APRIL 23 MEETING OF THE G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP

UNCLAS BERLIN 000845 SIPDIS SENSITIVE 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 UK FR SUBJECT: APRIL 23 MEETING OF THE G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP WORKING GROUP (GPWG) IN BERLIN REF: A. BERLIN 791 ¶B. BERLIN 535 ¶C. BERLIN 244 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The fourth G-8 Global Partnership Working Group (GPWG) meeting under the German G-8 Presidency took place April 23, and focused on drafting the Global Partnership (GP) five-year review document. The delegates failed to reach agreement on the U.S. proposals for the future of the Global Partnership and deferred further discussion and decision to the April 26-27 G-8 Sherpas meeting in Bonn. DAS Semmel presented the USG's four-point proposal for GP expansion: geographical expansion of the GP beyond the FSU, global programmatic expansion, 10-year expansion of the GP beyond 2012, and a USD 20 billion funding commitment to support the process. The Canadian delegate made a compelling case for geographic and programmatic expansion. He suggested the GPWG decide on a time-frame to expand the GP beyond 2012 (which he argued was consistent with the GP's original language),but was non-committal on the funding issue, despite strong praise for the U.S. funding commitment. The British delegate expressed strong support for geographic and programmatic expansion of the GP and informed partners that the UK was consulting internally on funding and expansion beyond 2012. The Russian delegate did not oppose GP expansion "in principle," but characterized all aspects of the USG's current proposal as "premature," and spent much of the day drawing participants into exchanges about Russia's concerns over the completion of its CW destruction and submarine dismantlement projects by 2012. The remaining delegates duly noted the USG proposal and, particularly the Japanese delegation, appeared generally receptive to the idea of geographic and programmatic expansion, but all stated strongly that any consideration of expansion or funding beyond 2012 would have to be presented to their respective leaders. Partners reached agreement largely on the language of the first two sections of the GP five-year review document -- "Achievements" and "Lessons Learned" -- but there was no significant agreement on the "Future Priorities" section because of the differences over the U.S. proposals. End summary. ¶2. (SBU) Director of the German MFA's International Energy and Nuclear Energy Policy and Nuclear Nonproliferation Division Thomas Meister chaired a prolonged meeting which focused on the drafting of the GP five-year review document. Although the key item of discussion was the USG four-point proposal to expand the GP geographically, programmatically, 10 years beyond 2012, and to commit USD 20 billion dollars to support the process, the GP partners spent much of the day considering the first two sections of the third German draft of the review document, "Achievements" and "Lessons Learned," seeking consensus language. Late in the afternoon, broad agreement, if not consensus, was obtained on those sections, and the Germans agreed to draft and circulate the new language. ¶3. (SBU) Meister opened discussion on the third section of the review document, "Future Priorities," and invited DAS Semmel to present the USG proposal. DAS Semmel emphasized that the global threats faced by the GP are evolving and urgent, that it will take time to prepare for GP expansion so members must start now, and citing the risks and dangers faced by all if no action is taken. ¶4. (SBU) Canadian Delegate Troy Lulashnyk lauded the U.S. willingness to commit another $10 billion in GP funding. He noted that the threats we are seeking to combat will not disappear in 2012 and that this needs to be highlighted to leaders. Lulashnyk divided the U.S. proposal into three parts -- programmatic expansion, geographic expansion, and additional money -- and noted that the first two proposals are already embodied in agreed G-8 language dating back to the 2002 G-8 Summit. He noted that some partners are already dealing with threats outside the FSU. He said programmatic and geographic expansion is "about codifying what we are doing now," and, referring to Russia's regularly expressed sensitivities about being singled out, drew Russia's attention to the fundamental principles behind GP expansion, which is the need to move beyond the FSU while still finishing GP commitments there. Concerning additional funding, Lulashnyk indicated that the partners may not agree on that by the Summit, but also noted the UK's suggestion to discuss this issue in 2010. ¶5. (SBU) Italian Delegate Antonio di Melilli claimed that the USG non-paper containing the U.S. proposals on the GP's future delivered at the April 3 Political Directors meeting did not get much of a response and said he had no mandate to speak about the USGQoposal. He volunQred that "it would be difficult to imagine" funding the USG proposal for an additional $10 billion. He noted the problems that his government has in funding current projects. ¶6. (SBU) Japanese Delegate Takeshi Aoki stated that Japan shares the U.S. view on the need for GP geographic expansion, but emphasized that with five years left in the current GP commitment, it would be very difficult for Japan to explain to its public at this point the commitment of additional funds. ¶7. (SBU) The German delegation said it appreciated the U.S. approach to the GP's future, but stated it would be difficult to make any commitments at this stage. They also suggested that the GP Working Group was too junior in rank to make binding decisions and that this issue should be discussed by the G-8 Sherpas. ¶8. (SBU) Russian Delegate Oleg Rozhkov stated the Russian view that the U.S. proposals were premature at this stage in the GP process, particularly with ongoing projects in Russia not yet completed. Rozhkov also noted that President Putin has 10 months left in office and is unlikely to entertain important political commitments related to the GP's future at this point. ¶9. (SBU) British delegate Berenice Gare echoed Canada's statement on the importance of an additional $10 billion commitment by the United States. She said the U.S. proposals had been forwarded to the Prime Minister's office, but considered it unlikely that PM Blair, who could be leaving office in the near term, would commit to additional funding by the time of the Summit. Nevertheless, Gare stated that, in principle, the UK was prepared to seek additional funding for an expansion of the GP was looking to continue its work beyond 2012. ¶10. (SBU) French Delegate Francois Richier noted that France will have a new president by the time of the Summit and that the new president would be fully briefed on the U.S. proposals; but France was not in a position to make any new commitments at this time. ¶11. (SBU) The EU delegates stated that they were not currently in a position to commit to anything, but that they would present the U.S. proposals to their authorities and return to the subject. ¶12. (SBU) After the tour de table, DAS Semmel concluded that there is complete agreement that the GP is a worthy endeavor, that the GP coordinating mechanism works successfully without the overlay of bureaucracy or institutional infrastructure, and that the G-8 ought to capitalize on this record of achievement by planning now for the future. He noted that the GP Working Group is not tasked with making final decisions on the U.S. proposals but is tasked with making recommendations to the leaders, including possibly language on the GP for inclusion in the Summit declaration. The German chair, seeking to summarize the discussion, stated that three delegations (the U.S., Canada, and the UK) were generally optimistic about the U.S. proposals, while the other delegations appreciated the proposals but considered the approach premature or would have to consult their higher authorities. The Canadians again noted that current G-8 statements already committed the G-8 to expand the GP programmatically and geographically and that the German-proposed language on geographic expansion did not do justice to the fact that many G-8 partners were already engaged in assistance to other states beyond Russia and Ukraine. ¶13. (SBU) The German chair proposed several alternative ways forward -- specifically postponing discussion of geographic expansion until the September GPWG meeting, and agreeing on tentative language for the GP five-year review document that could be used if the Sherpas concluded, as they believed, that the U.S. proposals were premature. The U.S. rejected these ideas and stated that we sought something much more significant now on where the GP is headed, and that the German-proposed language in the third draft of the review document should be bracketed. ¶14. (SBU) The Germans agreed to circulate, as soon as possible, a revised draft of the five-year review document, bracketed as necessary. Given this year's focus on the review document, the German hosts suggested, and partners agreed, that the recently circulated draft GP Annual Report would be kept short and factual. They agreed to re-circulate a new draft of the Report and a consolidated Annex after comments were received from G-8 partners and countries had completed the submission of their Annex data. The next GPWG is scheduled for September 18, 2007. ¶15. (SBU) Comment: The quality of discussion and amount of time devoted to the USG proposal suffered considerably in this meeting. Despite few serious differences among partners over the language of the "Achievements" and "Lessons Learned" sections of the draft review document, most of the day was spent laboring over those sections. The discussion of the U.S. proposal began late in the session, and there was little time for delegations to respond formally. Most statements were short and focused on the difficulty of securing additional funding. More discussion time would not have altered any fundamental positions, but most delegations would have dedicated more time to geographic and programmatic expansion, where most partners, except Russia, have in the past expressed similar views. ¶16. (SBU) Comment continued: The U.S. delegation's assessment, therefore, is that we should be able to secure clear language in the GP five-year review document indicating the need for geographic and programmatic expansion, since these proposals have a strong basis in current G-8 statements. It might also be possible to agree on some language that makes clear that the threats the GP is intended to address will not end in 2012 and that GP activity should continue beyond that date. Achieving G-8 consensus to extend formally the GP beyond 2012 (or specifically to extend it an additional 10 years to 2022) or to an additional funding commitment for an additional $20 billion will be extremely difficult. End comment. ¶17. (U) This cable was coordinated with DAS Semmel subsequent to the delegation's departure. TIMKEN JR