NATO: ALLIES RESOLVED TO ADDRESS INTEROPERABILITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 USNATO 000167 NOFORN SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/13/2018 TAGS: MOPS NATO PARM PREL SUBJECT: NATO: ALLIES RESOLVED TO ADDRESS INTEROPERABILITY CONCERNS AFTER RECIEVING NATO MILITARY ADVICE ON THE OSLO PROCESS REF: A. A) USNATO 00143 ¶B. B) NATO: SG(2008)0355 Classified By: Ambassador Victoria Nuland, for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: At their May 13 coffee, NATO Permanent Representatives discussed the Oslo process to ban cluster munitions. The Chairman of NATO's Military Committee reported that preliminary military advice raised serious concerns about the impact such a ban could have on NATO operations, capabilities and interoperability. While all NATO Allies acknowledged that interoperability was an important concern that needed to be resolved, Norway attempted to undermine the advice. While a few Allies provided tepid support to Norway, Ambassador Nuland was joined by several of her colleagues in strongly rebutting the Norwegian arguments. Canada and the Czech Republic made clear that at least one portion of the current draft convention--Article One (b and C) that inhibits interoperability--was unacceptable. END SUMMARY -------------- -------------- Preliminary Military Advice: Concerns About the Oslo Process -------------- -------------- ¶2. (C) On May 13, the Chairman of NATO,s Military Committee (CMC),GEN Henault, briefed PermReps on the conclusions and recommendations of the military advice relating to the Oslo process to ban cluster munitions and the practical impact such a ban would have on NATO operations, capabilities, and interoperability. He emphasized the potential negative impact on force generation, planning, the conduct of future operations, and basing and transit agreements. He also noted problems that might arise from different national legal interpretations of the convention. While acknowledging that this was only preliminary advice pending the final conclusion of the convention, CMC urged Allies to draw from this advice as they entered into discussions on the proposed convention at the upcoming Dublin Conference. -------------- Norway Tries to Undermine the Advice... -------------- ¶3. (C) Stressing the preliminary nature of the advice, Norwegian PermRep Traavik argued that NATO had little, if any, value-added role to play at this point in the Oslo process. He tried to undermine the military advice, arguing that it was flawed since it only focused on a total ban of cluster munitions and not the "stated goal" of a ban on cluster munitions that cause "unacceptable harm" to civilians. He also said that the Dublin conference would solve any outstanding interoperability issues, trying to reassure colleagues that Oslo understood the interoperability requirements of the Alliance. -------------- But Ambassador Nuland Pushes Back -------------- ¶4. (C) Rebutting Traavik,s claim that NATO did not have a role to play in the process, Ambassador Nuland said that the military advice provided a very useful example of how work at NATO can add value to arms control efforts in other fora. She urged Allies involved in Oslo to study and use both the military committee advice and the SHAPE assessment, adding that she expected Allies not to commit themselves to anything that NATO military authorities assess would negatively impact NATO operations and interoperability. In this regard and based on the advice, she pushed Allies to seek deletion of the article one provisions, if not substantial revisions to them. USNATO 00000167 002 OF 003 -------------- -- Some Allies Give Luke-Warm Support to Norway... -------------- -- ¶5. (C) All of the other Allies who spoke (Italy, Germany, Iceland, Belgium, Canada, Poland, UK, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, France, Turkey, Dutch, Denmark, Portugal, Spain) welcomed the military advice and to varying degrees acknowledged that interoperability was an important concern that needed to be solved. At the same time, a number of Allies (Germany, Luxembourg, Iceland, Belgium, Portugal, and Spain) agreed with Traavik that resolution of the interoperability issue can only occur in Dublin. Spain and Portugal said that they were committed to addressing interoperability, but noted that the "Like-Minded" group of states who are concerned about interoperability needed to attract more nations because of the two-third,s voting procedure that the Oslo process will use to approve the convention. While generally receptive to the military advice, German PermRep Brandenburg did question SHAPE's assessment that only unitary munitions could replace cluster munitions. He said that other sensor-fused munitions could also be used, which would help with regard to the interoperability question. Noting that Rome remained committed to the Oslo process, Italian PermRep Stefanini supported the resolution of the text at Dublin. At the same time, he stressed that Italian support was contingent upon interoperability issues being properly addressed. -------------- -- While Others Strongly Support the U.S. position -------------- -- ¶6. (C) Canadian PermRep McRae strongly supported U.S. arguments on NATO,s value-added role in arms control, calling the military advice timely and useful. Noting the need for a balance between humanitarian and military priorities, he said Ottawa shared the interoperability concern and as such could not accept Article One (b and c) of the draft Oslo convention in its current form. McRae also stated that Canada would not sign up to anything that would expose its troops to have to choose between legal prosecution or death on the battlefield--a point UK PermRep Eldon strongly supported. Eldon also pushed back on Norwegian arguments that NATO should not be involved in the Oslo process. Characterizing it as a "chicken and egg" scenario, Eldon said that NATO had provided Allies with balanced, impartial military advice regarding an issue that could impact the Alliance, adding that the Oslo process should in no way inhibit NMAs from providing at least preliminary advice to the NAC. Czech PermRep Fule strongly supported Canada,s call for changing Article One of the draft text, making clear that Prague would withdraw from the Oslo process if the draft was not revised to address the interoperability issue. Bulgaria, France, Turkey, and Poland also strongly supported resolution of the interoperability issue and called for greater coordination among the "Like-Minded" states, taking into account the two-thirds voting rules. Turkey and Poland informed PermReps that they would be sending observer delegations to Dublin, but stressed that the Convention on Conventional Weapons as a much better venue to address the cluster munitions issue. Denmark PermRep Poulsen-Hansen said that the Danish parliament had recently adopted a resolution endorsing the aim of the Oslo convention. The resolution committed the Danish government to assess whether and how it could sign up to a ban on cluster munitions without sacrificing interoperability. ¶7. (C) At the May 14 Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council meeting, Irish Ambassador Nason provided information on the Dublin meeting and called for support of the Oslo process. Ambassador Nuland responded by pointing out USG concerns about interoperability and impact on missions and urged USNATO 00000167 003 OF 003 revisions to the text to gain consensus. NULAND