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