MEETING OF NATO SPS

UNCLAS USNATO 000451

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AMGT MARR NATO PGOV PREL TSPL
SUBJECT: MEETING OF NATO SPS


1. (U) Summary. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Science for Peace and Security (SPS) Committee met on
March 23, 2007, at NATO Headquarters. The Euro-Atlantic
Partnership Council (EAPC) met at NATO Headquarters on March
22, 2007. The U.S Representative was Dr. Vigdor L. Teplitz
(NASA/Goddard); the alternate representative was Dr. Robert
Rudnitsky (OES/SAT AAAS Fellow from Stanford). The committee
received reviews of several projects and of the
implementation of the Work Program, which has received a 25%
funding cut. France and Germany dropped objections to the
U.S. advocated commercialization project. The U.S. and U.K
representatives argued successfully against creating a
Partnership Action Plan on Environmental Security (PAP-E).
All guidance cable goals were accomplished.


2. (U) 2007 SPS Work Program. Implementation of the Work
Program was driven by a 25% cut in funding. Decisions were
taken to reduce funding mechanisms and panel meetings. Dual
status, which previously allowed new members to choose
between lead country and partner country roles on projects,
was eliminated. Staff reviewed the budget; the U.S. Rep
requested breakdowns by panel and funding year.


3. (U) Afghanistan. NATO has made aiding Afghanistan a
priority for the organization. The Secretariat requested that
SPS support this priority in its work; work on satellite
internet connectivity (virtual silk highway) is proceeding.
No one raised the issue of whether it would be used by the
military.


4. (U) Top-down Activities. SPS received information on
several projects. Individual projects are in the 150K Euro
range. SPS approved the important project "Melange Conversion
in Afghanistan and/or Uzbekistan" which could run somewhat
more. Finally, Bob Dyer of EPA gave a presentation on the
Franz Josef Land project.


5. (U) Partnership Action Plan on Environmental Security
(PAP-E). The U.S Representative supported the United Kingdom
in concerns about a proposed Partnership Action Plan on
Environmental Security. The work will go forward but not the
extra bureaucracy.


6. (U) Commercialization. U.S. Delegate again advocated for
a Commercialization pilot project that would help bring
selected SPS R&D projects to market using partnerships with
NATO member country companies. Neither France nor Germany,
which had previously opposed the project, expressed concerns
at this meeting. Greece opposed it but said privately she was
uninstructed on it. It was agreed to review it under a
silence procedure after circulating updated documents.


7. (U) NATO-Russia Council. The NRC(SPS) reviewed selected
ongoing projects including a controversial Russian-Italian
terrorism data center. The session included a proposal from
the NATO Political office for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
to detect terrorist threats. The French Representative called
it too operational for SPS.


8. (U) Euro Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC). The
EAPC-format session included briefing partners on SPS
structure, briefing all on panel activities, and a tour de
table. The last item was notable for increased frankness and
sophistication in PC presentations.


9. (U) The next meetings will take place at NATO
Headquarters, October 18-19, 2007 and March 13-14, 2008.
OLSON