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