VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNO #0092/01 0451135
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
R 141135Z FEB 07
FM USMISSION USNATO
TO RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0481
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC
RHMFISS/CDRUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE
RHMFISS/CDR USJFCOM NORFOLK VA
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RHMFISS/USNMR SHAPE BE
ZEN/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE

S E C R E T USNATO 000092 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR T, ISN (GODBY), EUR/RPM (TIERSKY) 
DEFENSE FOR OUSD POLICY (GREEN, STEIN, IANACONE, VEIT), 
OUSD ACQUISITION TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS (HOPKINS, HENRY, 
HENNEGAN, DELANEY), JOINT STAFF/J-5 (CDR SWAIN), DEFENSE 
INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (UNGER), EUCOM FOR CS (MAJ GEN CATTO) 
AND ECJ5 (MAJ GEN REMKES) 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/13/2017 
TAGS: MARR MCAP MNUC NATO PARM PREL
SUBJECT: NATO SENIOR DEFENSE GROUP ON PROLIFERATION (DGP) 
PLENARY MEETING, 24 JAN 2007 
 
Classified By: DDEFAD CLARENCE JUHL FOR REASONS 1.4 (B&D) 
 
¶1.  (C) SUMMARY.  On 24 January 2007, Mr. Joseph Benkert, OSD 
PDASD for Global Security Affairs, and Mr. Ivan Dvorak, Chief 
of Defense Policy and Strategy Division, Czech Republic, 
co-chaired the Senior Defense Group on Proliferation (DGP) 
Plenary session.  The DGP discussed policy guidance from the 
Riga Summit, new initiatives for outreach with other NATO 
bodies dealing with Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and 
Nuclear (CBRN) issues, outreach with Ukraine on CBRN defense, 
updates from the NATO International Staff (IS) on CBRN 
capabilities, and a change to the Work Programme to add an 
additional Plenary session in March 2007.  During the 
afternoon, delegates met in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership 
Council (EAPC) format to listen to national briefings from 
Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Finland, Georgia, Poland, 
Slovakia, and Sweden on CBRN capabilities.  End Summary. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
DGP POLICY GUIDANCE ) RIGA SUMMIT OUTCOMES 
------------------------------------------ 
 
¶2.  (U)  Mr. Steve Sturm, NATO Defense Policy and Planning 
Division (DPP), presented an informational briefing on 
NATO,s Comprehensive Political Guidance (CPG), which was 
endorsed at the Riga Summit.   The CPG,s goal is to provide 
a planning framework and political direction for the next 
10-15 years and to achieve increased coherence through an 
effective management mechanism.  Mr. Sturm highlighted the 
fact that the CPG identifies Terrorism and the spread of 
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as specific threats to NATO 
and that with an increased probability of the use of WMD 
through asymmetric means, NATO must be prepared to deter 
adversaries and defend its populations and troops against 
terrorists, WMD attacks.  He asked that the WMD Centre 
(WMD-C) provide a briefing on implications of the CPG on the 
DGP at the next Steering Group meeting, scheduled for March 
1st. 
 
¶3.  (U)  WG Cmdr Andy Proudlove, RAF, from the NATO WMD-C, 
provided an informational briefing on the importance of 
NATO,s CBRN defense capabilities to the Riga Summit agenda, 
the theme of which was Threats, Risks and Challenges. The 
capability to defend against CBRN hazards is of primary 
importance and the Summit Communiqu urged nations to adapt 
their forces accordingly. The Communiqu also addresses the 
risks posed by the North Korean nuclear test and the 
continuing stalemate with Iran, and reaffirms the major role 
played by the various arms control regimes. At Riga, twelve 
nations contributed to a CBRN exhibition that featured some 
NATO capabilities such as the NATO Centers of Excellence 
(COE), the CBRN Defense Battalion, Reach-back capability, 
Render Safe policy, and Explosive Ordnance Disposal. In 
response to a question on Reach-back, the International 
Military Staff (IMS) explained that the Reach-back 
requirement was under development and would be embedded in 
the Concept of Operations for the CBRN Battalion. 
 
----------------------- 
DGP AND NATO ACTIVITIES 
----------------------- 
 
¶4.  (C) Mr. Carsten Fausboll, Director of Civil Emergency 
Planning (CEP) within the NATO Operations Division, provided 
an informational briefing on the results of the Senior Civil 
Emergency Planning Committee (SCEPC) conference held in Oslo, 
Norway in October 2006 on "Non-binding Guidelines and Minimum 
Standards for Protection of Populations against CBRN Risks." 
 This briefing was given in an effort to strengthen 
cooperation between SCEPC and the DGP.   The aim of this 
conference was to develop "non-binding" coordination 
mechanisms for integrating the civil side of a nation,s 
response to a CBRN attack.  Mr. Fausboll admitted that one of 
the issues slowing the coordination of civil and military 
response to a CBRN event is the lack of coordination between 
the European Union (EU) and NATO.  In the future Mr. Fausboll 
 
looks to strengthen SCEPC-DGP coordination at the 2007 North 
Atlantic Council (NAC) WMD Seminar, the 2007 DGP Seminar, the 
new initiative on &Improved cooperation with other NATO 
bodies,8 and through coordinated responses on topics such as 
reach-back, maritime interdiction, and disease surveillance. 
Mr. Fausboll was asked by delegate members to provide this 
briefing at the EAPC seminar in the afternoon, to which he 
agreed.  Some comments from nations: Norway voiced support 
for the work of the SCEPC and stated that it should be 
broadened to partners; Slovenia supported the exchanges of 
briefs with the SCEPC; Romania called for strong support from 
NATO to civil authorities, furthermore CEP is an area for 
cooperation with the EU; France wanted cooperation with SCEPC 
to be "invisible." 
 
¶5.  (C)  The US co-chair led a discussion on the DGP paper on 
"Improved Coordination with other NATO Bodies" 
(DGP-N(2006)0014-REV2).  The Chairman explained that the 
intent of the paper was to improve cooperation and 
coordination, and avoid duplication among the various NATO 
bodies involved in CBRN defense.  In an effort to start the 
process, the DGP proposed to conduct an initial meeting of 
the bodies and the NATO Military Authorities and to hold it 
annually thereafter if it proves to be of value.  The 
Chairman characterized the meeting as an informal exchange 
that might take place in the same time frame as the March DGP 
plenary. France requested changes to the DGP paper, stressing 
the meeting's informal status and recognizing that the role 
of the DGP is to "guide" policy rather than to coordinate the 
other groups, activities.  They also proposed that the 
workshop be conducted under the auspices of the International 
Staff.  The United Kingdom endorsed the paper stating that 
the DGP's mandate is clear and that the results of a March 
meeting could be incorporated into the DGP work plan.  Canada 
recognized the importance of improved cooperation and felt 
that it was in the spirit of Riga to avoid duplication of 
work, although there was concern about the short timeframe to 
prepare.  Romania saw cooperation as de-jure and therefore 
the paper should be supported and the process assessed after 
the initial meeting.  Norway and Italy voiced their support 
for the meeting and Belgium felt the paper could continue 
provided the changes proposed by France were incorporated. 
The Chairman concluded that there was general support for the 
concept and that planning for a March meeting as proposed 
would continue.  The paper will be revised with the comments 
received and circulated under the silence procedure. 
 
-------------------------------- 
TRAINING, EXERCISES AND SEMINARS 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (U)  The Czech Republic co-chair presented the DGP 
delegates with the final version of the report on the 2006 
DGP Seminar in Paris (DGP-WP(2006)0005-REV2).  This version 
had only one change from the previous version, that being the 
movement of some information from a paragraph into a 
footnote.  After a brief discussion of this change the 
delegates agreed to the final version which will be sent to 
the NAC PermReps for notation. 
 
¶7.  (C)  The Czech co-chair led a discussion on the 2006 NAC 
WMD Seminar report.  The current version incorporated 
delegates, comments from the last meeting of the Steering 
Committee.  The Norwegian representative noted that there 
were too many presentations by experts which limited the 
discussion of the PermReps.  He was also dissatisfied with 
the participation of the PermReps at the end of the Seminar. 
Numerous delegates commented on the recommendations section 
of the report, with the French and Belgian representatives 
favoring the deletion of this section (because the PermReps 
did not make any recommendations during the discussion), and 
the UK, Latvian, and Canadian representatives wishing to keep 
the recommendations (since these are the "Lessons Learned" 
from the seminar).  The International Military Staff (IMS) 
stated that the military authorities are already engaged in 
some of the work referred to and that restating it again was 
 
unwarranted.  The co-chair directed that all delegates put 
their comments in writing within the next seven days, and the 
co-chair representatives will incorporate the comments and 
circulate a new version of the report. 
 
------------ 
CAPABILITIES 
------------ 
 
¶8.  (C)  LTC Rainer Burling from the IMS provided an 
informational briefing on the recent update to MC-511 (Bi-SC 
Concept for the Military Contribution to NATO,s Response to 
CBRN Threats, including the Proliferation of WMD and their 
Means of Delivery).  This Concept for the defense of NATO 
troops against CBRN threats is in its 3rd version.  Key 
changes in this version included: defining NATO's role in 
"cooperating" with outside agencies, versus "coordinating"; a 
discussion on CBRN IEDs; a reference to Article 5 of the NATO 
Treaty and the inherent right to self-defense; and a 
discussion of deterrence by counter-strike.  The IMS will be 
looking for Military Committee approval by the end of March 
¶2007. 
 
¶9.  (C) LTC Theodoros Tsiolis, from Allied Command Operations 
(ACO) provided an update on the NATO Multinational CBRN 
Defense Battalion.  The overall status of NATO Response Force 
(NRF) rotation eight is Fully Capable.  He listed lead 
nations and shortfalls with the Battalion from NRF 08 to NRF 
12 and said that they were expanding their database out to 
NRF 20.  LTC Tsiolis also described the recent Defense 
Battalion deployment to Riga, Latvia in support of the 2006 
NATO Summit as a "successful validation of MC-518 (Protection 
of a High-Visibility Event) which was fully integrated with 
Latvian intelligence, reconnaissance, and command and 
control."  One shortfall that the employment uncovered was 
the need for standardization within various Headquarters for 
the use of NATO software.  ACO will be looking into this 
problem and provide a recommended plan of action in the 
following months. 
 
---------------------- 
INTERNATIONAL OUTREACH 
---------------------- 
 
¶10.  (C)  The Czech co-chair led a discussion on potential 
future consultations on CBRN defense with Ukraine.  Six 
nations provided a draft paper on future consultations and 
suggested that the following three areas provide the focus of 
initial discussions:  1. Exchange of information on CBRN 
defense concepts and training standards for unit protection; 
¶2. Exchange of information on CBRN protection of deployed 
units in NATO-led operations, including defense, 
surveillance, and infrastructure; and 3. Exchanges of 
personnel in training courses and training centers.   Some 
delegates commented that an initial meeting on March 27 might 
not provide enough time to adequately prepare, but others 
felt it was necessary to begin this process.  The Romanian 
representative noted that the consultations should be held in 
the NATO-Ukraine Committee (NUC) format.  The co-chairs 
commented that the DGP was a more appropriate format for the 
meetings, and that a meeting of the DGP plus Ukraine was 
within the Charter of the NUC.  The group agreed to a first 
meeting, the afternoon of March 27, on the margins of a DGP 
Plenary. 
 
--------------- 
FUTURE WORKPLAN 
--------------- 
 
¶11.  (U)  The US co-chair led a discussion on the updated 
Rolling Agenda (DGP-D(2006)0003-ADD1).  The major changes to 
the agenda are the addition of a Plenary in March, a 
consultation with Ukraine, and a meeting with other NATO 
organizations involved in CBRN activities.  These meetings 
would be over the period of March 26-27.  While the French 
delegation noted a conflict with another meeting scheduled 
 
for the same timeframe, no other delegations had a problem 
with the addition of the three meetings. 
 
------------------ 
DGP IN EAPC FORMAT 
------------------ 
¶12.  (U)   Following the meeting of the DGP delegates, the 
co-chairs invited EAPC nations to join the DGP in EAPC format 
for discussions on national CBRN capabilities.  Following 
introductory statements by the DGP co-chairs, which included 
a welcome to the newest EAPC members, Bosnia-Herzegovina, 
Montenegro, and Serbia, the meeting began with a briefing by 
WG Cmdr Andy Proudlove on the lessons learned from the 
December 20, 2006 Environmental and Industrial Hazards (EIH) 
workshop.  The key lessons learned were that it is difficult 
to distinguish between an EIH incident and a CBRN attack, and 
that there have been a number of EIH incidents involving NATO 
forces over the past 20 years.  The EIH discussion was 
followed by SCEPC's reprise of its earlier brief and seven 
briefings on national CBRN capabilities.  Finland provided a 
briefing on its Biological Defense Capabilities; Poland 
discussed development of CBRN defense capabilities within 
their Armed Forces; Slovakia highlighted its CBRN Explosive 
Ordnance Disposal training; Georgia discussed its ideas on 
countering biological threats; Sweden discussed current 
trends in research associated with EIH policies; Azerbaijan 
presented its ideas on border security against WMD; and 
Bosnia-Herzegovina discussed the prevention of proliferation 
of WMD.  The next steps will be to take a tiger team approach 
to generate ideas for a way ahead and future work between the 
DGP and EAPC nations. 
NULAND