SWEDISH MFA POLDIR ON GEORGIA MISSILE INVESTIGATION

C O N F I D E N T I A L STOCKHOLM 000988 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR DAS BRYZA AND EUR/CARC E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/08/2017 TAGS: PREL PGOV SW MOPS GG SUBJECT: SWEDISH MFA POLDIR ON GEORGIA MISSILE INVESTIGATION REF: A. TBILISI 2025 AND PREVIOUS ¶B. MCDOWELL/SILVERMAN AUG 13 EMAIL ¶C. BRYZA/SILVERMAN AUG 13 EMAIL ¶D. CHRISTENSEN/BRYZA AUG 14 PHONE CALL Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Robert Silverman, reason 1.4 (b) and ( d). ¶1. (C) Charge met Aug 14 with MFA Political Director Olof Skoog to discuss Sweden's role in the Georgia missile investigation. Skoog was joined by Foreign Minister Bildt's Staff Director Karin Olofsdotter. Skoog said the missile incident had touched Swedish reflexes to respond when a larger country affects a smaller neighbor. Skoog said he had received information that the Independent Intergovernmental Expert Group (IIEG) was prepared to issue its report. He said the report, which he had not seen, would conclude that 1) it was possible to identify the missile that was fired, but 2) it was not possible to identify the aircraft from which it was fired, and 3) the aircraft appeared to come from Russian airspace. Olofsdotter, who had just finished talking with the Swedish Defense Ministry, said the plan was for all eight experts from the four countries participating in the IIEG (U.S., Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania) to sign the report August 14, which would then be submitted to the OSCE. Skoog said Swedish Colonel Matts Helgesson, who is acting head of the IIEG, had informed the MFA that the U.S. experts in the IIEG had been uncertain of their authority to sign the report. ¶2. (c) Charge thanked the Swedes for taking a leadership role and indicated U.S. interest in supporting that role. He noted our surprise that the investigation was already concluded and asked whether this would be an interim report, adding that we understood other countries may be interested in participating in the investigation. Charge also noted that we understood (ref B) that there was interest in presenting the report to the UNSC. Skoog noted that it would be important to consider how a prior referral of the report to the OSCE might affect a later attempt to refer the matter to the UNSC. Skoog asked for U.S. views on whether or not to submit the report to the OSCE. ¶3. (c) During the course of the meeting Olofsdotter took several calls from Tbilisi regarding the report. She received information on -- and expressed doubt about -- a proposal to have four identical reports signed separately by the representatives of the four countries participating in the IIEG. ¶4. (c) Comment and action request: There is confusion, at least in Stockholm, over the scope and use of the IIEG report. If the investigation is to be continued, expanded, and elevated to involve a political level (i.e., a possible role for a high-level official from Sweden),this needs to be made clear. We do not think Sweden is set on an early report; the MFA seemed as surprised as we were that the IIEG thinks it can wrap up its work so quickly. If we make clear that a more comprehensive investigation is needed, they may agree. We would appreciate guidance to relay to Skoog and the MFA. SILVERMAN