GUIDANCE REQUEST: DISCUSSING ENVIRONMENTAL

S E C R E T THE HAGUE 000397 SIPDIS STATE FOR ISN/WMDT (TLOWE),OES/FO, EUR/WE (TSMITH) DEFENSE FOR OSD/ATL (DBINIAZ) E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/09/2018 TAGS: MARR MNUC PARM TRGY KRAD NL SUBJECT: GUIDANCE REQUEST: DISCUSSING ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION AS A RESULT OF A U.S. NUCLEAR INCIDENT Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Mike Gallagher, reasons 1.4 (a) and (d ) ¶1. (U) This cable contains an action request - please see para 6. ¶2. (S) SUMMARY: Post seeks guidance regarding policy on the discussion of remediation issues in the context of the Netherlands United States Operational Group (NUSOG). Post understands from ISN/WMDT that the USG position is that environmental remediation in the event of a nuclear incident is covered under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), and therefore is not appropriate for discussion within the NUSOG context. The Dutch feel differently about this issue and we believe they will continue to raise it; therefore, we see no way we can prevent the Dutch from raising the topic. Given the importance the Dutch attach to it, we seek guidance, preferably prior to the next NUSOG plenary on June 18-19, on how to respond to the Dutch request to discuss remediation within the context of the NUSOG. End summary. ¶3. (SBU) Following the signing of the Implementing Joint Operation Plan (IJOP) between the USEUCOM and the Netherlands Ministry of Defense in December 2002, the NUSOG was established to plan a response to an occurrence in the Netherlands involving a U.S. nuclear weapon or component. Dutch NUSOG members have conveyed to us that they are under significant pressure from their Ministers to engage on remediation in the NUSOG. Dutch ministries represented include: Foreign Affairs; Interior and Kingdom Relations; Environment and Spatial Planning; Transport, Public Works and Water Management; and Defense. The Dutch government has proposed remediation as one of seven "mission areas" to be discussed at the NUSOG Plenary meeting to be held 18-19 June in Amsterdam, as well as a remediation workshop in September. (Note: "Mission areas" refer to focus areas of interest to both NUSOG parties and include: public affairs; security; command and control; render safe; health and safety; logistics; and remediation. End note.) It is post's understanding that the Dutch are interested in identifying U.S. remediation experts to participate in a discussion of technical and procedural -- rather than policy -- issues if an event of this nature occurs. ¶4. (SBU) Post understands from ISN/WMDT that the USG position is that remediation is not an appropriate topic for discussion in the NUSOG, as this is an issue of financial responsibility that is covered under the NATO SOFA of 1951. Post also understands from ISN/WMDT that other Washington agency experts, such as the U.S. Environment Protection Agency, have held discussions with Dutch counterparts on nuclear issues, including remediation. ¶5. (S) Post further understands that the Netherlands is ahead of other European countries that host U.S. nuclear weapons on their territories in having signed and implemented the NUSOG and that the Netherlands is the only country to have raised the issue of remediation in such a forum. Post believes, however, that other countries can be expected to raise this issue in the future as similar operational groups are established. The Dutch feel strongly about this issue and are expected to continue raising it. Given this, post seeks guidance, preferably prior to the June 18-19 NUSOG plenary, on responding to the Dutch request to discuss remediation within the context of NUSOG. ¶6. (SBU) ACTION REQUEST: Post requests Department,s guidance regarding the following issues: -- USG policy on the extent, if any, to which remediation can be discussed within the context of the NUSOG; and -- whether USG remediation experts can participate in technical and procedural discussions in the NUSOG. Gallagher