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