ALLIES REACT POSITIVELY TO U.S. BRIEFING ON

S E C R E T SECTION 01 OF 03 USNATO 000263

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/19/2017
TAGS: PREL MARR MOPS NATO
SUBJECT: ALLIES REACT POSITIVELY TO U.S. BRIEFING ON
MISSILE DEFENSE

Classified By: Ambassador Victoria Nuland for reasons 1.4 (B,D)


1. (C) SUMMARY: On April 19, Senior U.S. Defense and State,
officials briefed the North Atlantic Council on U.S. plans to
counter the threat to Europe and North America posed by the
Iranian and DPRK missile programs. The briefers emphasized
our willingness to be transparent with Allies, make our
system complementary with any future NATO system, and
cooperate with the Russians. The briefings were very well
received by the Allies. There was broad agreement on the
need for Alliance solidarity, especially in discussions with
Moscow; to persevere in seeking Russia's cooperation, to
continue discussing Missile Defense at NATO, and to maintain
transparency within the Alliance and with Moscow through the
NATO-Russia Council (NRC). Several PermReps called for an
updated NATO study on an Alliance TMD program that would take
into account the U.S. program, and for the Oslo ministerial
to demonstrate Allied unity on missile defense. End Summary.

MD ) RISING ON NATO'S AGENDA
--------------

2. (C) Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman,
Missile Defense Agency Director Lt Gen Trey Obering, and
Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and
Non-Proliferation John Rood provided Missile Defense (MD)
briefing to the North Atlantic Council (NAC) on April 19.
The NAC was reinforced by MD experts or higher level
officials from capitals. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer reminded PermReps that MD has been on the NATO
agenda since its 2002 Prague Summit, that Heads of State and
Government had tasked further study at last year's Riga
Summit, and that PermReps had discussed it three times since
then. The SYG set the stage for U.S. briefings with updates
on what the Alliance had already undertaken in the field of
Missile Defense.

- Assistant Secretary General (ASG) for Investment Peter
Flory reported on the Alliance's Active Layered Theater
Ballistic Defense Program (ALTBMD),which was on track toward
initial operational capability to protect against short to
medium range ballistic missiles in 2010. A feasibility study
on a broader Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system tasked at
Prague had been completed for the Riga summit, but would need
to be revisited in light of the U.S. proposal to base a radar
in the Czech Republic and interceptor missiles in Poland as a
"third pillar" of its MD effort to extend coverage over most
of Europe. Flory also stressed that cooperation with Russia
on Theater Missile Defense had been approved as early as 2002
as one of the initial elements of joint work within the
NATO-Russia Council (NRC).

- ASG for Defense Policy and Planning John Colston summarized
other Alliance activities in the MD sphere since Prague,
describing the work of the Executive Working Group (EWG) and
the Senior Political-Military Group on Proliferation (SGP).
These included preparing a new Allied threat assessment,
command and control requirements, cost implications, and
legal and environmental implications of MD systems. Colston
urged Allies to provide political guidance that would allow
the EWG to provide substantive advice on MD alternatives to
the NAC by the end of 2007.

MAKING THE CASE FOR PROTECTION
--------------

3. (S) USD(P) Edelman, MDA Director Obering, and A/S Rood
provided a comprehensive, compelling case for sharing the
benefits of the U.S. MD capabilities with the Alliance.
Allied reaction was uniformly positive.

- USD(P) Edelman stressed that Alliance security must be
indivisible; the U.S. wanted Europe, as well as North
America, to be protected against missile attack. This should
be done with maximum transparency among Allies, with Russia,
and with the public. Edelman told PermReps that President
Bush had offered BMD cooperation to President Putin, and
talks with Russia were continuing. For the Alliance, he
said, extending coverage of the U.S. system would carry
enormous economic and strategic benefits.

- Paul Kozlusky, senior analyst representing the Director of
National Intelligence, briefed on the evolution of the
Iranian and DPRK missile programs, emphasizing that both

USNATO 00000263 002 OF 003


countries had demonstrated over time the intent and
capability to develop longer range and increasingly more
sophisticated missiles.

- A/S Rood reported on the talks his inter-agency team held
in Moscow earlier that week. Responding to Russia's concerns
about MD-related missile and radar sites in Poland and the
Czech Republic, he said, the American team had offered to
cooperate "across the full spectrum of capabilities" --
exploring new concepts, research and development, MD systems
and components, early warning data, interoperability, and
joint exercises. Although they had responded to many of the
Russians' specific concerns, Rood reported, Moscow continued
to voice them in public.

- MDA Director Obering emphasized the defensive nature of the
proposed European site of the U.S. MD system. Only 10
interceptors will be placed in Poland; they will not carry
warheads, and intercepted hostile missiles kinetically. The
system would be interoperable with whatever NATO might choose
to build. And to those concerned about the debris falling
from intercepted missiles, he said that debris was preferable
to intact nuclear warheads and that debris from missiles
launched from Iran that were intercepted over Europe would
continue on a path toward the U.S. and fall short (likely in
the Atlantic Ocean). He then showed a series of video
scenarios of launches from Iran against the U.S. and Europe.
The U.S. was protected against the limited strikes that Iran
could muster against it, but Europe suffered missile strikes
on a varying number of capitals under scenarios where it
remained entirely undefended. However, the European pillar
of the U.S. MD system combined with a complementary NATO
system designed to engage shorter range missiles offered a
greater capability to engage a wide range of missile threats.
PermReps watched the simulated ABM hits on conference room
screens with rapt attention.

U.S. PARTNERS CALL FOR SUPPORT
--------------

4. (C) Poland and the Czech Republic ) the two Allies
engaged in bilateral MD talks with the U.S. ) took the floor
first. They were followed by interventions from 20
additional Allies. (Only the three Baltic nations remained
silent.) Not a single critical comment was voiced, although
there were many calls for further study, for full
transparency, and for taking account of Russia's concerns )
echoing points made by the U.S. briefers.

- Poland's Under Secretary of State Witold Waszczykowski
recounted the U.S.-Polish consultations on MD this year,
which were already in the public record. He emphasized that
the U.S. system would help protect all Allies, not just those
hosting the facilities. A possible Alliance-wide MD work
should not impede the U.S. system, he urged. While
acknowledging sensitivity to Russian threats, Waszczykowski
judged that those threats were motivated by internal
politics, the international attention they drew to Russia's
power, and the desire to drive a wedge between Allies.

- Czech First Deputy Foreign Minister Tomas Pojar was the
first of many Allies to pick up Edelman's point that Alliance
security must be indivisible. Prague's interest in hosting a
U.S. radar was totally transparent, including even a
dedicated website (www.radarbrdy.cz). It had also been
transparent with Russia, hosting Deputy Foreign Minister
Kiselyak and exchanging presidential visits. Kiselyak, Pojar
noted caustically, had claimed that there would be no
possible Iranian or North Korean missile threat to Europe for
"several decades," contradicting other public statements from
Moscow. Pojar also said he could not understand how Kiselyak
could make such confident predictions about the threat.

ALLIES REACT POSITIVELY TO U.S. PRESENTATION
--------------

5. (C) Compared to the usual thrust-and-parry of NAC
discussions, Allied responses were strikingly positive.

- Appreciation for U.S. transparency and calls for continuing
that transparency to win the support of skeptical publics and
engage Russia constructively were universal themes.

- No nation denied the threat posed by rogue nations with

USNATO 00000263 003 OF 003


ballistic missiles, although the Netherlands, Italy, and
Germany stressed their preference for prevention over
defense. Belgium admitted that "of course, NATO should guard
against threats from unstable nations;" France called that
threat "a reality," although it grumbled that deterrence
remains a valid concept; Germany said it "must be addressed,"
and there was near-universal agreement that NATO should be
the forum for addressing it.

- Many Allies said they were interested in further Allied
threat assessment and work with Russia on a NRC missile joint
threat assessment.

- Bulgaria, Portugal, Romania, Turkey, and the UK, as well as
the Czech Republic, called for complete coverage of the
Alliance. Virtually every Ally stressed the need to address
Russia's concerns, but Canada, the Czech Republic, Italy, and
the UK made clear that Russia could not exercise a veto over
Alliance MD decisions.

- Belgium, Spain, and Turkey expressed worries about the
debris from missiles impacted in flight. Spain sought
details on what stage of flight intermediate-range missiles
could be intercepted. The UK and the Netherlands signaled
concern over the cost of MD coverage for Europe.

- Six Allies specifically called for revising the NATO
Missile Defense Feasibility Study to account for the
opportunities offered by the U.S. proposal for a European
pillar to its own MD system.

SPEAKING WITH ONE VOICE AT OSLO
--------------

6. (C) The SYG concluded that Allies showed broad agreement
on continuing the MD discussion at NATO in preference to any
other forum; that there was a common recognition for the
threat posed by rogue nations with missiles; and that
Alliance security should be indivisible. He urged Allied
Foreign Ministers meeting at Oslo to deliver a consistent
message to that effect.

NULAND