EU SUPPORT FOR G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP AGAINST WMD

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000076 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/19/2020 TAGS: EMIN ENRG ETTC AORC EUN MNNC PARM TBIO KGIC KNNP, KRAD, XA, XC, XF, G-8 SUBJECT: EU SUPPORT FOR G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP AGAINST WMD Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor Christopher R. Davis for reason 1.4 (b/d) ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: During her January 11 meeting with EU officials, Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins, Coordinator for Threat Reduction Programs, sought EU support for extending and expanding the mandate of the G-8 Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction and ensuring that the Partnership be adequately resourced into the future. Senior officials from the European Union Council Secretariat and the European Commission agreed that the G-8 Global Partnership's mandate should be extended and that it should take on work in new functional and geographic areas. The European Commission's Richard Wright was confident that EU would continue to provide significant financial support, specifying that EU support to the Global Partnership was locked in through 2013, when the next multi-year funding program would be agreed. END SUMMARY ¶2. (SBU) Ambassador Jenkins was joined in Brussels by Canada's Troy Lulashnyk, who will chair the Global Partnership Working Group while Canada leads the G-8 in 2010. Lulashnyk noted that the G-8 Global Partnership had been largely successful, with a record of practical accomplishments centered on chemical weapons destruction and decommissioning of nuclear submarines. By the end of its mandate, there would be no more submarines waiting to be dismantled. It was therefore a good time to turn to new areas that needed to be addressed, as had already been recognized under the Japanese G-8 Presidency in 2008. As the EU possessed a range of policy and program tools for countering the spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction, said Lulashnyk, he and Jenkins had come to Brussels to seek EU views on what the Global Partnership's new priorities should be. ¶3. (SBU) Lulashnyk explained that he and Jenkins would be visiting other EU capitals as part of the effort to define future objectives and build support for an enhanced future effort. He noted that Canada would host a Weapons of Mass Destruction Threat Experts Conference in Ottawa on January 25 that would consider combating the global biological threat, nuclear security and scientist redirection and engagement. A G-8 Global Partnership Working Group meeting would be held the following day for all 23 G-8 Global Partnership members. Lulashnyk underlined that this was fully consonant with President Obama's upcoming Nuclear Security Summit. ¶4. (SBU) Ambassador Jenkins said that the U.S. supported both the expansion and extension of the G-8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. Details on how long to extend it and how much funding the U.S. would devote to it would be taken soon. ¶5. (SBU) The EU's Annalisa Giannella, the High Rep's Personal Representative on Non-Proliferation, said that while some chemical weapons and plutonium disposition programs were funded by the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy budget and overseen by the EU Council Secretariat, most work was being carried out through European Commission programs. The EU was the major donor to the IAEA's nuclear security fund. As for future non-proliferation priorities, she cited the Balkans, North Africa, Central Asia, Caucasus, and South East Asia as key areas. Biological security was a priority. She said the EU would like to engage further on scientist redirection and export controls. As for geographic scope, Gianella agreed that it was time to expand the Global Partnership's geographic scope beyond Russia and the Ukraine. Shared Priorities ¶6. (SBU) The European Commission's Richard Wright affirmed that the EU shared U.S. and Canadian priorities. He cited nuclear safety; biological safety; and export controls as areas that deserve an enhanced focus. He touched on the EU's BRUSSELS 00000076 002 OF 003 plan to establish regional CBRN Centers of Excellence in South East Asia, the Middle East, and Africa over the next three to five years. He suggested that these Centers could be used to support the Global Partnership. Jenkins and Lulashnyk both agreed that the Centers of Excellence might be able to play a needed capacity-building role. EU Budget Cycle ¶7. (SBU) Wright was supportive of extending and expanding the G-8 Global Partnerst tSBU) LuQashnyk agreed that flexibility was importantbut noted that for small countries, it was often easier to contribute money to a central pool. He noted that the IAEA nuclear security fund allowed them to contribute to action in situations when bilateral action was impossible for them. He acknowledged that multilateral funds often failed to be responsive and effective, as demonstrated by the Chernobyl Containment project. Russia's Role ¶10. (SBU) Turning to Russia, Richard Wright asked how Russia could move from being the G-8 Global Partnership's major beneficiary to playing a role as a contributor. Russia could do more on scientist engagement, addressing trans-regional threats such as smuggling without duplicating the work now being done by the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. On the issue of scientist engagement, Wright expressed interest in the future of the International Science and Technology Center (ISTC),raising the possibility of shifting its focus in some way, while still keeping a non-proliferation element to its work, which is a requirement for EU funding; all parties agreed to continue discussing this issue. Lulashnyk agreed that Russia had been the major beneficiary of programs on chemical weapons, submarines and nuclear security and now had a new list of priorities, such as dealing with waste and fuel for their navy. Before the crisis, Russia had expressed interest in playing a role as a donor and has put between 7-8 Billion dollars in to the G-8 Global Partnership. Jenkins added that Russia had continued to express the desire to move from recipient to partner. Summit Goals and Prospects ¶11. (C) Lulashnyk said that Canada's Summit goals for the G-8 Global Partnership were likely to center on extending the Partnership, expanding the Partnership's activities into new regions and functions and securing future funding. There BRUSSELS 00000076 003 OF 003 had been expressions of support for extension from London, Paris, Berlin, Rome and Tokyo, he said. Giannella commented that Russia seemed to be "reluctant" about geographic expansion. Lulashnyk explained the perception of Russian opposition might stem from Moscow's feeling that it had been assured funding from France and Italy that had not materialized. In Canada-Russia bilateral meetings, however, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov had not opposed expansion of the partnership, as long as Russia continued to benefit from the partnership's future activity. Jenkins said that the U.S. had gotten a similar message from Russia: expansion was acceptable as long as existing commitments were met, including the chemical issue. ¶12. (U) This cable was cleared by Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins, Coordinator for Threat Reduction Programs. KENNARD