INTERNATIONALIZING CAPACITY BUILDING FOR EAST

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 NAIROBI 001273 SENSITIVE SIPDIS EMBASSY ADDIS ABABA: PLEASE PASS TO USAU DEPARTMENT FOR AF/RSA E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: MARR MASS PREL XA CA UK AS SUBJECT: INTERNATIONALIZING CAPACITY BUILDING FOR EAST AFRICA'S AU STANDBY FORCE REF: A. NAIROBI 994 ¶B. NAIROBI 43 -------------- Summary -------------- ¶1. (SBU) On June 23, the British High Commissioner convened a meeting with Canada, Australia, and the United States to garner support for their efforts to internationalize Kenya's peacekeeping training centers. The British see this step as necessary to maintain the momentum to turn the East African Standby Brigade (EASBRIG) into a viable standby force. While the assembled group supported the strengthening of East Africa's regional security capacity, others' ability to contribute and opinions on how to get there from here were diverse. We reiterated that the lack of a Presidential Determination limits how we can engage with EASBRIG. We also advised that because we deal on a bilateral basis with Kenya's training centers, their internationalization would require a re-assessment of how (or whether) we can continue to provide funding and manpower to support them. ¶2. (SBU) The assembled group agreed to consider a joint demarche to the Government of Kenya to follow through on their alleged commitment to internationalize the peacekeeping training centers and the importance of promoting a regional approach to building security capacity. There was also general agreement that the donor community should consider using the next Friends of EASBRIG meeting, tentatively scheduled for July 14 in Addis Ababa, and the EASBRIG Chiefs of Defense Staff and Ministers' Summit, tentatively planned for August in Addis Ababa, as opportunities to talk more about the way forward. End Summary. ¶3. (U) This cable contains an action request. See para 12. -------------- -- UK Investment in East African Security Capacity -------------- -- ¶4. (SBU) On June 23, British High Commissioner Robert Macaire convened a meeting that included the Chiefs of Mission and Defense Advisors of Canada, Australia, and the UK as well as PolOff and Deputy KUSLO. Also present was COL Andy Mason, the UK's liaison officer to the EASBRIG Coordination Mechanism (EASBRICOM). ¶5. (SBU) Macaire said that the British government is anxious to ensure its investment in developing a regional training platform for East African security forces through the International Peace Support Training Center (IPSTC) and the Humanitarian Peace Support School (HPSS - formerly known as the International Mine Action Training Center (IMATC)),both located on the outskirts of Nairobi, are not in vain. To keep these organizations viable, he argued, their management must be internationalized in the form of a donor-led board of directors. The Kenyan military is operationally in charge of both organizations and as a result they do not function as true regional organizations, Macaire said. Also, the European Union would like to support the development of East Africa's regional security capacity, and the establishment of an international board of directors for a merged IPSTC-HPSS training facility would allow EU member states to donate funding more easily. The ultimate goal of these institutions, Macaire continued, is to create a viable standby force in the form of EASBRIG, the only organization that has the African Union (AU) mandate for maintaining peace NAIROBI 00001273 002 OF 003 and security in the region. (Note: The UK Ministry of Defense through the British Peace Support Team has indeed made a significant investment in establishing and developing all three of these institutions with a good degree of success to date, and their guiding hand is still very much visible. End Note.) ¶6. (SBU) Macaire asked the Canadians, Australians, and Americans together to get a sense of their willingness to (a) jointly demarche the Kenyans on the need to follow through on their alleged commitment to internationalize the management of the training institutions, and (b) provide additional support to keep the training institutions sustainable, particularly in the form of trainers posted to HPSS's new Tactical Peace Support Operations School. (Note: While Macaire said that the British Government is not planning to pull their security assistance away from Kenya in the same way they have in parts of West Africa, he emphasized that they could not maintain their current level of military support. End Note.) -------------- Diplomats' Reaction -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The Canadians and Australians discussed their current and potential future support to capacity building. In both cases, support is limited and still on a year-to-year basis. Neither mission appeared to have strong opinions on the internationalization issue, although Australian High Commissioner Lisa Filipetto did express the need to work through the AU and asked whether it would be possible to fund IPSTC through the AU, perhaps through a memorandum of understanding. ¶8. (SBU) We reiterated our EASBRIG policy: the United States is happy to provide bilateral support to Kenya's training centers in the form of funding and liaison officers. We also support bilateral assistance to EASBRIG member countries that can be used to support EASBRIG's ultimate goals; however, the lack of a Presidential Determination ties our hands in providing direct support to EASBRIG, and any internationalization of Kenya's training centers may constrain our ability to support them as well. -------------- The Way Ahead -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Comment: It is Post's understanding that the Department is not ready to move forward with a request for a Presidential Determination on EASBRIG because the organization is not formally recognized by the member states' parliaments and is, therefore, not yet robust enough to be recognized as an international organization. In Post's view, EASBRIG has some serious sustainability and commitment problems, as described in ref B. Potential U.S. funding implications aside, the goal to internationalize IPSTC's management would almost certainly make the institutions easier to donate to for the rest of the international community should they decide to do so. However, it could also decrease member states' incentive to take real ownership of their own regional security capacity, which is one of the major factors holding EASBRIG back. ¶10. (SBU) Comment, cont.: We also have our doubts, frankly, about the level of sophistication that the UK is trying to infuse in its training regimen (e.g., combined military, police and civilian planning and operations); these goals are NAIROBI 00001273 003 OF 003 too ambitious to become a reality any time soon, especially given the current skill levels of member states' security forces. How can EASBRIG member states take ownership of a template they will never be able to maintain without outside assistance? Western countries have certainly not mastered the art of such combined operations. On the other hand, it is EASBRIG (not the East African Community) that has the AU's mandate for peace and security in East Africa. How, then, to move forward? ¶11. (SBU) Comment, cont.: In our view, it is worth considering beginning a more strategic dialogue, perhaps at both the member state and AU level, about the Presidential Determination issue with an eye toward encouraging greater ownership by EASBRIG member countries. The British believe that helping member states finalize the draft Harmonized Policy Framework will be a step in the right direction. We at Post think this may be of assistance, but it will be more important to listen to what the EASBRIG member states themselves are prepared to commit to vice projecting our plans onto them. The next Friends of EASBRIG meeting, tentatively scheduled to take place in Addis Ababa on July 14, will allow the Friends to discuss these issues among ourselves. An ideal place for commencing this larger dialogue with the AU and EASBRIG member states is at the EASBRIG Chiefs of Defense Staff and Ministers' Summit, tentatively planned for August in Addis Ababa. Although non-EASBRIG members (i.e., Friends of EASBRIG) have not regularly attended such summits, we believe that including the "Friends" either in the summit or in the margins of the summit would initiate a constructive and direct dialogue between AU/EASBRIG members and donor partners/governments. End Comment. ¶12. (SBU) Action Request: The UK is hosting a meeting on July 3 to explain in more detail the IPSTC board proposal, and is inviting UNDP, Germany, Kenya, and the United States among others. Post requests that the Department review existing policy on U.S. support to IPSTC and HPSS to identify any potential difficulties with future funding streams and/or manning should these institutions fall under the management of an international board of directors. Post also requests that the Department outline more fully the steps needed for EASBRIG to gain recognition as an international organization under a Presidential Determination and consider turning this into a larger outreach strategy. Finally, we expect the British to circulate draft talking points for a joint demarche to the Kenyans soon. We will forward these to the Department for approval on receipt. End Action Request. RANNEBERGER