VZCZCXYZ0001
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHBY #1201/01 2201027
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 081027Z AUG 06
FM AMEMBASSY CANBERRA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5467
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 1478
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 8952
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 2317
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 0664
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
RHMFISS/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L CANBERRA 001201 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/PRM SHINAGEL, EAP/RSP ORTIZ, EAP/ANP MCCULLA 
PACOM ALSO FOR POLAD 
USNATO ALSO FOR UNDERWOOD 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/07/2016 
TAGS: PREL MARR AS
SUBJECT: FURTHER AUSTRALIAN RESPONSE TO NATO GLOBAL 
PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL 
 
REF: A. CANBERRA 865 
     ¶B. STATE 88312 
 
Classified By: Acting POLCOUNS John W. Crowley, for reasons 1.5 (b) and 
 (d). 
 
SUMMARY 
------- 
¶1. (C)  Australia is willing to participate in NATO's Global 
Partnership but only under a flexible, informal arrangement 
that stresses practical cooperation and that avoids a new 
formal institutional structure, including fixed requirements 
for meetings and expenditure of resources.  The GOA plans to 
produce a detailed position paper for circulation to NATO 
members in advance of the Riga Summit in November.  As a 
Global Partner, Australia envisions initial cooperation in 
training, CBRN incident response, civil-military cooperation, 
counterterrorism, information exchange and interoperability. 
It seeks U.S. and UK assessments of thinking within NATO, 
particularly on the evolution of its relations with non-NATO 
members, and expects our help in selling Australia's 
conditions on partnership to other NATO members.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (C) Annabel Anderson, Assistant Secretary for Northern, 
Southern and Eastern Europe, and John Woods, Director for 
Northern, Central and Eastern Europe Section, Department of 
Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), invited acting POLCOUNS and 
UK High Commission First Secretary Richard Lindsay to DFAT 
August 4 to hear the GOA interagency-coordinated response to 
the NATO Global Partnership proposal (reftels). 
 
¶3. (C) Since providing preliminary views in early June (ref 
A), Anderson explained, DFAT had consulted widely internally, 
including seeking views of Australian Department of Defence 
(ADOD) officials and those of the foreign and defense 
ministers.  Summarizing Australia's interaction with NATO to 
date, she noted Australia had been building on its 
long-standing relationship, especially over the past 18 
months, including exchanging letters as a prelude to 
concluding an Information Security Agreement, posting a 
defense representative at NATO Headquarters in Brussels, 
maintaining an annual Australia-NATO Strategic Dialogue, and 
contributing troops to the Netherlands Provincial 
Reconstruction Team operating under NATO's International 
Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan.  The latter 
commitment in particular had underlined the need to develop a 
closer relationship with NATO's military forces.  Australia's 
experience with NATO had encountered some bumps, but overall 
Australia was "delighted" with the way its relationship had 
been progressing, she said. 
 
¶4. (C) Anderson said Australia was sensitive to the wish of 
some NATO members that the there be no change to the 
fundamental shape of the organization and no new bureaucratic 
framework.  Australia accepted this and wanted to focus on 
the pragmatic and to take a "non-billboard" approach to 
cooperation with NATO, she said.  The GOA was grateful to the 
U.S. and UK for thinking through and pushing the Global 
Partnership initiative, Anderson said.  Australia wanted to 
learn more from both countries about NATO's internal dynamics 
and about the debate taking place among NATO members 
regarding its proposed partnership with non-NATO countries. 
Australia recognized that opposition from other countries 
could jeopardize Australia's cooperation with NATO. 
 
Australian Position Paper Emphasizes Informal, Flexible 
Arrangement 
--------------------------------------- 
¶5. (C) Anderson outlined the GOA's next steps for addressing 
the Partnership proposal.  The GOA planned to work on a 
detailed position paper during the month of August, with a 
view to having it cleared and approved by both the Minister 
of Defence and Minister of Foreign Affairs before the end of 
September 2006.  She implied that any key messages from the 
United States or the UK would need to be fed into the 
proposal during the month of August.  Australia planned to 
circulate the paper to all NATO members, perhaps during the 
 
next Australia-NATO Strategic Dialogue -- the GOA was 
considering proposing dates for the Dialogue in October 2006 
-- but before the Riga Summit in November.  Previewing the 
content, Anderson said the paper would make clear that 
Australia was not seeking membership in NATO or seeking to 
establish a new institutional framework.  Australia would 
spell out its preference for practical cooperation under a 
flexible arrangement that could operate to both sides' mutual 
interest and benefit.  The GOA desired to avoid becoming 
locked into a formal arrangement with fixed requirements for 
meetings, expenditure of resources, and the like. 
Elaborating, she explained that Australia believed that its 
current high-level political consultations, including the 
Strategic Dialogue, access to NATO through its defense 
attache in Brussels, and ad hoc high-level meetings were 
adequate without the need to introduce a new layer of 
meetings.  A relationship with NATO on the foregoing 
principles, she said, would give NATO what it wanted and 
Australia what it wanted.  Australia did not want to sign up 
to the full range of NATO activities.  Beyond enhancing 
military interoperability, specific areas of cooperation 
Australia wanted to develop with NATO included: training; 
Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) 
incident response; civil-military cooperation; 
counterterrorism; and exchanging information on best 
practices and lessons learned. 
 
Australia Expects U.S., UK Help with Other Members 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
¶6. (C) Anderson made clear that Australia expected the United 
States and the United Kingdom to bring the rest of the NATO 
members along in agreeing to Australia's partneship proposal, 
and not leave it to Australia to single-handedly sell it.  At 
the same time, however, Australia had already approached some 
other NATO members -- she mentioned France and Italy -- who 
had been supportive of Australia's desire for a flexible 
arrangement. 
 
Not Interested in Asian Regional Bloc Partnership 
-------------------------------------------- 
¶7. (C) The GOA was not comfortable with the idea of lumping 
Australia together with Japan and South Korea in an East 
Asian regional partnership arrangement, Anderson told us. 
Japan's constitutional restrictions on its military and South 
Korea's approach to NATO meant that each country had a 
separate set of issues and requirements.  Australia saw 
benefit in an individual rather than a regional group 
partnership. 
 
Soliticing U.S. and UK Views 
---------------------------- 
¶8. (C) Anderson requested U.S. and UK assessments of the 
thinking within NATO, specifically how NATO viewed the 
evolution of its relations with non-NATO countries.  The GOA 
also sought American and British feedback on other 
suggestions for practical cooperation besides areas outlined 
above.  She suggested it might be helpful, not only to 
Australia but to other Global Partnership candidates, for 
NATO to send representatives to capitals to explain the 
organization in detail and to answer questions, for example, 
about its training facilities, centers of excellence, and 
command and control of personnel and ownership of assets. 
 
Non-Paper Outlining GOA Views 
----------------------------- 
¶9. (C) Following is the text of a non-paper that Anderson 
provided us at the end of her presentation summarizing 
key points: 
 
Begin text: 
 
The US - UK Demarche on NATO's "Global Partnership" 
July 2006 
 
Australia's relationship with NATO 
---------------------------------- 
- Australia has worked closely with NATO for many years at 
 
the technical working level focusing on interoperability and 
standardisation issues. 
 
- NATO's transformation to focus on broader global security 
issues has resulted in a convergence of interests between 
Australia and NATO on these challenges. 
 
---we share common democratic values and face similar global 
security challenges - CT, WMD and failed and fragile states. 
 
---therefore, it makes sense for Australia and NATO to 
exchange ideas and experiences, as we continue to do through 
high-level political engagement (such as Defence Minister 
Nelson's discussions with NATO HQ in June), senior officials' 
dialogues and through our Defence Adviser in Brussels. 
 
- To date, Australia and NATO have enjoyed a mutually 
beneficial relationship focused on practical cooperative 
activities rather than formal linkages. 
 
---the most significant development has been Australia's 
decision to contribute 240 troops to the Netherlands 
Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) which will operate in 
Afghanistan under NATO's ISAF. 
 
-----this is the first time Australia has deployed to a NATO 
operation, and this is NATO's first out of area operation. 
 
- To support our cooperation, Australia and NATO exchanged 
letters as an interim measure ahead of the finalisation of an 
Information Security Agreement to facilitate the exchange of 
classified information. 
 
---as a result, Australia and NATO are exchanging valuable 
information, including on counter-terrorism. 
 
NATO relations with non-members: Australia's views 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
- Australia is interested in NATO members' discussions on how 
NATO might deepen relations with non-member countries. 
 
- Australia would welcome a NATO consensus to strengthen 
relations with nonmembers such as Australia, through a 
flexible approach designed to enhance practical cooperation 
where there is mutual interest and benefit. 
 
---we envisage such an arrangement would encompass exchanges 
of information and participation in training, exercises, 
programs and other activities to improve interoperability in 
agreed areas. 
 
-----Australia is already engaged in and is considering a 
number of additional opportunities in these areas. 
 
-----we look forward to deepening our dialogue with the US, 
the UK.  and other NATO members on the nature of our 
cooperation. 
 
- Also at the practical level, discussions on the deployment 
of Australia's ISAF contribution in Afghanistan are 
proceeding well 
 
---we would expect to refine our respective requirements to 
maximise operational cooperation as that process develops 
over time 
 
---and to enhance interoperability in areas such as the 
exchange of information with NATO where current experience 
reveals Scope for improvement 
 
- We note that a mutually agreed informal framework of 
partnership, rather than a new formal institutional structure 
is being suggested as a way forward and we agree that this is 
a worthwhile objective, especially when endorsed by all NATO 
members. 
 
---Australia is not looking to become a member of NATO nor 
 
join one of its formal partnerships. 
 
-----geography and commitments in our own region mean 
Australia would not be able to service effectively such a 
formal commitment. 
 
- Australia's preference is that non-members self-select 
their engagement with NATO at a pace comfortable to each 
partner, rather than all partners being required to 
participate in a pre-determined range of activities. 
 
---Australia's already heavy commitments in our region, and 
our more limited Defence and strategic interests in Europe, 
mean we must be selective in the activities in which we 
participate. 
 
---nor would Australia want to see a partnership that was 
governed by the pace of the slowest partner 
 
---and we support the NATO Secretary-General's observation at 
the conclusion of the last NATO Foreign Ministers' meeting 
that NATO should be an Alliance with global partners not a 
Global Alliance. 
 
- Australia sees value in occasional ad hoc high-level 
political consultations between NATO and partners. 
 
---those consultations could cover on a needs basis broader 
shared strategic interests as well as supporting specific 
operational and other forms of practical cooperation 
 
---they should not, however, be consultations for the sake of 
consultations. 
 
---Australia's distance from Brussels also means it would not 
be possible to guarantee senior political representation at 
all such meetings.  In those circumstances Australia's 
representatives in Brussels could represent Australia's 
interests. 
 
- Australia remains committed to enhancing its engagement 
with NATO through practical Cooperation and will continue to 
reed in views on how the relationship might be developed in 
the lead up to the NATO Summit in Riga, Latvia in November 
¶2006. 
 
End text. 
 
OWENS