NATO MISSILE DEFENSE: NEED TO PUSH SOME ALLIES

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USNATO 000528 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/17/2019 TAGS: PARM MARR PREL NATO SUBJECT: NATO MISSILE DEFENSE: NEED TO PUSH SOME ALLIES Classified By: Ambassador Ivo H. Daalder for reasons 1.4(B)&(D). ¶1. (C) Summary: Allies have welcomed the President's Phased, Adaptive Approach (PAA) to European missile defense, but some key Allies require additional USG attention on this issue before we can garner unanimous support in the December Ministerial communique. Some Allies question our push for communique language endorsing missile defense for NATO populations and territories. But our reading is that the fundamental obstacle to a NATO MD consensus is concern about cost. Mission recommends high level approaches to France, UK, Spain, and Belgium to help us gain consensus on this high priority ministerial goal. End Summary. ¶2. (C) Mission has been pushing the following four points on MD as articulated by Secretary of Defense Gates last month in Bratislava: During the December Foreign Ministerial, we should seek NATO communique language: - welcoming the U.S. PAA as a valuable contribution to the Alliance's security; - indicating that Allies affirm missile defense for NATO territories and populations to be an appropriate and viable mission for the Alliance; - noting that if NATO pursues a territorial missile defense mission, the PAA would be a U.S. national contribution; and - noting that a possible expanded role for the Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense (ALTMBD) program would be a key milestone toward developing territorial missile defenses for the Alliance. In addition, we are trying to add a fifth point expressing a NATO interest in possible MD cooperation with Russia. ¶3. (C) While Allies have generally welcomed the PAA since its announcement on September 17, there is not yet consensus among Allies on the four points we have put forward as the basis for the communiqu. (The point on Russian cooperation has general support and is important to some Allies, such as Germany.) Some allies continue to have questions about some of the details of the system - including command and control operations, the relationship to NATO's ALTBMD system, the deployment locations of parts of the systems, and the likely reaction of Russia to a possible Phase IV deployment. None of these questions is likely to prevent those who raise them from supporting our proposed language. A few key allies, however, have expressed more significant concerns, including about the appropriateness of affirming that the defense of NATO territory and populations against ballistic missile attack is a viable mission for the Alliance. It is our judgment that in most, if not all, cases, the objection is less to the appropriateness of the mission than a concern about the possible cost to them of the new system. The following four Allies, in particular, have expressed views on our proposed language that suggest the need for direct, bilateral engagement to ensure their support (we understand that bilateral consultations with Turkey are ongoing). ¶4. (C) FRANCE: Defense Minister Morin said clearly in Bratislava that he was not sure France could support Secretary Gates's four points, mentioning the cost of the system as his biggest concern. Privately, the French mission has told us that Paris prefers working bilaterally on missile defense with us, believing that the benefits would be greater and the cost less. ¶5. (C) UK: The British PermRep has stated repeatedly that the UK cannot support any language that implies a financial commitment down the road - including the mission language. ¶6. (C) SPAIN: The Spanish PermRep has asked why we need to move so quickly, with Lisbon over a year away. They would likely support France and the UK if cost became an open issue. ¶7. (C) BELGIUM: The Belgians have clearly, albeit quietly, said for some time now that they are unsure they can support the four points. Their concern is clearly cost, but may also still include a general reluctance to support missile defenses. ¶8. (C) Mission will continue to engage Allies actively on this issue in the run-up to the Foreign Ministerial. The Private Office has also indicated that it will push for inclusion of our points in the final communique. The Secretary General regards this as one of the key deliverables USNATO 00000528 002 OF 002 for the meeting. However, bilateral engagement by Washington with these four Allies may be necessary to bring them around. In that regard, it would be useful to remind Allies that the mission of defending Allied populations and territories against an armed attack is at the core of the Alliance's commitment of collective defense. As Secretary Gates said in Bratislava, "I can't think of anything more suitable in the context of Article 5 than the mission of protection of territories and populations." DAALDER