Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08LJUBLJANA205
2008-05-09 14:13:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Ljubljana
Cable title:
SLOVENIA SUPPORTS LIMITED CHANGES TO OSLO PROCESS
VZCZCXRO9777 RR RUEHBW DE RUEHLJ #0205 1301413 ZNY CCCCC ZZH R 091413Z MAY 08 FM AMEMBASSY LJUBLJANA TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 6671 INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0242 RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 1182 RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0191 RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
C O N F I D E N T I A L LJUBLJANA 000205
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/09/2018
TAGS: MOPS PARM PREL NATO UN SI
SUBJECT: SLOVENIA SUPPORTS LIMITED CHANGES TO OSLO PROCESS
DECLARATION ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS
REF: STATE 48124
Classified By: CDA Maryruth Coleman for reasons 1.4 (b,d)
C O N F I D E N T I A L LJUBLJANA 000205
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/09/2018
TAGS: MOPS PARM PREL NATO UN SI
SUBJECT: SLOVENIA SUPPORTS LIMITED CHANGES TO OSLO PROCESS
DECLARATION ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS
REF: STATE 48124
Classified By: CDA Maryruth Coleman for reasons 1.4 (b,d)
1. (C) On May 8, EmbOff delivered reftel points to Robert
Strazisar, MFA Security Policy Division official and a
Slovenian delegate to the May 19 Oslo Process negotiating
session in Dublin, urging that Slovenia not take any action
relating to the Oslo Process that would have a negative
effect on Alliance interoperability and NATO joint
operations. Strazisar said that Slovenia shares U.S.
concerns regarding potential negative effects that certain
text of the Oslo Process could have on NATO interoperability.
He stated that Slovenia will maintain a neutral position in
Dublin regarding Article 1(b),but will actively lobby for
changes to the text of Article 1(c). He noted that as the
current President of the EU Council, Slovenia will attempt to
broker consensus among EU member states, although he admitted
that this will likely prove impossible.
2. (C) Strazisar explained that Slovenia does not support
deleting Articles 1(b) and 1(c),but rather supports changes
to the 1(c) text to ensure that joint operations with
non-signatories to the Oslo Process will not be held against
signatories. He further noted that Slovenia does not have a
strong interest in pushing for changes to Article 1(b)
because Slovenia does not engage in any of the activities
prohibited by the clause. Strazisar also said that, in his
opinion, Article 1(b) would not negatively affect
interoperability, as such issues could be resolved in terms
of engagement negotiations prior to any joint operation.
COLEMAN
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/09/2018
TAGS: MOPS PARM PREL NATO UN SI
SUBJECT: SLOVENIA SUPPORTS LIMITED CHANGES TO OSLO PROCESS
DECLARATION ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS
REF: STATE 48124
Classified By: CDA Maryruth Coleman for reasons 1.4 (b,d)
1. (C) On May 8, EmbOff delivered reftel points to Robert
Strazisar, MFA Security Policy Division official and a
Slovenian delegate to the May 19 Oslo Process negotiating
session in Dublin, urging that Slovenia not take any action
relating to the Oslo Process that would have a negative
effect on Alliance interoperability and NATO joint
operations. Strazisar said that Slovenia shares U.S.
concerns regarding potential negative effects that certain
text of the Oslo Process could have on NATO interoperability.
He stated that Slovenia will maintain a neutral position in
Dublin regarding Article 1(b),but will actively lobby for
changes to the text of Article 1(c). He noted that as the
current President of the EU Council, Slovenia will attempt to
broker consensus among EU member states, although he admitted
that this will likely prove impossible.
2. (C) Strazisar explained that Slovenia does not support
deleting Articles 1(b) and 1(c),but rather supports changes
to the 1(c) text to ensure that joint operations with
non-signatories to the Oslo Process will not be held against
signatories. He further noted that Slovenia does not have a
strong interest in pushing for changes to Article 1(b)
because Slovenia does not engage in any of the activities
prohibited by the clause. Strazisar also said that, in his
opinion, Article 1(b) would not negatively affect
interoperability, as such issues could be resolved in terms
of engagement negotiations prior to any joint operation.
COLEMAN