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