This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS BUCHAREST 001427 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
DEPT FOR EUR/NCE - WILLIAM SILKWORTH 
 
E.O. 12958, AS AMENDED: N/A 
TAGS: PARM MARR MOPS PGOV PREL MD GG RO NATO CFE
SUBJECT: ROMANIA RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT CFE TREATY ISSUES 
 
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED - PLEASE HANDLE ACCORDINGLY 
 
¶1. (SBU) MFA Strategic Policy Director General Cristian 
Istrate and NATO Division Director Mirela Maghiar discussed 
with PolChief and PolOff June 9 Romanian concerns regarding 
the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty. 
Subsequent to the June 9 meeting, Maghiar provided a 
nonpaper (set forth in full below) that outlines the GOR 
position and states, in part, that the GOR would "highly 
appreciate more in-depth US-Romania consultations on the CFE 
issues, with particular focus on: the implications of the 
Russian-Georgian declaration of 30 May 2005 for the NATO 
policy on CFE issues; the US approach on the CFE Adapted 
Treaty in the perspective of the 2006 CFE Review 
Conference." 
¶2. (SBU) The text of the GOR nonpaper follows: 
 
ROMANIA'S COMMENTS ON THE RECENT DISCUSSION IN NATO/NRC ON 
THE CFE ADAPTED TREATY 
 
--The  recent  negotiations on  the  Statement  of  the  NRC 
meeting  of Defence Ministers triggered a very controversial 
debate among the NATO allies on the CFE issues and on how to 
reflect,  in  an NRC ministerial statement, the significance 
of  the  Russian  -  Georgian political declaration  on  the 
Russian military basis in Georgia. 
--From the beginning, Romania stated its preference that a 
CFE-related paragraph not be included in the above-mentioned 
statement, in the absence of an in-depth analysis in NATO of 
the implications of the Russian-Georgia political agreement 
over the CFE Adapted Treaty and the agreed NATO language on 
CFE issues. 
--Moreover, up to now, the CFE topic has never been 
addressed in the NRC meetings of Defence Ministers and the 
topic was not even included on the agenda of the 9th of June 
defence ministerial meeting of the NATO-Russia Council. 
--However, Romania understood the interest of some allies to 
highlight   the   relevance  of  the  Russian   -   Georgian 
declaration  and  accepted, therefore, the  negotiations  in 
HLTF  over  a  pre-coordinated  allied  language.  The  text 
proposed  by  the  United  States was  widely  accepted  and 
ensured  reference both to general NATO language on the  CFE 
Adapted  Treaty  and explicit mentioning  of  the  remaining 
Istanbul commitment on R. Moldova. 
--For  Romania, this explicit mentioning of the Russian  CFE 
commitments  regarding  R.  Moldova  in  the  context  of  a 
positive message of NATO on the Russian-Georgian declaration 
was  extremely  important, in order to  highlight  that  the 
Russian CFE commitments are not yet entirely fulfilled. 
--In  our  view,  the absence or indirect reference  to  the 
remaining  CFE  commitments, in an official high-level  NATO 
statement,  could  have led to the interpretation  that  the 
withdrawal  of  the  Russian military  and  ammunition  from 
Transnistria is no longer linked with the fulfillment of the 
Russian  Istanbul commitments. This would favour the Russian 
position that its CFE-commitments are already achieved. 
--The divergent views among Allies on these aspects and  the 
tendency  of  most  Allies to divert from  the  agreed  HLTF 
language  and to nuance Allied position on such a  sensitive 
issue  without  prior  debate in  NATO  is  of  concern  for 
Romania. 
--In  our evaluation, the position of some Allied States  on 
CFE  issues clearly signals the tendency to promote  a  more 
flexible  approach regarding NATO's policy of conditionality 
between  the  ratification of CFE  Adapted  Treaty  and  the 
complete fulfillment of the Russian Istanbul commitments. 
--We  believe that no explicit or implicit altering  of  the 
NATO  common policy on the CFE Adapted Treaty should be made 
through   negotiations  over  statements,  without   serious 
analysis and debate in NATO. 
--In  this context, we would highly appreciate more in-depth 
US-Romania  consultations on the CFE issues, with particular 
focus on: 
- the implications of the Russian-Georgian declaration of 30 
May 2005 for the NATO policy on CFE issues; 
-  the  US  approach  on  the  CFE  Adapted  Treaty  in  the 
perspective of the 2006 CFE Review Conference. 
 
End Text of GOR Nonpaper 
 
¶3. (U) Amembassy Bucharest's reporting telegrams are 
available on the Bucharest SIPRNET Website: 
www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/bucharest. 
 
DELARE