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

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 SOFIA 001796 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/17/2015 
TAGS: MARR PGOV PREL BU
SUBJECT: PROGRESS ON U.S. MILITARY ACCESS, BUT TOUGH ISSUES 
REMAIN 
 
REF: SOFIA 0924 
 
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Jeffrey D. Levine, for reasons 1.4 a a 
nd d. 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY:  A negotiating team led by Ambassador Robert 
Loftis made significant progress toward concluding a 
supplemental Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the GOB 
during talks in Sofia October 6-7.  Significant work remains 
to be done, however, in the areas of freedom of movement and 
criminal jurisdiction, both of which are of prime importance 
to the United States.  Following up on the team's first visit 
to Sofia May 16-17 (reftel), U.S. and Bulgarian negotiators 
discussed a revised U.S. supplemental SOFA proposal, proposed 
GOB revisions to the supplemental, and the GOB's 
significantly revised draft of the Defense Cooperation 
Agreement (DCA).  The GOB initially indicated its desire to 
include in the DCA language covering a much larger sphere of 
security cooperation than that envisioned by the U.S., but 
agreed to set the treatment of these issues aside for the 
moment.  Press coverage of the talks was uncharacteristically 
negative, indicating that opponents -- perhaps including 
third countries -- seek an opportunity to derail them.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. (C) The leader of the Bulgarian negotiating team, 
Ambassador Lubomir Ivanov, told Amb. Loftis that the GOB 
wished to discuss a wide range of topics in addition to the 
supplemental Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) and Defense 
Cooperation Agreement (DCA), including cooperative research 
and development, expanded relations between scientific and 
technical communities, and a framework for political-military 
consultations.  He noted that in drafting their versions of 
the DCA and Supplemental SOFA they had relied on other 
agreements that the USG had entered into with other NATO 
allies (e.g., Turkey and Spain).  Amb. Loftis explained that 
such topics are outside his mandate, which is limited to 
status and access issues.  Ivanov agreed to negotiate those 
items within Amb. Loftis' mandate with the understanding that 
discussions on the broader issues are necessary because "we 
have to be politically able to explain the full range of 
activities covered by our cooperation." 
 
¶3. (C) After a long interlude necessitated by the Bulgarian 
elections in June and a two-month delay in forming a new 
ruling coalition, SOFA/DCA negotiations resumed October 6 and 
¶7.  Over the course of two days of detailed negotiations, the 
delegations made substantial progress on language in the SOFA 
and discussed generally the Defense Cooperation Agreement. 
The Bulgarians largely agreed to the U.S. positions on 
taxation and import/export.  They also moved toward the U.S. 
position on environmental protections and the status of 
contractors. A number of challenges remain in the following 
areas: 
 
a. Criminal Jurisdiction: The GOB does not want to give the 
impression that it is surrendering sovereignty.  Ivanov said 
that the standard U.S. language would be a "problem of 
presentation" and would be difficult to explain to the 
public, a majority of whom would oppose the perceived limits 
on Bulgarian sovereignty.  Specifically, the Bulgarians do 
not want to grant an advance waiver of criminal jurisdiction, 
which is a standard provision in our bilateral Supplemental 
SOFAs with NATO allies.  Instead, the Bulgarians proposed 
language indicating that upon request by the U.S. military, 
it would waive its primary right to exercise jurisdiction 
except in cases of particular importance and that such a 
request for waiver would be considered granted if the MOJ had 
not notified the U.S. military of its granting of the request 
or requested clarification in 30 days of receipt of the 
waiver request. 
 
b. Freedom of Movement: In their draft of the DCA, the 
Bulgarians limited use of facilities to training and 
exercises and military operations under the NATO umbrella and 
required prior notification. For activities outside of the 
NATO framework, the use of facilities would be subject to 
prior authorization by the competent Bulgarian authorities. 
Their draft also proposed a limit on the number of U.S. 
personnel who could be "stationed" in Bulgaria.  Amb. Loftis 
explained that language addressing deployments was a critical 
issue and stressed the need for maximum flexibility for any 
U.S. forces in Bulgaria. 
 
¶4. (C) In the days leading up to the U.S. delegation's 
arrival, the Bulgarian media ran news reports claiming that 
the U.S. wanted to establish large "military zones" around 
the commercial port of Burgas that would severely limit 
commercial shipping activity.  This prompted three members of 
Parliament from Burgas to send a letter of inquiry to the 
MFA.  In response to Amb Ivanov's request for clarification, 
we assured him that the U.S. was only interested in 
periodically shipping military cargo through Burgas' 
commercial port and we had no plans to establish a naval base 
there. 
 
¶5. (C) After the end of formal negotiations, Ambassador 
Loftis and DCM Levine met privately with Ambassador Ivanov to 
discuss the way forward.  Amb. Loftis stressed again the 
importance of freedom of movement and criminal jurisdiction 
to the success of the negotiations.  He also cautioned Amb. 
Ivanov against continuing to cite old bilateral agreements 
between the U.S. and other NATO countries, noting that they 
were designed for situations in which the U.S. had stationed 
large numbers of troops and were at any rate not well suited 
to the current strategic situation.  Amb. Ivanvov reiterated 
that Bulgaria wants to conclude the agreements and improve 
its cooperation with the U.S., but also that he is under 
instructions to both protect Bulgaria's sovereignty and to 
widen the cooperation with the U.S. as far as possible. 
 
¶6. (C) On October 7, Amb. Loftis briefed a joint meeting of 
senior members of Parliament's defense and foreign affairs 
committees.  Without getting into the details of the 
negotiations, Amb. Loftis gave the parliamentarians a brief 
description of the Global Defense Posture Realignment and how 
it relates to Bulgaria, stressing that the U.S. is seeking 
access to Bulgarian facilities and has no desire to establish 
its own military bases in Bulgaria.  The committee's 
leadership asked about industrial cooperation, strategic 
consultations, and financial arrangements.  Amb. Loftis 
responded that his mandate is to negotiate status and access 
agreements, but the USG might be willing to separately 
consider these and other questions outside the scope of the 
two agreements.  He said that the U.S. pays its own way but 
does not pay rent for access to bases, and that freedom of 
movement is a key U.S. consideration.  The parliamentary 
reaction was generally positive, but the  leader of the 
extreme nationalist Ataka party, Volen Siderov, took the 
opportunity to grandstand, saying that the U.S. military 
presence would expose Bulgaria to attack and calling for a 
referendum on the proposed agreements. 
 
¶7. (C) Press coverage of the Loftis visit was more negative 
than expected.  While the body of most articles was more or 
less factually correct, headlines in the two largest dailies 
focused on the fact that the U.S. would not pay for the use 
of Bulgarian facilities and would not ask permission to 
launch military strikes from Bulgarian territory (sic).  Some 
of our Bulgarian contacts have suggested that the Russian 
embassy in Sofia may be encouraging Ataka and influencing 
press coverage of the issue.  The ground for such measures is 
undeniably fertile; a tracking poll commissioned by the 
Embassy in September showed that 61 percent of Bulgarians 
oppose "U.S. bases" on their territory. 
 
¶8. (C) COMMENT:  With a new government having taken power 
since the last negotiating session in May, the Bulgarian side 
started these talks almost from zero.  The talks, however, 
proceeded in a businesslike manner and resulted in 
substantial progress on many articles of the SOFA 
Supplemental.  Ivanov and others in the government have also 
stressed their determination to reach agreement.  Siderov's 
outburst and the negative press spin highlight the need for 
sustained public diplomacy on our part, and even more so on 
the part of the Bulgarian government.  We are working on a 
public outreach plan (op-eds, interviews, visits to regions 
where military bases to which we would like access are 
located) to counter the disinformation, and will press the 
government to develop its own public-education campaign as 
well.  In particular, it will be critical to dispel public 
misperceptions, fueled at times by the government's own 
comments, that the U.S. intends to establish large military 
bases in Bulgaria. END COMMENT. 
 
¶9. (U) This cable has been cleared by Ambassador Robert 
Loftis. 
LEVINE