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