ITALIAN SUPPORT FOR NATO ENLARGEMENT GOALS

C O N F I D E N T I A L ROME 001275 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/16/2019 TAGS: PREL NATO PARM MARR KTIA BK GG MK MW UP SUBJECT: ITALIAN SUPPORT FOR NATO ENLARGEMENT GOALS REF: A. STATE 113840 ¶B. SARAJEVO 1208 Classified By: Political Military Counselor Liam Wasley for Reasons 1.4 (b) and (d) Summary -------------- ¶1. (C) While the U.S. and GOI positions on NATO enlargement and objectives for the December 3-4 NATO Foreign Ministerial(ref A) are similar, the Italians want to be cautious about setting the bar too high for obtaining Membership Action Plan (MAP) status. Italy is keenly interested in Euro-Atlantic aspirations and supports a regional approach to the issue, but acknowledges each country must be evaluated on its own merits and weaknesses. End summary. Need to Remain Flexible on MAP -------------- ¶2. (C) In a November 10 discussion with Poloff about Italy's objectives for the December 3-4 NATO Foreign Ministerial , MFA Minister for International Security and Political Military Affairs Carlo Batori agreed that not all of the countries aspiring to NATO membership are ready for Membership Action Plan (MAP) acceptance, but that &too rigid8 benchmarks for granting of MAP should be avoided because it would be dangerous to leave any one country behind in the incremental process of EU-Atlantic integration. The GOI believes a balance must be struck between adhering to the standards for MAP accession and recognizing a particular country's progress toward reform. Each Country on Its Own Merits -------------- ¶3. (C) In considering individual countries, Batori described Montenegro,s MAP request as well-founded and predicted a decision to agree to it this December, with the actual granting of MAP status at the end of the IPAP (Individual Partnership Action Plan) cycle in June 2010. ¶4. (C) On Bosnia, Batori understands that consensus is far from being achieved, with some countries wanting to grant MAP in December to encourage further reforms, others believing this is not feasible, and a third group offering the prospect of Bosnia MAP accession on condition further reforms are undertaken. Batori noted that any decision in December will have to take in consideration the final outcome of the Butmir talks (ref B). ¶5. (C) While Serbia has not yet pushed for MAP, Batori indicated the GOI believes the December final communiqu should leave the door open to granting Serbia MAP. Batori said that showing openess to Belgrade supports pro-European elements in the GOS; he expressed appreciation for the U.S. agreeing to Serbia,s SEDM accession as another example of such openess. ¶6. (C) As for Ukraine and Georgia,s NATO aspirations, Batori agreed that neither was ready for MAP accession at this time and both should continue pursuing their relations with NATO through their respective NATO Commissions. ¶7. (C) Like the U.S., the GOI supports Macedonia,s bid to join NATO, provided a solution to the name issue (with Greece) is reached. According to Batori, the GOI hopes that the new GOG will be more stable than the previous one and thus confident enough to seek a mutually acceptable solution with Macedonia. THORNE