RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TARGETS NATO, UN AND UKRAINE AT

C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000366 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/09/2018 TAGS: MARR NATO PGOV PREL RS UP GG SUBJECT: RUSSIAN AMBASSADOR TARGETS NATO, UN AND UKRAINE AT THE EAPC REF: A. JOINT NATO-UN DECLARATION (E-MAILED TO EUR/RPM) ¶B. GEORGIAN STATEMENT (E-MAILED TO EUR/RPM) Classified By: CDA W. S. Reid, III, for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) ¶1. (C) Summary: Russian Ambassador to NATO Dmitry Rogozin took center stage at the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) Ambassadorial meeting on Wednesday, October 8, taking out his anger over the situation in Georgia on NATO, the UN and Ukraine. In between rants by Rogozin, which generally disrupted the meeting's flow, the Council lauded the progress made by NATO's Trust Fund programs, highlighted seminars on energy security, announced Kazakhstan as the host of the 2009 EAPC Security Forum, and was briefed on the results of the 2008 Partnership for Peace (PfP) Conference on Defense Policy and Strategy and the London Defense Ministerial. End summary. -------------- Even the agenda is controversial -------------- ¶2. (C) Secretary General (SYG) Jaap de Hoop Scheffer began the EAPC stating that the London Defense Ministerial, which took place September 18-19, focused on defense transformation and an exchange of views about the situation in Georgia. However, Russian Ambassador Rogozin quickly interjected to express his displeasure with the meeting agenda, questioning the absence of the recently-signed Joint NATO-UN Declaration as a separate topic. (NOTE: The Declaration was signed by the SYG and UN SYG Ban Ki Moon on September 23, but was circulated by the NATO Staff to NATO delegations just hours before the EAPC meeting. See Ref A. End note.) The SYG responded that the Declaration was not for debate in the EAPC, and Rogozin appeared to stand down. Then Georgian Ambassador to NATO Revaz Beshidze delivered a statement (Ref B, text e-mailed to EUR/RPM),informing the other EAPC members that Russia had not yet dismantled its checkpoints beyond the security zones. At this point, and in an obvious effort to defuse Russia's effort to disrupt the meeting overall, the SYG announced that because he was in a "good mood," he would entertain Ambassador Rogozin's request to discuss the NATO-UN Declaration before continuing with other agenda items. ¶3. (C) The SYG stated that the Declaration was symbolic of the increasing cooperation between the NATO and the UN, with the hopes of inducing increased communications at all levels between the organizations. At this point Rogozin took the floor, sarcastically quipping that the SYG's being in a good mood must translate into a good mood for international security. He said that he was "flabbergasted" by the background of the Declaration and the concealment of its signing from UN Security Council members. He argued that UN SYG Ban violated his authority in signing the Declaration, which he said was "questionable" under the UN Charter. Rogozin said that he was offended by the "bureaucratic architecture" of the Declaration and disagreed with its guidelines and conclusions. To borrow a phrase from the Declaration, he challenged the notion of NATO and the UN's "operational cooperation in the Balkans," saying that NATO and the UN violated the Washington Treaty and the UN Charter in conducting missions there in the 1990s. He said that the Declaration was a reflection of the personal opinion of UN SYG Ban, not the UN members, and other members would agree with that assessment. Rogozin announced that Russia would not participate in UN activities under the Declaration's guidelines, which should have instead been circulated as a "Food for Thought" paper. He completed his tirade, stating that the Declaration presumes that NATO is taking on a role larger than even that of the UN. ¶4. (C) The SYG responded that he continued to be in a good mood, despite Rogozin's diatribe. Boasting "Allied unity," a host of nations then took the floor in support of the Declaration, including the U.S., Sweden, Germany, the UK, Italy, Bulgaria, France, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Norway. Serbia even added that as a country "where NATO and the UN operate on the ground," it thought the Declaration was an important document. Rogozin answered that perhaps he was "taking advantage of the SYG's good humor," but he needed to make two additional points - first, this issue can not be overlooked and should be placed on the formal EAPC agenda as a separate item, and second, he viewed this Declaration as an agreement between two Secretariats, not between two organizations (which, he reasoned, would require the agreement of all members.) The SYG cut off further discussion by saying that he would note Rogozin's concerns, but he "did not understand them." -------------- No good deed goes unpunished -------------- ¶5. (C) The SYG moved to the next item on the agenda, a stocktaking of NATO/PfP Trust Funds, during which he said that 21 projects in 13 countries amounting to 40 million euros had been undertaken, resulting in the disposal of munitions and retraining of redundant military personnel. Not to be overlooked, Rogozin again chimed in, arguing that this was not a topic appropriate for discussion at the EAPC. He suggested the "constructive proposal" that a report could just be circulated with the details. The SYG disagreed, replying that nations needed an opportunity to express their opinions on the topic. After this statement, the SYG handed the chair over to Deputy SYG Claudio Bisogniero. (Note: It was not clear whether the SYG had another appointment to attend or his good mood finally gave out. End note.) ¶6. (C) The D/SYG quickly moved through other topics on the agenda, including an update on NATO seminars on energy security, the announcement that Kazakhstan will host the 2009 EAPC Security Forum, and a de-brief on the 2008 PfP Conference on Defense Policy and Strategy. Under the topic "Any Other Business," Belarus expressed dissatisfaction about the reaction of the international community to its September elections and pledged to "do (its) homework" to continue with reforms, and Kyrgyzstan thanked nations for their support in response to the magnitude-8.0 earthquake that it suffered. ¶7. (C) Rogozin, who was not yet done for the day, entered once more to ask Ukraine about press reports that it sold weapons in the Georgian conflict zones, "giving salt to unstable regimes and other hot spots." He asked about the Ukrainian commission that had been established to investigate these sales, wondering aloud whether the commission would be able to do its work if the Rada were dissolved as was expected. (Note: Later in the day, the Ukrainian president did dissolve parliament and called for new parliamentary elections. End note.) The Ukrainian representative referred Rogozin to the statement of its National Security Agency, which determined that there was no embargo in effect over Georgia, and that Ukraine had followed all aspects of international law, ethics and politics. As for the Rada's demise, he concluded, "we shall see." Georgia, who could not help but take one last swipe, launched the rhetorical question, "how did Russia arm Abkhazia and South Ossetia?" REID