governments to such commitments, the nuclear-related threat will extend beyond 2012. He suggested that the review document could cover the scope beyond 2012 without shackling the leaders and noted that the Kananaskis Accords of 2002 describe a much wider mandate for the GP than it has exercised to date. He said the Global Partnership was always intended to be global and geographical expansion beyond Russia and the FSU should not detract from the ongoing commitments to them. British Delegate Gare noted the first GP document, released at the 2002 G-8 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, bound the leaders to a 10-year commitment, so the precedent for long-range commitments and foresight was already set. She said it would be unfair to the G-8 leaders if the GPWG indicated that all the nuclear threat issues will be solved by 2012. Italian Delegate Antonio Catalano di Melilli agreed the GPWG should look at new projects and expand the scope, noting that because of the early focus on projects in Russia, several worthy proposals for projects in other countries were dismissed. ¶4. (SBU) French Delegate Camille Grand advocated adding some specific figures to Part II, such as citing how many Russian nuclear submarines had been dismantled so far, to indicate GP successes to date. Russian Delegate Ruzhkov argued against including any figures in the review document and said, as it was, Part II had too many technical details. He added the review document should be a political document and not a technical paper. All delegates agreed figures attract controversy and delay, but also acknowledged the usefulness of concrete references and examples. ¶5. (SBU) DAS Semmel and other delegates emphasized that the review document should have a positive tone. The GP, despite some difficulties in implementing some projects, has been a success story and made the world safer with the dismantling of decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines, securing nuclear facilities in Russian and the FSU, and destroying chemical weapon stockpiles in the U.S. and Russia. He noted further that the GP has been successful despite the absence of any permanent bureaucracy or institutional infrastructure. ¶6. (SBU) Elbling ended the discussion by offering to redraft the review document and circulate it by April 5 with the proviso that the delegates respond within 10 days. He agreed that the next draft would reflect the positive character of GP work and the outstanding achievements. ¶7. (SBU) Thomas Meister, Director of the German MFA's International Energy and Nuclear Energy Policy and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Division, then assumed the chair. He opened discussion on the Northern Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP). Because NDEP has an environmental dimension, he raised the issue of whether it belonged under GP auspices. After some discussion, most delegates agreed that it fit within the GP's scope. The UK representatives advised that the GP "keep a gentle eye" on NDEP, and the Russian Delegation urged the NDEP's Coordinating Committee to work more closely with the GP. ¶8. (SBU) The Chair then opened discussion on recent developments in GP projects. The delegates gave updates on various projects since the February 28 meeting. Canadian Delegate Lulashnyk mentioned Canada was negotiating with Russia to establish a bio-containment facility to house biological warfare-related equipment coming from Central Asian countries. ¶9. (SBU) DAS Semmel, under Other Business, raised the issue of a Leaders' Statement. He advocated inserting a comment about GP expansion in the G-8 Summit Declaration. (Note: In sidebar discussions, the British and Canadian delegates agreed with DAS Semmel on this issue. End note.) Semmel noted the G-8 Political Directors would discuss such an insertion at their April 3 meeting in Berlin. Meister said he would raise the issue with his government but was noncommittal. ¶10. (SBU) Comment: The meeting went well, considering the perplexing, truncated draft five-year review document which the German MFA had circulated with only three days' notice. The draft had excluded much of the third portion of the review document, i.e., the future of the GP, which had taken up considerable discussion time and preparation in the February 27-28 meetings. Dietrich Becker of the MFA said in a sidebar meeting that the German draft was purposely designed to cover only the consensus language and what was excluded was to be discussed at the March 29 meeting. Given that Japan will assume the G-8 Presidency in 2008, it should be noted that the Japanese delegation during lunch expounded on previous comments that domestic concerns make it difficult for their government to sustain continued support for the GP beyond its current commitments. The German delegates and others echoed these concerns. They added that to the extent that the GP is known, it is equated with supporting work in a now oil-rich Russia. Conversations with these and other delegates during recent meetings indicate that developing a compelling rationale for GP expansion requires very careful consideration of the individual motives, security concerns, and priorities of each GP member. The support from most members for expansion seems genuine but might lack internal support in their governments, when compared to the US, British, and Canadian positions. This means that a compelling case must be made to skeptical domestic political figures and audiences for expanding the partnership so that the GP can adjust to new global realities and combat WMD threats. Moving the U.S. proposal to extend and expand the GP will be difficult and will need to be elevated to more senior levels to gain greater traction. End Comment. ¶11. (SBU) This cable was coordinated with DAS Semmel subsequent to the delegation's departure. TIMKEN JR