USNATO GUIDANCE: GUIDANCE: SENIOR RESOURCE BOARD

C O N F I D E N T I A L STATE 068548

SIPDIS
USNATO FOR DAVID WRIGHT AND MARILYN MORSE

E.O. 12958: DECL: 09/11/2018
TAGS: NATO AFIN ABUD AMGT
SUBJECT: USNATO GUIDANCE: GUIDANCE: SENIOR RESOURCE BOARD
(SRB) JULY 2-3 2009 PLENARY MEETING

REF: A. USNATO 000278

B. DOD CABLE DTG 151855Z JUN 09 SECDEF GATES
PARTICIPATION IN NATO DEFENSE
MINISTERIAL WORKING LUNCH SESSION JUNE
11 2009

Classified By: BRUCE TURNER, EUR/RPM DIRECTOR, REASONS 1.4 (B/D)


1. (U) In general, Washington concurs with positions outlined
by USNATO in Ref A. Additional guidance is provided below.



2. (C) Ref Item I, ISAF. In discussion of resource
implications of the establishment of an intermediate ISAF HQ,
Mission may draw on the para 3 talking points, if pressed for
a U.S. position on the common funding implications of the HQ
proposal. Given the still evolving state of this proposal and
the not yet defined construction and system procurement
requirements for stand-up of the intermediate HQ, Mission is
instructed to avoid discussion of funding responsibility for
specific aspects of the new HQ.


3. (U) Talking points follow:

-- SHAPE is developing a detailed implementation plan for the
ISAF intermediate HQ agreed in principle at the June NATO
Defense Ministerial meeting. We hope for agreement on the way
forward by August 4th.

-- To meet the timelines for the establishment of the
intermediate HQ, the United States, as framework nation, will
provide advance funding for any required construction and
procurement of equipment for the HQ.

-- At the same time, the United States reserves the right to
seek reimbursement from NATO for those construction or
equipment costs that are or may be eligible for NATO common
funding.

-- In support of future requests for reimbursement from NATO,
the U.S. will submit pre-financing letters for any
construction and equipment procurement funded by the United
States.

-- The United States also anticipates that once the
intermediate HQ is established as a NATO body, the running
costs of that HQ that are eligible for common funding from
the Military Budget will be funded by NATO.


4. (C) Ref the documentation relating to the ANA Trust Fund
(U.S.-NATO MOU concerning the management and administration
of the Trust Fund and CSTC-A project documentation on ANA
sustainment requirements). U.S. SRB representative may
inform Allies that the U.S.-NATO MOU is now undergoing review
within the DoD, and that we will be in a position to provide
an approved (but not signed) draft for review by the end of
July. Regarding the project documentation on ANA sustainment
requirements requested by Germany, U.S. representative is
authorized to inform Allies that SHAPE will provide the
documentation through NATO channels to the SRB within two
weeks.


5. (C) Ref NATO Office of Resources (NOR) proposal for
funding modalities for the NAEW&C deployment to Turkey in
support of ISAF operations. The NOR proposal,s
identification of costs to be common funded from the Military
Budget and NSIP is consistent with agreed ISAF funding
arrangements, and Washington instructs Mission to support it,
with flexibility to agree to minor changes if necessary to
gain consensus. If major, substantive changes to the
document are proposed, Mission is directed to request further
instructions from Washington. Regarding French SRB
representative,s claim that the French MoD's recent
agreement to common fund the incremental costs of AWACS
deployment was conditioned on the understanding that these
costs would be limited to EUR 2.7 million, U.S.
representative may point out that our account of the meeting
(Ref B) -- confirmed in discussions with the USNATO notetaker
-- indicates that MoD Morin did not/not tie this agreement to
any specific cost estimate at the Defense Ministerial.
CLINTON