VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHRL #0535/01 0751902
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 161902Z MAR 07
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7510
INFO RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON PRIORITY 8063
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 1721
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 0982
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 8589
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 0338
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 1402

UNCLAS BERLIN 000535 
 
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: FEBRUARY 27-28 MEETING OF THE G-8 GLOBAL 
PARTNERSHIP WORKING GROUP IN BERLIN 
 
REF: BERLIN 244 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The second G-8 Global Partnership Working 
Group (GPWG) meeting under the German G-8 Presidency took 
place in Berlin February 27-28.  The two days of discussion 
covered three themes: "Main Achievements Within the Global 
Partnership," "Experiences and Lessons Learned," and 
"Developments Since 2002 and Future Priorities Including 
Geographical Scope."  Under achievements, the delegations 
covered the GP's work during the first five years, 
emphasizing progress in chemical weapons destruction (CWD) 
and Russian nuclear submarine dismantlement, GP assistance 
projects in Ukraine, and re-employment of former weapons 
scientists through Moscow International Science and 
Technology Center (ISTC).  Under lessons learned, delegations 
emphasized the importance of close cooperation with local 
authorities, the success of "piggybacking" new projects 
through existing country arrangements, getting resource 
support from donor states for GP projects, and the value of 
audits to scrutinize project efficiency.  Russian and other 
delegates complained about slowness in implementing some 
projects, but others cautioned that CWD and submarine 
dismantlement require careful planning.  A German Federal 
Intelligence Service (BND) representative provided a 
terrorism threat analysis and a U.S. delegate urged 
identifying and countering diverse terrorist threats while 
continuing the work on current GP priorities.  Except for 
Russia, delegations supported expanding the GP's priorities. 
The Dutch delegate mentioned a donor's meeting for March 12 
in The Hague on CWD. 
 
¶2. (SBU) On February 28, the GP partners held a closed 
session and, with slight differences, highlighted primarily 
by Russian concerns over the GP ability to sustain its 
current commitments while pursuing global expansion, reached 
general consensus on the basic successes and lessons learned 
to date, and agreement that the GP should attempt to address 
the evolving challenges that global terrorism presents.  End 
Summary. 
 
------------------- 
First Day's Session 
------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) The second meeting of this year's GPWG under the 
German presidency took place in Berlin February 27-28. 
Attending the first day's session were representatives of all 
GP donor states and the regular G-8 partners, in addition to 
the EU.  In all, some 18 presentations were made, including 
talks by invited representatives from the International 
Atomic Energy Agency, the (German) Institute for 
International and Security Affairs, the German BND, and the 
U.S. National Academy of Sciences.  Participation in the 
second day's session was limited to G-8 partners.  For both 
days, the Chair divided the presentations and discussion into 
three themes: "Main Achievements with the Global 
Partnership," "Experiences and Lessons Learned," and 
"Developments Since 2002 and Future Priorities Including 
Geographical Scope." 
 
¶4. (SBU) Achievements Within the GP: Gebhard Geiger, from the 
German Institute for International and Security Affairs, 
presented a descriptive, neutral overview on what the GP has 
accomplished during the first five years.  Russian delegate 
Oleg Rozhkov spoke of Russia's commitment to two basic GP 
priorities.  He noted that Russia has received USD 300 
million for CWD and USD 493 million for nuclear submarine 
dismantlement.  (Note: Russia's Foreign Ministry reports that 
the figures are actually USD 297 million for CWD and USD 443 
million for submarine dismantlement.  End note.)  Rozhkov 
also complained about the slow pace of CWD projects in 
Russia.  The French, Ukrainian, and Canadian delegates all 
commented positively about progress on their projects.  The 
Canadian Deputy Executive Director of the Moscow 
International Science and Technology Center, Leo Owsiacki, 
mentioned ISTC's successful efforts to engage 75,000 
scientists, 75 percent of whom are former weapons scientists 
in the FSU, and noted 470 ISTC partners for research and 
development projects.  Rozhkov succinctly stated his view 
that the task of redirection of former weapons scientists is 
"done."  Owsiacki responded that ISTC is currently involved 
in a strategic planning session on moving toward a more 
commercial role for the ISTC and that research and 
 
development efforts are specifically designed to move 
scientists in that direction. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Experiences and Lessons Learned: UK delegate 
Berenice Gare cited a report from the British NGO Chatham 
House that praised the GP's work, but added the NGO 
considered GP weak on biological warfare issues.  Canadian 
delegate Troy Lulasnyk stated Canada was finding flexibility 
in funding direct contracts and predicted speedier work on 
submarine dismantlement during the next five years.  The 
Norwegian delegate also described successful work on the 
removal of radioistopic thermoelectric generators (RTGs) and 
dismantling of Victor class nuclear submarines, but 
complained of access problems at Mayak and other places in 
northern Russia.  Russian delegate Rozhkov expressed concerns 
about excessive administrative infrastructures for projects 
and advised all members that in order to comply with 
commitments to finish work by 2012, Russia will need all GP 
(CWD) funds committed and spent by the end of 2009.  Rozhkov 
in this and subsequent discussions discounted occasional 
complaints about access, noting the GP was "not an occasion 
for tourism." 
 
¶6. (SBU) Developments Since 2002 and Future Priorities: 
Several delegates responded to earlier Russian concerns over 
the slowness of ongoing projects.  The Swedish and UK 
delegates, among others, explained while projects start 
slowly, most should pick up speed in the second half of the 
10-year period.  DAS Semmel stated that the U.S. shared 
Russia's frustration.  He noted delays are in some cases 
traceable to legitimate differences in bidding and contract 
negotiations, but reiterated U.S. commitment to complete the 
work.  UK delegates cautioned that the dangerous nature of 
CWD and submarine dismantlement must be preceded by 
unhurried, careful planning for safety reasons: "You have to 
get it right before you start." 
¶7. (SBU) In his terrorist Threat Analysis Update, Dr. 
Herrmann of Germany's BND asserted that while the nuclear 
capability of terrorist organizations is not yet apparent, 
their capabilities in the areas of chemical and biological 
weapons are growing.  Hermann was followed by a provocative, 
well-received presentation entitled, "Global Partnership, 
Business as Usual, or Responding to New Challenges," by Anne 
Harrington, Director of the Committee on International 
Security and Arms Control at the U.S. National Academy of 
Sciences.  Through slides depicting the global network of 
jihad and the future expansion of the use of nuclear power 
among sovereign states, she underscored the fundamental need 
for the GP and all organizations working to combat terrorism 
to identify and counter broad-based terrorist threats that 
cut across all regions and continents, while, at the same 
time, continuing collective efforts to finish work on current 
GP priorities.  Anita Nilsson, Director of the Office of 
Nuclear Security at the IAEA, addressed the theme: "Nuclear 
Security, Preventing the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism."  She 
also emphasized the critical need to meet the challenge 
created by the proliferation of nuclear capabilities of 
states and organizations around the world. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Among the comments from delegations was a detailed 
statement by Russia's Rozhkov, who reiterated his country's 
position that the time is not right for "radical changes" in 
the GP.  In response to concerns over the lack of access 
expressed by the Norwegians and Japanese, Rozhkov claimed 
some of his Russian colleagues had complained about 
unnecessary site visits.  He also repeated that Russia wants 
to see all CWD funds expended by December 31, 2009, in order 
to complete destruction of CW in Russia by 2012.  Japan and 
Norway defended their concerns over access.  DAS Semmel 
raised the future of the GP up to or beyond 2012, prompting 
considerable discussion, with most delegates expressing broad 
agreement that the GP needs to adapt to emerging global 
threats while also addressing existing priorities in Russia 
and the FSU.  The UK delegates suggested that perhaps by 2010 
there will be the need to begin work on the next "Kananaskis" 
plan.  (Note: The GP was first announced at the 2002 G-8 
Summit in Kananaskis, Canada.  End note.)  Other delegates 
agreed in principle but not necessarily for that specific 
year.  At the meeting's end, the Dutch delegate spoke about a 
donor's meeting on CWD scheduled for The Hague on March 12. 
 
-------------------- 
Second Day's Session 
 
-------------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) In the second day's session for G-8 partners only, 
the delegates discussed points made the previous day.  The 
Chair noted for the record that members agreed the GP review 
would be submitted to G-8 Summit leaders as a stand-alone 
document.  The Chair also distributed a list of points for 
discussion compiled from the previous day's discussions and 
from G-8 partner responses to a GP questionnaire circulated 
in early February.  The German Chair agreed with DAS Semmel's 
snap-shot that this year's GP plans to produce four products 
for the Summit: the annual report, the annex to the annual 
report, a stand-alone assessment of the GP, and a short 
insertion on the assessment for inclusion in the final Heads 
of State statement at the Summit.  UK delegate Gare argued 
the document needs headline points that encapsulate GP goals 
and successes.  The delegates reached consensus on the 
summary of GP achievements on issues that ranged from the 
establishment of coordinating mechanisms for project 
completion, the establishment of a legal framework that 
includes procedures for liability, transparency and access, 
the successful redirection of former weapons scientists and 
progress toward self-sustainable commercial scientific 
activities, the extension GP activities to include work in 
Ukraine, and the acceptance of new participating donor states 
into the GP. 
 
¶10. (SBU) In the summary of lessons learned, delegates noted 
the need to reduce bureaucratic obstacles without neglecting 
financial control or compliance with the national legislation 
of donor and recipient states, that "piggy-backing" is an 
appropriate mechanism for combining efforts of donors and 
partners, and that local cooperation and direct contracting 
have been identified and helpful for swift and flexible 
project implementation.  They also noted the GP must remain 
adaptive to new challenges, that consensus must be reached 
among all participants on project development, and that a 
balance must be struck between the protection of sensitive 
information and the necessary transparency and accountability 
in project implementation.  Russian delegate Rozhkov raised 
the point of showing the low percentage of pledged funds that 
have been expended on projects.  DAS Semmel was obliged to 
repeat that statistic cannot work because pledged funds are 
released in increments in annual budgets and obviously cannot 
be spent before they are appropriated.  He argued a more 
appropriate statistic would be the percentage of funds spent 
or obligated among those funds actually available from donor 
countries.  The delegates also determined that long-term 
planning can be improved for the second five years of the GP 
if recipient and donor states are given an appropriate amount 
of time for preparation to identify potential gaps in program 
needs so that additional program contributions can be sought. 
 
¶11. (SBU) The delegates reached a broad consensus on the 
summary of developments since 2002, and, except for Russia, 
also reached broad consensus on the future of GP priorities. 
The Russian delegate objected to the need for GP expansion at 
this time.  There was unanimous agreement that all ongoing 
projects and tasks should be completed.  DAS Semmel 
underscored this point and mentioned that partners can do 
more to sustain and implement ongoing programs while seeking 
additional donors.  He reminded partners that the Kananaskis 
document did not limit GP activity to Russia or the FSU and 
that as the global security environment had evolved in recent 
years, the GP must adjust by placing greater emphasis on the 
"global" in the Global Partnership, while not detracting from 
priority requirements in Russian and the FSU.  All delegates 
also agreed that GP tasks would not disappear after 2012 and 
that a framework should be developed to address this 
situation.  Several members suggested that the assessment of 
future directions for the GP might begin in 2010, but the 
exact time for the assessment was not determined.  The group 
noted the economic situation in Russia has improved since 
2002 and applauded Russia's additional pledge of USD 4 
billion to ongoing CWD and submarine dismantlement.  However, 
Russian delegates resisted consensus language that referred 
to growing global concerns over increased terrorism threats. 
 
------- 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) There were predictable differences expressed by the 
 
Russian delegation over GP expansion and Russian resistance 
to the efforts of the Germans and other partners to gain GP 
consensus on the growing global threat of terrorism. 
However, there was still general consensus among members, 
including Russia, on other aspects GP achievements, lessons 
learned, and the need for the GP to adjust to future 
challenges.  The two-day session should facilitate a 
consensus on the five-year review document.  There was a 
short, pointed exchange of views over access between the 
Russian and the Norwegian and Japanese delegations, but an 
overall constructive, congenial working group atmosphere was 
sustained throughout both days. 
 
¶13. (SBU) The German Chair surprised delegates with the first 
day's schedule in which Anne Harrington's presentation turned 
out to be the only briefing given by a non-governmental 
organization other than the two that the Germans had 
originally announced weeks ago would participate.  We 
understand that the UK was unable to get a Chatham House 
representative to the meeting and that others had similar 
problems.  Harrington's presentation was well received in its 
basic purpose to emphasize the growing global terrorism 
threat and the need for GP response to this challenge.  The 
presentation by Canada's ISTC Deputy Executive Director Leo 
Owsiacki also turned out to be particularly useful.  Owsiacki 
spurred comments on redirection of former scientists that 
allowed partners and donors to hear directly about the 
success of the center programs and helped air the issue of 
self-sustainability for the two science centers.  The only 
item that might merit special attention is the GP annex 
document.  Several members commented after the sessions that 
preparation of the annex document will be more important this 
year because of the five-year review.  Data on the work and 
status of projects should be subject to more scrutiny.  We 
have previously emphasized the importance for GP to prepare 
accurate, comprehensible annex data.  End Comment. 
 
 
¶13. (SBU) Heads of Delegations: 
 
Viktor Elbling, Germany 
Benjamin Craig, Australia 
Werner Bauwens, Belgium 
Troy Lulashnyk, Canada 
Ales Macik, Czech Republic 
Soren Bollerup, Denmark 
Tomas Reyes Ortega, EU Council 
Bruno Dupre, EU Commission 
Timo Kienanen, Finland 
Arnaud Roux, France 
Michael Keaveney, Ireland 
Antonio Catalano di Melilli, Italy 
Takeshi Aoki, Japan 
Edwin Keijzer, Netherlands 
Robert Kvile, Norway 
Agnieszka Walter-Drop, Poland 
Kwon Young-dae, Republic of Korea 
Oleg Rozhkov, Russian Federation 
Jan Lundin, Sweden 
Andreas Friedrich, Switzerland 
Volodymyr Belashov, Ukraine 
Berenice Gare, United Kingdom 
Andrew Semmel, USA 
Anita Nilsson, IAEA 
 
¶14. (U) This cable was cleared by ISN subsequent to the 
delegation's departure from Berlin. 
TIMKEN JR