Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08BRUSSELS983
2008-06-27 14:50:00
CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN
USEU Brussels
Cable title:  

TRANSATLANTIC SECURITY SPACE COOPERATION WORKSHOP

Tags:  KSCA PARM PREL TPHY TSPA TSPL 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO5102
RR RUEHAG RUEHFL RUEHHM RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHPB RUEHROV RUEHSR RUEHTM
DE RUEHBS #0983/01 1791450
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 271450Z JUN 08
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
INFO RUEHXP/ALL NATO POST COLLECTIVE
RUEHZN/ENVIRONMENT SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLECTIVE
RUCNMUC/EU CANDIDATE STATES COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEU/EU INTEREST COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 BRUSSELS 000983 

SENSITIVE
NOFORN
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/27/2018
TAGS: KSCA PARM PREL TPHY TSPA TSPL
SUBJECT: TRANSATLANTIC SECURITY SPACE COOPERATION WORKSHOP
HELD IN BRUSSELS

REF: REFTEL A: OSC EUP20080618056001

Classified By: USEU/ECON JULIE NUTTER REASONS 1.4 (a) (d) (e) and (g)

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 05 BRUSSELS 000983

SENSITIVE
NOFORN
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/27/2018
TAGS: KSCA PARM PREL TPHY TSPA TSPL
SUBJECT: TRANSATLANTIC SECURITY SPACE COOPERATION WORKSHOP
HELD IN BRUSSELS

REF: REFTEL A: OSC EUP20080618056001

Classified By: USEU/ECON JULIE NUTTER REASONS 1.4 (a) (d) (e) and (g)


1. (SBU) Summary: On June 17, The U.S. Air Force Academy's
Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies hosted the
Transatlantic Security Space Cooperation workshop in
Brussels. The workshop brought together policy makers from
the U.S. and Europe, as well as academics and NGOs, to
discuss the role of space in security and the prospects of
transatlantic cooperation in this area. Through panel
discussions with significant audience involvement, the
conference highlighted three major themes:

-- Representatives indicated that Europeans tend to
believe that given the substantial gap in defense and
intelligence space capacity between the U.S. and Europe, it
will take several more years before the environment will be
right for true cooperation. Currently, they argued, any
relationship would be one directional, with the U.S.
supplying technology and intellectual capital to Europe.
This view was not shared by ESA representatives and may not
accurately reflect the national position of many European
states;

-- Despite the pessimism on the part of some, a key area
for cooperation is space situational awareness (SSA). Most
Europeans believe that SSA is critical to European strategic
infrastructure, and the French Presidency will highlight this
area during the second half of 2008, ESA is pursuing SSA
system architecture as part of its expansion into
non-offensive military applications, and is specifically
interested in working on SSA with the United States;

-- In general, U.S. participants did not agree with the
arguments made by some European participants that the time is
not right for cooperation. Even if the relationship takes
the form of a senior partner-junior partner arrangement, it
creates the basis for an evolution over time as European
security-related space infrastructure increases. However, it

is clear that uncertainly regarding roles and
responsibilities within Europe, and the need to create
appropriate interfaces between organizations focused on
military space programs versus civil space programs, are
obstacles that will need to be overcome; and

-- The numerous and substantial ongoing bilateral space
cooperation efforts were not fully explored during the
workshop and this may have unintentionally left an impression
of pessimism and lack of progress. It is true, however, than
an overall strategic approach to the space domain is
generally not present either multilaterally or bilaterally.
End Summary.


2. (U) Major organizations represented included: the European
Space Agency (ESA),the European Union (EU),North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) Joint Air Power Competence Centre
(JAPCC),European Space Policy Institute (ESPI),Centre
National d"Etudes Spatiales (CNES),Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Strategic Capabilities, National
Security Space Office (NSSO),and the Space Policy Institute
at George Washington University. The conference was divided
into four panels of three panelists each:

-- Addressing Challenges in Transatlantic Space Security
Cooperation with Prof. John Logsdon from the Space Policy
Institute at George Washington University; Dr. Serge
Plattard, CNES Representative in Brussels; and moderated by
Amb. Roger Harrison from the Eisenhower Center;

-- Space Security Cooperation: Strategy and Policy with
Colonel Tom Shearer from the National Security Space Office
(NSSO); Erwin Duhamel from the European Space Agency (ESA);
and moderated by Air Commodore Jan A.H. van Hoof from the
Joint Air Power Competence Centre and Dutch Air Force;

-- Space security Cooperation: Defense and Deterrence
Issues with Colonel Patrick Frakes, Director of Space Policy
in the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Strategic Capabilities; Dr. Wolfgang Rathgeber, Project
Lead for Security Space at the European Space Policy
Institute; and moderated by Dr. Peter Hays from NSSO; and


BRUSSELS 00000983 002 OF 005


-- Space Security Cooperation: Combined Coalition Space
Operations with Richard McKinney, the U.S. European Space
Liaison; Luigi Bella, Director of Communications and
Information Systems at the NATO C3 Agency; and moderated by
Major General (USAF, ret.) James Armor.

-------------- ---
Europe not ready for space security cooperation?
-------------- ---


3. (U) John Logsdon began the conference by detailing his
thoughts on the current state of transatlantic space
cooperation. He explained that there has been no history of
security cooperation in space, based primarily on the concept
that there is no perception in the U.S. of the benefits of
such cooperation. He initiated what was to become a trend
throughout the conference in highlighting the lack of balance
in capacity between the U.S. and the EU, with the single
exception of communication satellites. He questioned how
there could be a strong trans-Atlantic partnership when
Europe itself was having problems forming a true pan-European
space network.


4. (U) Serge Plattard immediately concurred with Logsdon as
he believes also that there is a large discrepancy between
U.S. and EU space capacity, there exists no real basis on
which there can be cooperation. Before there is
collaboration, Europe needs to close the gap so the flow of
information can travel in both directions. To close the gap,
Europe must:

-- Develop a vision for the future of European space;

-- Determine what pieces of defense Europe wants; and

-- Identify what role space will play in a European
defense infrastructure.


5. (SBU) When pressed on if he truly believes that Europe is
not prepared for space security cooperation, Dr. Plattard
responded by explaining that in the near term, this
cooperation will be in niche areas, not broad scale. As
examples, Dr. Plattard agreed with the audience that areas
such as weather satellite or NATO satellite communication
cooperation can be used as examples, but again, these are
specific areas and not representative of overarching
cooperative efforts. (Note: Dr. Plattard clearly was speaking
for himself and not necessarily echoing sentiments felt in
the French government. USEU EconOff meetings with French
officials in Brussels as well as recent State and DoD
dialogues with French MFA and MoD officials have indicated
that Paris is very interested in both U.S.-France and U.S.-EU
bilateral cooperative efforts, particularly in security
areas, with no indications of the perceived gap causing
concern. End note.)


6. (U) Wolfgang Rathgeber continued the pattern of expressing
that the current gap between the U.S. and the EU will hinder
any large-scale cooperative efforts, even while stating that
there has been a history of both transatlantic civil space
cooperation and defense cooperation. He reiterated previous
claims that cooperation is defined by partners at a similar
level in which there can be definable goals and reasonable
work-load sharing. Currently, Europe does not have enough
military space capabilities to attract the U.S., but
Rathgeber believes that Europe is on the move and beginning
to take advantage of security in space, paving the way for
future cooperation.


7. (SBU) Edwin Duhamel, not fully in agreement with Logsdon
or Plattard, expressed his belief that Europe needs to begin
blunt discussions with the U.S. Specifically, that each side
details anticipated problems, individual requirements, best
practices, how to handle data exchange, and commercial
tie-ins. This dialogue is absolutely necessary if Europe and
the U.S. expect to have a productive cooperation, though
clearly this has not yet happened. He explained that ESA
already has begun its foray into security areas in the U.S.,
having contact with U.S. Air Force research labs as well as
State and DoD planners. (Note: ESA perspectives will not
necessarily be sufficient to begin cooperation, and these
statements seemed to suggest that ESA is working to prepare
the market for expanding its mandate. Security issues in

BRUSSELS 00000983 003 OF 005


Europe are handled, in varying degrees, by the member states,
the EU, and NATO, and ESA will need to respond to political
decisions in these institutions and will not be able to go it
alone. End note.)

--------------
SSA clearly Europe's cooperation focus
--------------


8. (SBU) Dr. Plattard immediately launched into the situation
in Europe by opining that the failure of the Lisbon Treaty
has created a substantial problem in Europe, as European
defense is no longer compulsory. However, he detailed that
during President Sarkozy's presentation of France's White
Paper on Defense (REFTEL A); there was an emphasis in
expanding intelligence capabilities, particularly in space,
with the acquisition of space situational awareness (SSA),
early warning, and earth observation systems. During the
French Presidency, Dr. Plattard listed what will be the four
space priorities: climate change, the Lisbon Agenda to
strengthen EU enterprise and innovation, European space
aspirations, and security issues (SSA being a part).
Additionally, during the French Presidency, research
ministers from EU and ESA member states will jointly meet for
the fifth European Space Council in November. This meeting
is expected to review a paper on international cooperation.
France will work to strengthen the EU's position so that it
is the EU that negotiates international cooperation policy,
not ESA or the national space agencies.


9. (C//NF) Note: Dr. Plattard,s comments on the Lisbon
Treaty again do not echo thinking within the French
government. During a meeting between USEU EconOff and a
member of the French Permanent Representation, it was
explained that Dr. Plattard does not represent the French
Presidency, only that he represents CNES. The French
official went on to explain that the four space priorities
for the French during their Presidency and
beyond--exploration to Mars, economic strength through space
services, security, and climate change; are all permissible
under the pre-Lisbon rules. As such, France doesn,t expect
to be slowed in its space efforts by the failure of Lisbon.
When pressed on the question of security, the French official
explained that several aspects of European security including
border control and drug trafficking are already EU
competences under existing law and through the European Space
Policy from 2007, and space assets clearly can be applied to
these issues. However, given the failure of the Lisbon
Treaty, it is possible some of these priorities will be given
less importance as France devotes resources to identifying
next steps for Europe, though it is unclear how much
priorities will be adjusted. End note.


10. (SBU) Duhamel described ESA's expansion of its mandate,
specifically into security realms. (Note: During the
conference, it was frequently noted that ESA plans to become
involved in defense applications, with the exception of
offensive military efforts. End note.) He explained that
both the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) and the
European Space Policy (ESP) have sections covering space and
security, marking a basis for European development in those
areas. These policies therefore enable Europe to become a
global player with security as a key aspect. Within Europe,
ESA has formed an SSA program office, in which it expects to
apply 100 million euros for technology development as a first
step in 2009-2011 and 350 million euros for development of an
infrastructure. This is likely to be confirmed during the
Space Council in November. SSA will be an optional program
for ESA members, meaning that members can decide whether or
not they wish to contribute and benefit from SSA development.
In particular, Spain and Germany are large drivers for the
program, with each anticipating contributing at least 30
percent of the funding.


11. (SBU) Wolfgang Rathgeber specifically targeted SSA as an
opportunity for international cooperation, with the European
Defense Agency gatherng military requirements and Europe
workin to determine how to dovetail these with civil
requirements. Though Dr. Rathgeber explained tat SSA can
act as a deterrent, providing veriication and identification
capabilities, Euroe will continue to use diplomatic efforts,such as a code of conduct, to mitigate external
threats-China's ASAT test was given as an example-as Europe

BRUSSELS 00000983 004 OF 005


has no counterspace tenets currently with none foreseen in
the future. (Note: It seemed as though Rathgeber's responses
were tied up in semantics. He defined defensive counterspace
as a military response to an attack on space assets, whereas
the audience tended to define it as active protection of
space assets. Further, the discussion highlighted the need
for a better common conceptual foundation for improved
dialogue on key issues such as space weaponization on both
sides of Atlantic. United States Joint Doctrine uses the
terms surveillance, protection, prevention, and negation but
it is not clear what the comparable conceptual or semantic
foundations are in Europe. End note.)


12. (U) Luigi Bella focused his discussion on the space
strategy at NATO, expressing that there is a definite need
for NATO to become more involved in space security. He
explained that in theater, there is a constant push for more
intelligence data and exchange of information for use in
operations as well as an increase in the use of
communications satellites. Increased satellite
infrastructures can move toward those goals. Separately, the
use of satellites can assist in handling wide-spread needs
which currently require local solutions repeated across
several sites, thereby using valuable resources. Bella's
example was that of perimeter monitoring of bases in
Afghanistan, in which persistent satellite coverage can
support several locations, freeing resources for other needs.
In moving to SSA, Bella compared to cyber defense in NATO,
which is only defensive. Much like a good cyber defense
capability, SSA can identify the threat or attacker, which in
some cases is much easier in the event of an attack on space
assets than it is in an attack on a computer network.

--------------
U.S. believes time is right for cooperation
--------------


13. (SBU) COL Shearer responded to questions asking if Europe
was ready for cooperation by offering two options; either
each side goes it alone or begins the cooperation in a senior
partner-junior partner relationship which will evolve over
time as Europe increases its capacity. He recommended moving
toward the latter, as the U.S. and Europe will continue to
operate together, and it is therefore necessary that the two
sides learn how to work together to support common interests.
There already exists great cooperation through NATO and that
should be able to act as a base on which cooperation in space
can be built. Overall, the two sides have much more in
common than there are differences, specifically recognition
of the high costs of space and need for safety of flight.
Therefore, the two sides should work together to standardize
and stay interoperable as well as ensuring the use of space
for peaceful purposes.


14. (SBU) Richard McKinney echoed many of the sentiments
presented by COL Shearer, specifically through detailing the
existing exchanges between the U.S. Air Force and allied
militaries in aircraft. With this in mind, he expressed his
belief that these exchanges can certainly take place in
space. The economics are clear to both sides given the price
of space assets and funding levels in the U.S. and the EU,
which should lead to further cooperative opportunities.
Additionally, as new systems come online, designed by either
side, cooperation is essential to ensure trans-Atlantic
interoperability and to define rules for data sharing.


15. (SBU) COL Frakes was in agreement that cooperation is
possible, though a possible obstacle is the organizational
structure of the respective space infrastructures in the U.S.
and Europe. In the U.S., space is divided into three
sectors: national security (handled by DOD),civil (handled
by NASA),and commercial; while in Europe, particularly with
the expansion of ESA's mandate to include security and
defense, the lines are much more blurred. COL Frakes
questioned Europe's organizational structure explaining his
belief that while developing all systems from a dual-use
perspective is easier initially, it will certainly cause
problems down the road. Given the blurred lines in Europe, it
is therefore much easier to share weather data between NASA
and ESA than to share security information between DOD and
ESA. As such, DOD policy is to work with Europe on space
security issues through NATO, which can then liaise with the
EU and ultimately ESA. A specific area of cooperation,

BRUSSELS 00000983 005 OF 005


echoing many of the other participants' thoughts, is in SSA,
which requires international cooperation, where Europe can
now bring capabilities to the table.

--------------
Outlook and next steps
--------------


16. (SBU) Overall, participants considered the conference a
success. Though it became clear there are differences in
opinion between the U.S. and Europe, and to an extent within
European institutions themselves, most participants agreed
that the dialogue should continue. There are indications
that a European institute similar to the Eisenhower Center
will be called upon to host a second conference, though to
expand the topic set to include civil and commercial space
cooperation. These are considered successful areas of
transatlantic cooperation, and though the mechanics and
instruments for security cooperation are different, several
participants believed there are best practices from the civil
and commercial sectors which can help move the process
forward.

MURRAY
.