NORWAY UNYEILDING ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS

C O N F I D E N T I A L OSLO 000119 SIPDIS SIPDIS DEPT PASS TO PM/WRA KATHERINE BAKER E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/03/2018 TAGS: MOPS PARM PREL NATO UN NO SUBJECT: NORWAY UNYEILDING ON CLUSTER MUNITIONS REF: STATE 13614 Classified By: Acting Deputy Chief of Mission Kristen Bauer for reasons 1.4 b and d ¶1. (C) Norway continues to assert that the Oslo Process to ban cluster munitions will be a success and is not swayed by arguments over interoperability. The GON is openly modeling the Oslo Process on the Ottawa Land Mine Treaty and expects that the results will be similar, both in terms of forcing nations to sign or be tarred as international pariahs and that any interoperability concerns will be worked out when a treaty is signed with little or no effect on NATO or other coalition activities. The recent Wellington conference did nothing to change the basic GON approach or position, despite the clear fact that many significant members of the Oslo Process have serious concerns over interoperability. Recent progress in the CCW is welcomed by the GON but does not change their base skepticism of the CCW as unlikely to result in a meaningful ban on harmful cluster munitions. Ambassador demarche rebuffed -------------- ¶2. (C) During a lunch with MFA State Secretary Raymond Johansen on February 11, Ambassador Whitney presented USG concerns about the direction of the Oslo Process. Repeating the GON,s official position, Johansen said that Norway does not want a total ban but is looking to focus on specific devices that have unacceptable consequences. Johansen was pleased at the progress on cluster munitions in the CCW and sees the Oslo Process and the CCW as complementary. He dismissed our interoperability concerns, saying that these can be got around through Rules of Engagement and other systems developed after the Ottawa landmine treaty and similar agreements. Comment: Johansen, who has formal oversight of the cluster munitions process, did not appear to have detailed information on the process or on the latest developments. End Comment MFA also not convinced -------------- ¶3. (C) Working level MFA contacts on the Cluster Munitions Task Force, (led by the MFA but including the Norwegian MOD, NGOs and university professors),who attended the Wellington meeting, are even more positive about the direction the Oslo Process is taking and are equally dismissive of interoperability concerns. The MFA is convinced that the large number of supporting nations will create such a strong momentum that it will become internationally unacceptable to use cluster munitions. The MFA views definitions as the single most difficult area left to negotiate at Dublin and indicated that in their view cluster munitions with the appropriate sensor fusing, and which are not area targeted, would not be included in the ban. ¶4. (C) On interoperability, the MFA believes that rules of engagement can be developed to answer any interoperability concerns and that even with the current treaty text, NATO or coalition efforts will not be adversely affected. In the MFA,s view, concerns over interoperability presented by the &like-minded group8 at the Wellington meetings were taken into consideration by their adoption into the Compendium Annex. The MFA also believes that despite being very vocal, the like- inded states, actions in Wellington were not all that divergent from the consensus. They stated that due to &aggressive8 tactics on the part of like-minded countries an alternate group of affected states formed (including Latin American, African and Asian countries) which will push for a total ban and strong restrictions on proliferation. Explaining Away the Delay in Responding to the U.S. Paper on Interoperability -------------- ¶4. (C) The MFA blames the long delay in responding to a U.S. paper on interoperability on the Ministry of Defense and professed to be surprised by our demarche pointing out the failure to respond. The MFA now say that they were not fully aware of the need to formally respond, despite statements to the contrary late last year. (Since we have been regularly raising the matter since late December 2007, this is particularly vexing). MOD contacts say that a draft was prepared in December but was not acceptable and thus needed to be substantially revised. MOD now states that it has finished the paper and delivered it to the MFA where it is now in the Legal Department for review. Despite repeated requests we still do not have the Norwegian paper. (C) Negative Influence of Steffen Kongstad -------------- ¶5. (C) We suspect that at least part of the reason for the delay is the influence of the head of the Cluster Munitions task force, Steffen Kongstad. He is a Deputy Director in the MFA,s Humanitarian Section and has long experience in the areas of landmines and other humanitarian efforts to ban weapon systems. He is a very committed, strong personality, and possesses a dogmatic inflexibility in pursuing his objectives. He is known to be brusk, dismissive of alternate opinions and at time rude in his treatment of those who may disagree or wish to discuss possible compromises. His behavior during the visit of DAS Richard Kidd in the fall of 2007 was unprofessional. We heard from our British colleagues that Kongstad,s behavior towards the UK representative in Wellington was so bad that the British Ambassador in Oslo was called and asked to approach the MFA to ask them to tell Kongstad to be more cooperative during the Wellington meeting. CCW Efforts Dismissed -------------- ¶6. (C) The MFA also dismisses the CCW as ineffective, even with the recent progress, and felt the January meetings of the CCW did not indicate any movement which would show meaningful progress on addressing the humanitarian need. The GON will continue to participate at CCW meetings but has no expectations of any progress. Norway Disagrees with U.S. Points on Humanitarian Impact of CM -------------- ¶7. (C) The MFA also disputes the points made by reftel on the humanitarian impact of cluster munitions, claiming that reports from the field indicate that cluster munitions (along with anti-vehicle mines) are a major humanitarian issue and pose the greatest threat to the average civilian. Laos, Vietnam, Sudan, Afghanistan, Eritrea and Iraq were mentioned as areas under the greatest threat of civilian impact. (Note: Given the integral role NGOs play in the GON,s efforts to ban cluster munitions, we suspect that the MFA is taking NGO reports and numbers at face value without independent verification.) Norway Determined to Achieve Ban -------------- ¶8. (C) Comment: The GON seems determined to pursue a treaty at the Dublin meetings which, despite its denials, will closely resemble a total ban on cluster munitions. The strong personality of Steffen Kongstad and the integral involvement of NGOs in the GON effort in this issue have shaped the GON effort and have shut off all receptiveness to counter-arguments from the U.S., other allies or from members in the MOD who share concerns over interoperability. It appears that absent any pressure from political leaders (who so far have been supportive of the MFA,s efforts) Norway will continue to be one of the most hard-core drivers of the effort to achieve a ban on most types of cluster munitions. WHITNEY