NATO SENIOR DEFENCE GROUP ON PROLIFERATION (DGP)

C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000433

SIPDIS

STATE FOR T, EUR/PRA, EUR/RPM, AND AC/SEA
DEFENSE FOR GSA (BENKERT, GROSS)

E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/30/2018
TAGS: MARR MCAP MNUC NATO PARM PREL
SUBJECT: NATO SENIOR DEFENCE GROUP ON PROLIFERATION (DGP)
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING, OCTOBER 29, 2008

Classified By: DEFAD BRUCE WEINROD FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) and (D)


1. (C) SUMMARY: The Steering Committee of the Senior Defense
Group on Proliferation (DGP) met at NATO Headquarters on
October 29. The meeting was co-chaired by Ms. Laura Gross of
the U.S. (OSD(GSA)) and Mr. Knut Jahr of MoD Norway. Major
items discussed during the meeting included the drafting of
&NATO,s Comprehensive, Strategic-Level Policy to Prevent
the Proliferation of WMD and Enhance the Alliance,s CBRN
Defence8; the DGP,s work on maritime interdiction of WMD,
related materials, and their means of delivery; cooperation
between the DGP and the Senior Civil Emergency Planning
Committee; lessons learned from the 2008 North Atlantic
Council Seminar on WMD; the national capabilities
demonstration conducted by Poland during the 2008 DGP
Seminar; NATO,s program of CBRN-related field and command
post exercises for 2008 and 2009; the DGP's food-for-thought
paper on expediting implementation of the disease
surveillance system; and NATO-European Union cooperation on
CBRN defense issues. The next meeting of the DGP will occur
at Steering Committee-level at NATO HQ on December 5.


2. (C) The second draft of &NATO,s Comprehensive,
Strategic-Level Policy to Prevent the Proliferation of WMD
and Enhance the Alliance,s CBRN Defence8 was distributed on
October 21. It incorporated many comments of substance
including some with divergent views received after the
Plenary meeting earlier in the month. The Norwegian Co-Chair
opened the floor to Allies for their views on the new draft.
France began by stating that the endeavor required the full
involvement of both the DGP and the Senior Politico-Military
Group on Proliferation (SGP). The French position is that
the three classic pillars of proliferation are not to be
integrated. Rather, they feel that each has its own logic to
be respected. They went on to add that there were some
concepts that needed further work, such as the term
&adversaries8. Canada reported that substantial comments
had been submitted for the first draft and more were coming
for the next. In general, they were pleased with the
document, however, key challenges existed with some of the
definitions. In addition, there was not enough coverage
given to non-state actors. Italy felt that it was important
to the process to avoid duplication with other organizations
and that the DGP should be the principal drafter. The
treatment of trust funds was not clear and needed
amplification. Germany was pleased with progress on the
document and wished to see provisions for an annual review
and an assessment of the status of implementation. The Czech
Republic was concerned that the treatment of intelligence
sharing was too narrow in focus. They felt it should be
wider than simply CBRN and they quoted the NAC WMD Seminar
lessons-learned report to support this view. Like Germany,
they wished to see an implementation report. Bulgaria stated
that the discussions that have taken place in the NAC and DGP
Seminars were important and that they considered the policy
document to be mature and complete. The Norwegian Co-Chair
provided a synopsis of the next steps: later the same day,
there would be a meeting of the other NATO bodies involved in
CBRN activities at which their comments would be received;
nations will be invited to provide their views by November
12; all inputs will be considered for the next version of the
document to be issued on November 26.


3. (C) The Norwegian Co-Chair briefly reviewed the extensive
discussion on Maritime Interdiction Operations (MIO) that had
taken place at the Plenary meeting on October 2. At that
time, the International Military Staff (IMS) reported on the
various streams of work underway in support of this subject
and food-for-thought papers were introduced by the
Netherlands on the legal basis for NATO action and by the
U.S. on possible courses of action for NATO maritime
operations aimed at preventing the trafficking by sea of WMD.
The papers remain open for comment with the goal of
providing a new draft in time for the December 5 Steering
Committee meeting. France reminded the Committee that NATO
has no mandate for PSI. Furthermore, they do not wish to see
Operation Active Endeavour (OAE) expanded to include
counter-proliferation. Concerning the legal analysis, they
observed that MIO is an operational concept and is not part

of international maritime law. In the view of Romania, the
NATO STANAGS and operational concepts are sufficient to cover
MIO.


4. (C) The U.S. Co-Chair highlighted the importance of close
cooperation with other NATO bodies in the context of work on
the Comprehensive Policy document. She reminded the
Committee that Norway had produced a food-for-thought paper
proposing a joint meeting of the DGP and the Senior Civil
Emergency Planning Committee (SCEPC) and that the meeting was
expected to take place in January 2009. The proposed agenda
for the meeting was distributed on October 27. As there were
no comments from nations, a silence period until November 6
was established in order to permit a DGP-agreed position in
time for discussion by the SCEPC at their next meeting on
November 10.


5. (C) The NATO WMD Centre reported that a DGP
points-of-contact hot-wash was conducted on October 6, just a
few days after the October 2 NAC WMD Seminar. An initial
draft report of the Seminar received significant input and a
new version was issued on October 16. This version is now
considered mature and ready for approval under a silence
procedure followed by forwarding to the NAC for notation.
France requested that the second sentence of paragraph four
be repositioned to the first sentence in the introduction,
thus adding emphasis to its importance. This sentence notes
that the lessons learned report is merely a record of what
was discussed and that, with the exception of the
recommendations, the mention of specific items or ideas in
the report does not imply agreement or endorsement. This was
agreed and the silence period for DGP approval was
established to end on November 6.


6. (C) Poland provided a presentation on their CBRN defense
capabilities as a follow-up to their display of equipment
during the 2008 DGP Seminar in Torun. Current
decontamination and sampling equipment and organization were
described and demonstrated using a scenario based on
real-world conditions. New approaches for equipment and
personnel needed to meet future requirements were briefed.
The Peace Support Operations Hospital and its decontamination
capabilities were described with emphasis on the importance
of qualified personnel. The Norwegian Co-Chair thanked
Poland for the information and remarked that it is gratifying
to be able to see the end-point of the DGP,s work. Italy
commented that it is important to be aware of the links and
discrepancies between equipment requirements and current
inventories.


7. (C) SHAPE J5 updated the Committee on the NATO 2008-2009
schedule of field and command post exercises related to CBRN.
Exercise STEADFAST JOINER, due to begin shortly, is the only
remaining event in 2008 and will accomplish certification of
NRF 12. Among the six events in 2009, one will feature
civil-military cooperation. The process of inserting CBRN
play into the various exercises seems to be improving as
recognition of its importance grows. One problem area
remaining for 2009 is the lack of a lead nation for NRF 13
and the consequent requirement for an alternative
organization of the Combined Joint CBRN Defence Task Force.


8. (C) The U.S., the UK and France have jointly produced a
food-for-thought paper on the subject of &Expediting
Improvements to Operational Disease Surveillance for Force
Health Protection.8 The UK informed the group that
substantial inputs have been incorporated in the second
version of the paper, including lessons learned from ISAF
support and comments from international organizations, from
Turkey and France, and from the Committee of the Chiefs of
Military Medical Services (COMEDS). The U.S. Co-Chair
proposed a silence period for approval of the paper to end on
November 12. Turkey expressed concerns about the
accreditation to NATO of the Multi-National Medical Analysis
Center in Munich and wished to see resolution on the issue.
France expressed their satisfaction with the consultation
process with the COMEDS on the paper and recommended that
they report to the DGP in the future on the implementation of
measures contained in the document.



9. (C) Exchange of information on CBRN activities with the
European Union (EU) is an important element of outreach for
the DGP and is conducted in the NATO-EU Joint Capabilities
Group (JCG). This group was last briefed by the DGP in June
2007 with a reciprocal presentation in October of that year.
The WMD Centre explained that the initial plan was to provide
an update of DGP activities to the group at their next
meeting, however, the update has been postponed until 2009.
The DGP will continue to pursue a place on the NATO-EU JCG
agenda at the earliest opportunity.


10. (C) Several short items were covered under Any Other
Business. The Committee was informed that an information
briefing on DGP activities had been provided to the Senior
Political Committee (SPC) under the rubric of &Raising
NATO's Profile in the Areas of Arms Control, Disarmament and
Proliferation.8 The topics included the on-going work on
the Comprehensive Policy and DGP efforts to support the
objectives of the Proliferation Security Initiative.


11. (C) The Czech Republic reported on the status of their
paper on the transformation of CBRN units. There will be a
meeting in Prague on November 24 to prepare a second draft
which will be issued by December 5. In addition, the third
annual Commandants, Conference took place October 13-16 and
was attended by the CBRN Defence Centre of Excellence, MoD
reps, and others. It was considered a success and will be
held next in Bulgaria in October 2009.


12. (C) Germany raised the topic of the International
Partners Event to be held in Namur, Belgium, on April 24,
2009, asking which nations might contribute to the event. A
response was requested by November 11. France observed that
a formal invitation was still needed and was advised that it
was forthcoming. The WMD Centre confirmed that the same
attendance management procedures that were used last year
would be used for this event.


13. (C) The Co-Chairs closed by reminding the group that the
next meetings of the DGP would be the Steering Committee on
December 5, 2008, and the Plenary on January 14, 2009.
VOLKER