VZCZCXYZ0002
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHRL #0845/01 1151733
ZNR UUUUUZZH
O 251733Z APR 07
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 8076
INFO RUELO/AMEMBASSY LONDON IMMEDIATE 8214
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW IMMEDIATE 1786
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA MMEDIATE 1030
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS IMMEDIATE 842
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME IMMEDIATE 0482
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO IMMEDIATE 1454

UNCLAS BERLIN 000845 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CTR, EUR, WHA/CAN, AND EAP/J 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC KNNP CBW TRGY GM JA RS CA UK
FR 
SUBJECT: APRIL 23 MEETING OF THE G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP 
WORKING GROUP (GPWG) IN BERLIN 
 
REF: A. BERLIN 791 
 
     ¶B. BERLIN 535 
     ¶C. BERLIN 244 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The fourth G-8 Global Partnership Working 
Group (GPWG) meeting under the German G-8 Presidency took 
place April 23, and focused on drafting the Global 
Partnership (GP) five-year review document.  The delegates 
failed to reach agreement on the U.S. proposals for the 
future of the Global Partnership and deferred further 
discussion and decision to the April 26-27 G-8 Sherpas 
meeting in Bonn.  DAS Semmel presented the USG's four-point 
proposal for GP expansion: geographical expansion of the GP 
beyond the FSU, global programmatic expansion, 10-year 
expansion of the GP beyond 2012, and a USD 20 billion funding 
commitment to support the process.  The Canadian delegate 
made a compelling case for geographic and programmatic 
expansion.  He suggested the GPWG decide on a time-frame to 
expand the GP beyond 2012 (which he argued was consistent 
with the GP's original language), but was non-committal on 
the funding issue, despite strong praise for the U.S. funding 
commitment.  The British delegate expressed strong support 
for geographic and programmatic expansion of the GP and 
informed partners that the UK was consulting internally on 
funding and expansion beyond 2012.  The Russian delegate did 
not oppose GP expansion "in principle," but characterized all 
aspects of the USG's current proposal as "premature," and 
spent much of the day drawing participants into exchanges 
about Russia's concerns over the completion of its CW 
destruction and submarine dismantlement projects by 2012. 
The remaining delegates duly noted the USG proposal and, 
particularly the Japanese delegation, appeared generally 
receptive to the idea of geographic and programmatic 
expansion, but all stated strongly that any consideration of 
expansion or funding beyond 2012 would have to be presented 
to their respective leaders.  Partners reached agreement 
largely on the language of the first two sections of the GP 
five-year review document -- "Achievements" and "Lessons 
Learned" -- but there was no significant agreement on the 
"Future Priorities" section because of the differences over 
the U.S. proposals.  End summary. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Director of the German MFA's International Energy 
and Nuclear Energy Policy and Nuclear Nonproliferation 
Division Thomas Meister chaired a prolonged meeting which 
focused on the drafting of the GP five-year review document. 
Although the key item of discussion was the USG four-point 
proposal to expand the GP geographically, programmatically, 
10 years beyond 2012, and to commit USD 20 billion dollars to 
support the process, the GP partners spent much of the day 
considering the first two sections of the third German draft 
of the review document, "Achievements" and "Lessons Learned," 
seeking consensus language.  Late in the afternoon, broad 
agreement, if not consensus, was obtained on those sections, 
and the Germans agreed to draft and circulate the new 
language. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Meister opened discussion on the third section of 
the review document, "Future Priorities," and invited DAS 
Semmel to present the USG proposal.  DAS Semmel emphasized 
that the global threats faced by the GP are evolving and 
urgent, that it will take time to prepare for GP expansion so 
members must start now, and citing the risks and dangers 
faced by all if no action is taken. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Canadian Delegate Troy Lulashnyk lauded the U.S. 
willingness to commit another $10 billion in GP funding.  He 
noted that the threats we are seeking to combat will not 
disappear in 2012 and that this needs to be highlighted to 
leaders.  Lulashnyk divided the U.S. proposal into three 
parts -- programmatic expansion, geographic expansion, and 
additional money -- and noted that the first two proposals 
are already embodied in agreed G-8 language dating back to 
the 2002 G-8 Summit.  He noted that some partners are already 
dealing with threats outside the FSU.  He said programmatic 
and geographic expansion is "about codifying what we are 
doing now," and, referring to Russia's regularly expressed 
sensitivities about being singled out, drew Russia's 
attention to the fundamental principles behind GP expansion, 
which is the need to move beyond the FSU while still 
finishing GP commitments there.  Concerning additional 
funding, Lulashnyk indicated that the partners may not agree 
 
on that by the Summit, but also noted the UK's suggestion to 
discuss this issue in 2010. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Italian Delegate Antonio di Melilli claimed that the 
USG non-paper containing the U.S. proposals on the GP's 
future delivered at the April 3 Political Directors meeting 
did not get much of a response and said he had no mandate to 
speak about the USGQoposal.  He volunQred that "it would 
be difficult to imagine" funding the USG proposal for an 
additional $10 billion.  He noted the problems that his 
government has in funding current projects. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Japanese Delegate Takeshi Aoki stated that Japan 
shares the U.S. view on the need for GP geographic expansion, 
but emphasized that with five years left in the current GP 
commitment, it would be very difficult for Japan to explain 
to its public at this point the commitment of additional 
funds. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The German delegation said it appreciated the U.S. 
approach to the GP's future, but stated it would be difficult 
to make any commitments at this stage.  They also suggested 
that the GP Working Group was too junior in rank to make 
binding decisions and that this issue should be discussed by 
the G-8 Sherpas. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Russian Delegate Oleg Rozhkov stated the Russian 
view that the U.S. proposals were premature at this stage in 
the GP process, particularly with ongoing projects in Russia 
not yet completed.  Rozhkov also noted that President Putin 
has 10 months left in office and is unlikely to entertain 
important political commitments related to the GP's future at 
this point. 
 
¶9. (SBU) British delegate Berenice Gare echoed Canada's 
statement on the importance of an additional $10 billion 
commitment by the United States.  She said the U.S. proposals 
had been forwarded to the Prime Minister's office, but 
considered it unlikely that PM Blair, who could be leaving 
office in the near term, would commit to additional funding 
by the time of the Summit.  Nevertheless, Gare stated that, 
in principle, the UK was prepared to seek additional funding 
for an expansion of the GP was looking to continue its work 
beyond 2012. 
 
¶10. (SBU) French Delegate Francois Richier noted that France 
will have a new president by the time of the Summit and that 
the new president would be fully briefed on the U.S. 
proposals; but France was not in a position to make any new 
commitments at this time. 
 
¶11. (SBU) The EU delegates stated that they were not 
currently in a position to commit to anything, but that they 
would present the U.S. proposals to their authorities and 
return to the subject. 
 
¶12. (SBU) After the tour de table, DAS Semmel concluded that 
there is complete agreement that the GP is a worthy endeavor, 
that the GP coordinating mechanism works successfully without 
the overlay of bureaucracy or institutional infrastructure, 
and that the G-8 ought to capitalize on this record of 
achievement by planning now for the future.  He noted that 
the GP Working Group is not tasked with making final 
decisions on the U.S. proposals but is tasked with making 
recommendations to the leaders, including possibly language 
on the GP for inclusion in the Summit declaration.  The 
German chair, seeking to summarize the discussion, stated 
that three delegations (the U.S., Canada, and the UK) were 
generally optimistic about the U.S. proposals, while the 
other delegations appreciated the proposals but considered 
the approach premature or would have to consult their higher 
authorities.  The Canadians again noted that current G-8 
statements already committed the G-8 to expand the GP 
programmatically and geographically and that the 
German-proposed language on geographic expansion did not do 
justice to the fact that many G-8 partners were already 
engaged in assistance to other states beyond Russia and 
Ukraine. 
 
¶13. (SBU) The German chair proposed several alternative ways 
forward -- specifically postponing discussion of geographic 
expansion until the September GPWG meeting, and agreeing on 
 
tentative language for the GP five-year review document that 
could be used if the Sherpas concluded, as they believed, 
that the U.S. proposals were premature.  The U.S. rejected 
these ideas and stated that we sought something much more 
significant now on where the GP is headed, and that the 
German-proposed language in the third draft of the review 
document should be bracketed. 
 
¶14. (SBU) The Germans agreed to circulate, as soon as 
possible, a revised draft of the five-year review document, 
bracketed as necessary.  Given this year's focus on the 
review document, the German hosts suggested, and partners 
agreed, that the recently circulated draft GP Annual Report 
would be kept short and factual.  They agreed to re-circulate 
a new draft of the Report and a consolidated Annex after 
comments were received from G-8 partners and countries had 
completed the submission of their Annex data.  The next GPWG 
is scheduled for September 18, 2007. 
 
¶15. (SBU) Comment: The quality of discussion and amount of 
time devoted to the USG proposal suffered considerably in 
this meeting.  Despite few serious differences among partners 
over the language of the "Achievements" and "Lessons Learned" 
sections of the draft review document, most of the day was 
spent laboring over those sections.  The discussion of the 
U.S. proposal began late in the session, and there was little 
time for delegations to respond formally.  Most statements 
were short and focused on the difficulty of securing 
additional funding.  More discussion time would not have 
altered any fundamental positions, but most delegations would 
have dedicated more time to geographic and programmatic 
expansion, where most partners, except Russia, have in the 
past expressed similar views. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Comment continued: The U.S. delegation's 
assessment, therefore, is that we should be able to secure 
clear language in the GP five-year review document indicating 
the need for geographic and programmatic expansion, since 
these proposals have a strong basis in current G-8 
statements.  It might also be possible to agree on some 
language that makes clear that the threats the GP is intended 
to address will not end in 2012 and that GP activity should 
continue beyond that date.  Achieving G-8 consensus to extend 
formally the GP beyond 2012 (or specifically to extend it an 
additional 10 years to 2022) or to an additional funding 
commitment for an additional $20 billion will be extremely 
difficult.  End comment. 
 
¶17. (U) This cable was coordinated with DAS Semmel subsequent 
to the delegation's departure. 
TIMKEN JR