VZCZCXYZ0006
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHRL #0791/01 1081804
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 181804Z APR 07
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7971
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 8172
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 1766
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 1010
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 8700
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 0440
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 1434

UNCLAS BERLIN 000791 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CTR, EUR, WHA/CAN, AND EAP/J 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC KNNP CBW TRGY GM JA RS CA
SUBJECT: MARCH 29 MEETING OF THE G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP 
WORKING GROUP IN BERLIN 
 
REF: A. BERLIN 535 
     ¶B. BERLIN 244 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The third G-8 Global Partnership Working 
Group (GPWG) meeting under the German G-8 Presidency took 
place in Berlin March 29.  The Chair opened with a discussion 
of a draft document which reviewed the first five years of 
the Global Partnership (GP).  Some delegations complained 
that they had insufficient time to review the draft properly, 
and other delegations, including the U.S., noted the lack of 
mention of the GP's future beyond 2012, even though the 
delegations during the February 28 GPWG meeting had discussed 
expanding the GP geographically and in scope.  After some 
discussion, the Chair agreed to redraft the review document 
and re-circulate it.  The GPWG also discussed the Northern 
Dimension Environmental Partnership (NDEP), recent 
developments in GP projects, and whether the GPWG would push 
for a G-8 Leaders' Statement on nonproliferation, which would 
include mention of the GP.  Most delegations agreed that the 
GP should draft a leaders' statement for this year's G-8 
Summit in June.  DAS Semmel informed the other delegates that 
since the item was not on the agenda he would not table a 
U.S. draft but noted that the issue would surface in the 
Political Directors meeting the following week.  He also 
mentioned that a U.S. paper proposing an outline for GP 
expansion would be distributed at the Political Director's 
meeting.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) German MFA Commissioner for Economic Affairs and 
Sustainable Development Viktor Elbling chaired the morning 
session of the March 29 GPWG meeting.  He opened the meeting 
with a discussion of a German-produced draft, "Global 
Partnership Review," which had been circulated to GPWG 
partners on March 26.  The partners had agreed at the 
previous GPWG meeting February 28 that Germany would produce 
a draft consisting of three parts:  I. Main Achievements, II. 
Lessons Learned, and III. Future Priorities.  Elbling 
explained the Germans' intent was to produce a concise paper 
versus a comprehensive document and asked for responses. 
Most delegates expressed appreciation for the brevity of the 
document, but some complained that it was distributed too 
late for appropriate consideration or for domestic 
inter-agency consultations.  The British, U.S., and Canadian 
delegates queried why Part III lacked any mention of the 
future of GP beyond 2012, when delegations had expressed 
general support for this at the February 28 meeting.  DAS 
Semmel said the GP needs to consider its priorities beyond 
2012, because proliferation threats will not stop then nor 
remain what they were in 2002, when the GP was created.  He 
outlined the future as: fulfilling existing GP commitments in 
the next five years, expanding the GP beyond Russia and 
former Soviet Union states, extending it beyond 2012, 
determining the threats of the future, and making additional 
financial commitments to GP projects after 2012.  He informed 
the group that the U.S. would table a paper outlining U.S. 
thinking on this in the Political Directors' meeting on April 
3, 2007. 
 
¶3. (SBU) British Delegate Berenice Gare said the review 
document, in addition to mentioning expansion, should prompt 
G-8 leaders to re-state their commitment to GP.  Without 
renewed commitment from the leaders, the GP is liable to 
diminish in importance after 2012, even though the world will 
face new threats.  To the Chair's comment that the draft 
review document purposely excluded mentioning expansion 
beyond 2012 because it is difficult to commit the G-8 leaders 
to something that far in advance, Canadian Delegate Troy 
Lulashnyk said even if the GPWG cannot bind governments to 
such commitments, the nuclear-related threat will extend 
beyond 2012.  He suggested that the review document could 
cover the scope beyond 2012 without shackling the leaders and 
noted that the Kananaskis Accords of 2002 describe a much 
wider mandate for the GP than it has exercised to date.  He 
said the Global Partnership was always intended to be global 
and geographical expansion beyond Russia and the FSU should 
not detract from the ongoing commitments to them.  British 
Delegate Gare noted the first GP document, released at the 
2002 G-8 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, bound the leaders to a 
10-year commitment, so the precedent for long-range 
commitments and foresight was already set.  She said it would 
be unfair to the G-8 leaders if the GPWG indicated that all 
the nuclear threat issues will be solved by 2012.  Italian 
Delegate Antonio Catalano di Melilli agreed the GPWG should 
look at new projects and expand the scope, noting that 
because of the early focus on projects in Russia, several 
 
worthy proposals for projects in other countries were 
dismissed. 
 
¶4. (SBU) French Delegate Camille Grand advocated adding some 
specific figures to Part II, such as citing how many Russian 
nuclear submarines had been dismantled so far, to indicate GP 
successes to date.  Russian Delegate Ruzhkov argued against 
including any figures in the review document and said, as it 
was, Part II had too many technical details.  He added the 
review document should be a political document and not a 
technical paper.  All delegates agreed figures attract 
controversy and delay, but also acknowledged the usefulness 
of concrete references and examples. 
 
¶5. (SBU) DAS Semmel and other delegates emphasized that the 
review document should have a positive tone.  The GP, despite 
some difficulties in implementing some projects, has been a 
success story and made the world safer with the dismantling 
of decommissioned Russian nuclear submarines, securing 
nuclear facilities in Russian and the FSU, and destroying 
chemical weapon stockpiles in the U.S. and Russia.  He noted 
further that the GP has been successful despite the absence 
of any permanent bureaucracy or institutional infrastructure. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Elbling ended the discussion by offering to redraft 
the review document and circulate it by April 5 with the 
proviso that the delegates respond within 10 days.  He agreed 
that the next draft would reflect the positive character of 
GP work and the outstanding achievements. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Thomas Meister, Director of the German MFA's 
International Energy and Nuclear Energy Policy and Nuclear 
Non-Proliferation Division, then assumed the chair.  He 
opened discussion on the Northern Dimension Environmental 
Partnership (NDEP).  Because NDEP has an environmental 
dimension, he raised the issue of whether it belonged under 
GP auspices.  After some discussion, most delegates agreed 
that it fit within the GP's scope.  The UK representatives 
advised that the GP "keep a gentle eye" on NDEP, and the 
Russian Delegation urged the NDEP's Coordinating Committee to 
work more closely with the GP. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The Chair then opened discussion on recent 
developments in GP projects.  The delegates gave updates on 
various projects since the February 28 meeting.  Canadian 
Delegate Lulashnyk mentioned Canada was negotiating with 
Russia to establish a bio-containment facility to house 
biological warfare-related equipment coming from Central 
Asian countries. 
 
¶9. (SBU) DAS Semmel, under Other Business, raised the issue 
of a Leaders' Statement.  He advocated inserting a comment 
about GP expansion in the G-8 Summit Declaration.  (Note: In 
sidebar discussions, the British and Canadian delegates 
agreed with DAS Semmel on this issue.  End note.)  Semmel 
noted the G-8 Political Directors would discuss such an 
insertion at their April 3 meeting in Berlin.  Meister said 
he would raise the issue with his government but was 
noncommittal. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Comment: The meeting went well, considering the 
perplexing, truncated draft five-year review document which 
the German MFA had circulated with only three days' notice. 
The draft had excluded much of the third portion of the 
review document, i.e., the future of the GP, which had taken 
up considerable discussion time and preparation in the 
February 27-28 meetings.  Dietrich Becker of the MFA said in 
a sidebar meeting that the German draft was purposely 
designed to cover only the consensus language and what was 
excluded was to be discussed at the March 29 meeting.  Given 
that Japan will assume the G-8 Presidency in 2008, it should 
be noted that the Japanese delegation during lunch expounded 
on previous comments that domestic concerns make it difficult 
for their government to sustain continued support for the GP 
beyond its current commitments.  The German delegates and 
others echoed these concerns.  They added that to the extent 
that the GP is known, it is equated with supporting work in a 
now oil-rich Russia.  Conversations with these and other 
delegates during recent meetings indicate that developing a 
compelling rationale for GP expansion requires very careful 
consideration of the individual motives, security concerns, 
and priorities of each GP member.  The support from most 
members for expansion seems genuine but might lack internal 
support in their governments, when compared to the US, 
British, and Canadian positions.  This means that a 
 
compelling case must be made to skeptical domestic political 
figures and audiences for expanding the partnership so that 
the GP can adjust to new global realities and combat WMD 
threats.  Moving the U.S. proposal to extend and expand the 
GP will be difficult and will need to be elevated to more 
senior levels to gain greater traction.  End Comment. 
 
¶11. (SBU) This cable was coordinated with DAS Semmel 
subsequent to the delegation's departure. 
TIMKEN JR