PERU: INFORMATION ON SECURITY DIALOGUE

C O N F I D E N T I A L LIMA 001661

SIPDIS
DEPT ALSO FOR PM/RSAT (CPETRONE)

E.O. 12958: DECL: 2019/11/20
TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR PE MOPS
SUBJECT: PERU: INFORMATION ON SECURITY DIALOGUE

REF: 09 STATE 112900

CLASSIFIED BY: McKinley P. Michael, Ambassador, State, Ambassador
Peru; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)


1. (U) Please find below Embassy Lima's responses to questions
posed in reftel.




2. (SBU) Q: Does the United States currently have an
established security dialogue with your country? Please report on
all established or ad hoc dialogues of a pol-mil nature, regardless
of the terminology by which they are described including: strategic
dialogues, security dialogues, pol-mil working groups, security
consultative mechanisms, or any variation or combination of these
terms. Furthermore, for the sake of completeness, please detail any
mechanisms or dialogues that are purely military-to-military in
nature, to include military consultative discussions, scheduled
high-level defense engagements, and so forth.

A: The U.S. and Peru have a formal dialogue mechanism referred to
as the Bilateral Working Group (BWG) whose purpose is to discuss a
wide range of security cooperation issues of bilateral and regional
interest, including Shared Threats (mainly counter-terrorism and
counter-narcotics),Technical Assistance, Information Sharing,
Disaster Relief and Maritime Issues. A purely mil-to-mil (navy to
navy) working group meets once a year in Mayport, FL. In addition,
there is a continuous stream of ad hoc interchanges on pol-mil and
mil-to-mil subjects that the Ambassador, DAO, MAAG and Political
Section maintains with their host nation counterparts. In
addition, there have been numerous ad hoc visits by senior military
officers, civilian officials and subject material exchange experts.


3. (SBU) Q: When was the dialogue or mechanism first
established? By what means was it established? Is the frequency
of such meetings controlled through a binding agreement, or is this
dialogue regulated by an informal understanding?

A: The USG and the GOP held their first BWG of a pol/mil to
pol/mil nature in May of 2007 Washington DC with a follow-on
meeting of a more Military to Military nature six months later.
The BWG dialogue mechanism was established and is regulated through
an informal understanding.


4. (SBU) Q: When did the group last meet? Does the USG or
host government have a set schedule or any general expectations
regarding the frequency of this exchange? When is the next
scheduled meeting?

A: The second (last) BWG met 17-20 June 2009 in Lima. The next
BWG is expected to take place in Washington DC around the same
month in 2010. We have not seen a set schedule.


5. (SBU) Q: Does the USG or host government hold any
expectations as to the level of leadership hosting the exchange?

A: Both sides probably expect the BWG meetings to be led by senior
civilian officials. The last BWG was chaired by a Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense (DASD) for the USG and a Minister of Defense
(MOD) representing the GOP.


6. (C) Q: PM would also be interested in Post's brief, honest
assessment regarding the overall utility of the dialogue. Are new
issues frequently broached, or has the dialogue devolved into a
stagnant exchange of power point slides? If necessary, please use

classified communication to convey this honest assessment.

A: The BWG is a relatively new mechanism, and as such reflects
several immature processes. Nonetheless, it has proven useful for
making new contacts and has also allowed the formal and public
identification of some contentious issues (SOFA, among others).
Perhaps the most significant use to date was the setting of
conditions that allowed receptivity to the concept of a force level
assessment by the US DoD of the Peruvian Armed Forces. This was not
a direct result of the BWG, but the theme presented by the US
delegation was the need for a strategic overview and a strategic
plan for Peruvian Armed Forces. By early August and with some
additional engagement by DoD embassy staff, the Peruvian armed
forces presented a request to the DoD for exactly such an
assessment. The initiative has been approved and is moving forward.

On the less positive and immature processes side, the last BWG
hosted in Lima raised questions concerning the size of the
gathering and related cost effectiveness. Even without the BWG,
there are routine opportunities for close and candid engagement in
smaller meetings so the BWG format is certainly not mature. Of
note, this was a change as the first BWG hosted in DC was indeed
smaller and more focused.

Our impression of the last BWG hosted in Lima was that it was
poorly organized and was disjointed in theme continuity from the
previous BWG. It was probably more useful at the mid-level (field
grade) working groups than at the large plenary session, which was
neither revealing nor particularly candid. For instance, the power
point slides on Peru's threats did not include Chile or Bolivia,
probably because our host nation counterparts believed that the
U.S. does not agree with Peru's assessment that its southern
neighbors represent a critical security threat.

Despite the format issues, the overall usefulness of the BWG is
unquestionable. The same applies to the strategic message of
significant partnership sent by having direct engagement at the
DASD level.
MCKINLEY