NORWAY PROPOSES SPLITTING NATO MISSIONS IN KOSOVO;

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USNATO 000185 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/28/2018 TAGS: PREL MOPS NATO KFOR KV SUBJECT: NORWAY PROPOSES SPLITTING NATO MISSIONS IN KOSOVO; U.S. CALLS IT A "TRAP" Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Richard G. Olson for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY AND COMMENT. Norway has proposed that NATO create a stand-alone mission in Kosovo, separate from KFOR, to implement the Ahtissari tasks relating to new security structures in Kosovo. Supported by Hungary and Italy, Norway argued that keeping these tasks separate from the existing KFOR mission would preserve KFOR's good working relationship and credibility with Serbia, which opposes the new tasks. The U.S. strongly opposed the idea, saying it would allow opponents of the new tasks to kill off the separate mission, and was wasteful. France, Germany, Belgium, the UK, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, and Slovenia all expressed doubts about the Norwegian proposal. The Chairman of the NATO Military Committee also said he could not support the proposal from a military perspective. Perm Reps agreed to have a follow-on discussion May 29 when Perm Reps visit SHAPE. The proposal is problematic on numerous levels and USNATO will continue to oppose it and urge other Allies to do the same. END SUMMARY AND COMMENT. ¶2. (C) At an informal May 27 NATO Perm Reps' meeting on Kosovo, Norwegian Perm Rep Traavik said that at a recent meeting with several NATO Perm Reps, Serbian Army Chief of General Staff Ponos warned that KFOR's high credibility with Serbs would be undermined if it proceeded with plans to take on new tasks contained in the Ahtissari Plan to stand down the Kosovo Protection Corps and stand up the new Kosovo Security Force. Ponos reportedly said that if NATO must take on these new tasks, they should be done by a separate, stand-alone NATO mission so KFOR would not be tainted by them. Traavik said that creating a separate mission would also be a service to the "good guys" in Serbia. The new mission would have a different name -- he proposed the Security Sector Reform Mission -- with a different command structure and badge. Norway's proposal was supported by Hungary and Italy, who argued that Serbs see NATO and KFOR as different entities, and so a separate mission was an idea worth exploring in order to preserve KFOR's contact with the Serbs. ¶2. (C) Ambassador Nuland responded that it did not make sense to separate KFOR from its ultimate exit strategy, which was to build up a credible, multi-ethnic Kosovo Security Force of limited scope to take its place. In any case, the new mission would still be part of NATO, as would KFOR, so the benefits of a separation were unclear and would complicate unity of command and logistics. A separate mission would also greatly complicate U.S. contributions toward the new tasks. She said that Washington "hated" the proposal and the more the proposal was described the more it looked like a trap set by the Serbs to later kill the separate mission by arguing it was illegitimate. The proposal was designed to split NATO and ensure NATO's exit strategy failed. ¶3. (C) Several countries expressed skepticism over the proposal. German Perm Rep Brandenburg said he "did not buy" the argument in favor of a second mission, could not see what it would gain, and had the "strongest reservations" about it. Belgium said creating a separate mission risked opening a debate about UNSCR 1244, since a separate mission would have no legal basis because the tasks it would perform were not called for in UNSCR 1244. The Slovenian Perm Rep objected to the idea of creating a "good" and "bad" NATO mission in the eyes of Serbs and asked whether the proposal's proponents had checked with Kosovar Albanians for their views. UK Deputy Perm Rep Kidd said KFOR still would presumably provide force protection for the separate mission, which would blur any distinction between the two missions. France expressed hesitation and said it did not think the distinction between NATO and KFOR was large enough to make separate missions worthwhile. Bulgaria backed comments of other skeptics and said NATO should not go down a path that would allow Serbia to divide NATO. Romania said it was cautious and Poland objected to Norway's characterization of "good guys' and "bad guys" in Serbia. ¶4. (C) Chairman of the NATO Military Committee General Henault commented that, from a military perspective, he could not support the proposal, which was "hugely problematic." USNATO 00000185 002 OF 002 Henault said a separate mission would harm unity of command in Kosovo. In addition, Allies would have to negotiate a new Initiating Directive and revise the Balkans Operations Plan, both of which have already been difficult under the current construct. Positions have also already begun to be filled in KFOR to execute the new tasks. ¶5. (C) Following a Dutch suggestion not to come to a final decision that day, but rather hold a second discussion, Perm Reps agreed to discuss the proposal again on May 29 when the NAC visits SHAPE and meets with SACEUR. NULAND