RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE ON LATVIA,S

UNCLAS STATE 072295 SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: LG MARR NATO PGOV PREL MASS SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE ON LATVIA,S WAVERING ON STRATEGIC AIR CONSORTIUM (SAC) REF: RIGA 391 ¶1. (U) This is an action request - see Para 2. Department requests that post provide Latvian response via front channel message. ¶2. (SBU) In response to reftel request for guidance, Department provides the following points for post to raise at the earliest opportunity with the Latvian government concerning Latvia,s continued participation in NATO,s Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC). This language has been cleared by the Department of Defense. Talking Points -------------- -- At the Bucharest Summit, all NATO Heads of State and Government reaffirmed the transformational nature of the Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) and its importance to NATO and individual Allies. Since that time, ten nations, including Latvia's immediate NATO neighbors, have signed the SAC Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). -- We value the participation by nations such as Latvia in the SAC Consortium. It provides a vehicle for smaller nations to acquire a vitally needed capability that would be difficult to acquire on their own. It embodies the principle of burden sharing which is essential to NATO's continued viability. -- Latvia and other European members of SAC will benefit significantly from this program. It promises to provide each participant with the capability to project influence globally; build skill sets alongside U.S. airmen; improve national lift capabilities; and enable Allies to provide a critical and badly needed capability to NATO. -- On (long term) cost and capability basis, the C-17 provided through SAC far exceeds capabilities other strategic lift options (e.g. renting Ukrainian lift) could provide to Latvia. -- We hope you consider all these benefits and agree that the Latvian share of investment and running costs would be money well spent. We understand the financial challenges involved in participation, but would point out that there has been no change in estimated costs since the SAC MOU was released in February. The individual item costs are not static, but the Cost Target and Cost Ceiling are set in the MOU. We look forward to your decision enabling the SAC to succeed. (If raised) -- If Latvian officials make the argument that the USG is motivated by the prospect of providing business to a U.S. firm, please point out that: 1) the modest additional business (2 out of more than 210 confirmed orders) for Boeing resulting from SAC provides relatively little benefit to the USG (in terms of reduced prices for our C-17s); and 2) the USG remains open to future participation of additional nations, with non-U.S. airframes, in the SAC. (If pressed only) -- We appreciate that Latvia,s defense budget, while nowhere near the size of ours, is still a huge sum for Latvia, but part of the responsibility of NATO membership is that each nation helps provide the resources and capabilities needed to execute Alliance missions. -- It would be very disappointing if this entire multinational effort to provide a strategic NATO capability required for ISAF and other operations came undone because Latvia could not support its relatively small flying hour commitment (and associated cost share). RICE