VZCZCXYZ0014
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHRL #0244/01 0381041
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 071041Z FEB 07
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6948
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 7911
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 1693
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 0953
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 8436
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 0190
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 1363

UNCLAS BERLIN 000244 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CTR, EUR, WHA/CAN, AND EAP/J 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC KNNP CBW TRGY GM JA RS CA
SUBJECT: JANUARY 23 MEETING OF G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP 
WORKING GROUP IN BERLIN 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The G-8 Global Partnership Working Group 
(GPWG) met January 23 in Berlin under the German Presidency. 
The Chair informed partners that the next meeting, February 
27-28, would focus on the mid-term review of the 10-year 
Global Partnership (GP) program, with the International 
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and NGOs being invited to attend. 
 The Chair then addressed preparations for a review and 
assessment report of the GP's first five years, noting the 
need to produce a review prior to the June 6-8 G-8 Summit. 
After the Chair requested responses to a German-produced 
questionnaire and a French-prepared matrix of GP projects, 
the Russian delegation stated it opposed any reference in a 
GP document to Russia as "a proliferation threat."  Following 
that discussion, the group discussed the review document and 
the status of Chemical Weapons Destruction (CWD) projects in 
Russia, with the Russian delegation complaining about the 
slow pace of receiving funds.  The Russian delegation next 
gave a presentation on removing and securing Radioisotopic 
Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs), and the group discussed the 
status of decommissioning and dismantling Russian nuclear 
submarines.  Canada's delegation announced the construction 
of a biosecurity facility in Bishkek; the U.S. delegation 
raised the issue of the future of the science centers in 
Russia and Ukraine.  The Chair closed with the announcement 
that Germany would send procedural information concerning the 
review process to the delegations and requested they consider 
options for presenting the review report at the G-8 Summit. 
End Summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) German MFA Commissioner for Economic Affairs and 
Sustainable Development Viktor Elbling chaired the opening 
session and began by informing the delegations that the 
GPWG's February 27 session will include presentations by NGOs 
or other invitees selected from a list of proposed invitees 
by GP members.  Elbling also announced that Germany had 
invited the IAEA to give a general overview of the global 
threat of unsecured nuclear material, that Germany's Federal 
Intelligence Service (BND) will contribute a segment on the 
threat of nuclear material to Germany's overall presentation, 
and that all partners are invited to include input from their 
intelligence services in their presentations.  He added that 
the think tank, Foundation for Science and Policy, (Stiftung 
fuer Wissenschaft und Politik, SWP), is the German NGO 
designated to address the first day of February's session. 
Elbling asked all members to respond by January 31 with their 
proposed invitees.  With little discussion, it was agreed 
that GP donor states will also be invited to send proposed 
NGO participants. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Elbling turned to the major item for consideration, 
the review/assessment report of the GP's first five years. 
To encourage a structured discussion, he requested responses 
to a previously circulated German-produced questionnaire and 
a French-produced matrix evaluation scheme.  French Delegate 
Camille Grand suggested the matrix might be useful as a 
quantitative tool for assessing the progress of GP projects. 
Before discussion could begin, Russian Delegate Anatoly 
Antonov said Russia would not permit any GP document to refer 
to Russia "as a proliferation threat."  Antonov reiterated 
the statement several times and mentioned dissatisfaction 
with the status of the CWD projects in Russia.  He claimed 
contributors to the CWD projects are lagging in their 
allocation of funds and added Russia could not support the 
German-produced questionnaire.  Nevertheless, Antonov 
insisted Russia wanted to improve cooperation with members on 
CWD. 
 
¶4. (SBU) The British, Canadian, French, EU Commission, and 
Italian delegates, along with Deputy Assistant Secretary 
Semmel, all acknowledged Russia's concerns about the slow 
pace of some projects' funding, but reaffirmed their 
continued commitment to all projects under way.  The 
delegates agreed the review/assessment was the basis for 
moving the GP forward during the next five years and beyond 
and said Russia would not be singled out as a "proliferation 
threat."  Italian Delegate Antonio Catalano pointed out that 
Russia itself has voiced concerns over the CWD program, 
thereby acknowledging concerns over proliferation on its 
territory. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Antonov continued, however, despite comments from 
partners that emphasized the common threats faced by all 
states.  He claimed the U.S. has only given 10 percent of its 
 
pledged amount for CWD.  Noting the proliferation threats 
around the world, including in the U.S., DAS Semmel pointed 
out that pledged funds are not disbursed all at once but in 
incremental amounts, typically annually, in accordance with 
government budgets.  He said the proper calculation is not 
the percentage spent of the total pledged amount but the 
percentage of funds made available by donor countries up to 
that point. 
 
¶6. (SBU) After Elbling brought the discussion back to the 
review document, the delegates generally agreed the document 
must be succinct and clear to leaders and the public.  DAS 
Semmel urged that members use the review to reflect on GPWG 
assumptions.  He suggested that as the review process 
continues, some surprises may lie ahead and the members will 
be compelled to consider what happens after the GP program 
ends in 2012. 
 
¶7. (SBU) At this point, German MFA International Energy and 
Nuclear Energy Policy Office Director Thomas Meister replaced 
Elbling as Chair.  Meister gave a short presentation on the 
status of CWD progress.  Russian Delegate Antonov announced 
that the process of donor countries funding CWD projects 
through G-8 members, known as piggybacking, is not working. 
He claimed the UK, Canada, and others are lagging far behind 
in the work on their projects, and cited the need to finish 
the current projects by the end of 2009.  He also reiterated 
an announcement made at the November 2006 meeting that Russia 
plans to allocate four billion dollars, in addition to the 
two billion already on record, to complete the CWD goals by 
¶2012. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The EU Commission, Italy, the UK, and Canada, and 
others disputed Antonov's claims.  Canadian Delegate Troy 
Lulashnyk stated piggybacking is working and that Canada and 
all other participants are completely committed to resolving 
the current project delays.  DAS Semmel noted some delays 
have resulted from disagreements over estimates and took 
satisfactory note of Russia's additional four billion dollar 
commitment to the GP process.  Antonov suggested members flag 
the issue of discrepancies between Russia's figures and those 
of other member states. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Turning to RTGs, Meister noted the need for improved 
cooperation on their removal.  The Russian delegation gave a 
status report on RTG removals and referred to a master plan 
scheduled for completion March 8 that will be a guide for 
funding the removals.  The Russians calculated that, of the 
581 remaining RTGs, about 35 will be removed annually until 
all are gone.  The UK delegates informed the group that the 
UK has a good relationship with Rosatom, the Russian Ministry 
for Atomic Energy Agency.  The Canadian delegates announced 
that, with U.S. cooperation, the removal of 16 RTGs will be 
completed in Russia's Northern areas in 2007. 
 
¶10. (SBU) The discussion of Russian nuclear submarine 
dismantlement took place without incident.  All delegates 
delivered positive statements about the status of their 
respective dismantlement efforts.  The Canadian delegates 
spoke of their plan to work with other members to dismantle 
two Russian nuclear submarines per year "until there are none 
left," and announced they are shifting their efforts to the 
Far East.  (Note:  Submarine dismantlement in the Russian Far 
East lags behind that in the Northern Baltic area.  End 
Note.)  DAS Semmel drew attention to recent reports that 
scrap metal from the submarines is generating funds that help 
offset the costs of dismantlement. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Canadian Delegate Ann Pollack announced a new 
biosecurity project was under way at a human and animal 
research facility in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, and informed 
members that both the International Science and Technology 
Center in Russia and the Science and Technology Center in 
Ukraine are also working on five-year reviews.  She said 
Canada is considering sending a science center representative 
to the NGO session in February.  DAS Semmel added that, as 
the evolution of the science centers is being considered, 
they are, in some ways, going through an assessment similar 
to that of the GP.  Their future must also reflect the new 
global realities in which the Russian economy has improved 
since 2001 and can pay for the work of nuclear scientists 
without so much outside support.  Russian Delegate Valery 
Biryukov informed the group Russia enjoys good cooperation 
 
with the UK on working with former weapons scientists. 
Biryukov expressed satisfaction with the current "Nuclear 
Cities" project and announced that Rosatom is ready to sign a 
new agreement. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Meister closed with an announcement that all 
members will soon receive information on the procedures for 
the next steps in the review process and options to be 
considered for presenting the review at the G-8 Summit.  One 
option is to replace the GP annual report with the review. 
The other is to cite the review in the report and disseminate 
the report as a stand-alone document. 
 
¶13. (SBU) Canada followed with an announcement it will host a 
reception at its Embassy the evening of February after the 
NGO presentations.  At that event, the Canadian Delegation 
will present materials to show the positive results of GP 
cooperation over the past five years. 
 
¶14. (SBU) Comment: The GPWG partners are looking for ways to 
bring some G-8 Summit attention to GP's successes to date, to 
use the process to underscore the need to expand GP 
priorities, and to re-energize the GP as a tool for reducing 
the global threat of WMD.  Over lunch, the Germans confirmed 
our view that Russia,s primary, perhaps only, concern is 
that the results of the review process might cause members to 
stray away from CWD and submarine dismantlement commitments 
toward new "priorities."  The NGO session on February 27 will 
be an important event in the GP process this year.  It 
appears our German hosts are carefully structuring the NGO 
presentations in order to stimulate the review process and 
perhaps defuse or reduce political differences among the 
members over what the review should say.  End Comment. 
 
¶15. (U) Heads of Delegations: 
 
--Viktor Elbling, Germany 
--Anatoly Antonov, Russian Federation 
--Camille Grand, France 
--Antonio Catalano di Mellili, Italy 
--Atsushi Kato, Japan 
--Berenice Gare, United Kingdom 
--Andrew Semmel, United States 
--Troy Lulashnyk, Canada 
--Lars-Erik Lundin, European Commission 
--Tomas Reyes Ortega, EU Council 
 
¶16. (U) DAS Semmel has cleared this cable. 
TIMKEN JR