WMD Foreign Consequence Management MoU

UNCLAS OTTAWA 000272

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR WMDT, WHA/CAN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KTIA PTER TBIO CA
SUBJECT: WMD Foreign Consequence Management MoU

Ref: (A) State 12882


1. Summary: The Embassy believes that the suggested MoU between
DFAIT and State is not necessary because existing arrangements
already address its intent. These include a 1986 treaty-level
all-hazards mutual assistance agreement; the 1999 Canada-U.S.
"Guidelines Concerning Cooperation on Chemical, Biological,
Radiological and Nuclear Counterterrorism"; and several regional
MoUs between individual states and provinces. In addition, under
the aegis of these and other agreements, the GoC and USG are working
within the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) involving
Canada, the United States, and Mexico, to develop in-depth protocols
for responding to disasters and terrorist attacks, including CBRN
incidents. End summary.


2. The Embassy believes that the proposed MoU between the Department
of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) and the State
Department is not necessary because existing agreements between
Canada and the United States provide the framework for cooperative
efforts as envisioned by the proposed MoU. We consulted the
Ministry of Public Safety, which would take the lead in coordinating
the Canadian response to a disaster, and the Department of Foreign
Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). Both organizations
concluded that the agreements we have in place now exceed the level
of cooperation being proposed by the new MoU.


3. For example, Canada and the United States have signed the 1986
"Canada-U.S. Agreement on Cooperation in Comprehensive Civil
Emergency Planning and Management." This agreement covers all
hazards, up to, and including, all-out nuclear war. In 1999, Canada
and the United States agreed to the "Guidelines Concerning
Cooperation on Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear
Counterterrorism," which covers the same ground as the proposed MoU.
Regional groupings of provinces and states (in the Pacific
Northwest and in the New England/Atlantic provinces areas) have also
signed agreements on cross-border assistance that could be
implemented in a CBRN incident. (These state/province arrangements,
however, have not been ratified by the U.S. Congress).


4. Finally, to further obviate the requirement for the proposed
non-binding MoU, the GoC and USG are working within the trilateral
Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) to develop in-depth
protocols for responding to disasters and terrorist attacks,
including CBRN incidents. Working groups of Canadian, American, and
Mexican officials are undertaking actions to strengthen the response
capability to incidents involving any of the three nations. SPP
Action themes include: "Develop and implement a North American
Bioprotection Strategy to Assess, Prevent, Protect, Detect, and
Respond to Intentional As Well As Applicable Naturally Occurring
Threats to Public Health and the Food and Agriculture System" (see
page 21 of the 2006 Security Annex) and "Develop and Implement a
Common Approach to Critical Infrastructure Protection and Response
to Cross-Border Terrorist Incidents And, As Applicable, Natural
Disasters" (see page 25 of the 2006 Security Annex). The SPP
documents are available at www.spp.gov

Wilkins