VZCZCXRO6405
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHLZ
DE RUEHRL #2008/01 3061106
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 021106Z NOV 07
FM AMEMBASSY BERLIN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 9678
RHMFIUU/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC
INFO RUCNFRG/FRG COLLECTIVE
RUEHSW/AMEMBASSY BERN 0770
RUEHBS/AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS 0121
RUEHCP/AMEMBASSY COPENHAGEN 0468
RUEHDL/AMEMBASSY DUBLIN 0199
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0012
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 8615
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 1862
RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO 0399
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 1084
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 9162
RUEHPG/AMEMBASSY PRAGUE 0464
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME 0811
RUEHSM/AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM 0411
RUEHTC/AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE 1153
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 1524
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 0303

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 BERLIN 002008 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
STATE FOR EUR, ISN, WHA, AND EAP 
DOE FOR NNSA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL ETTC KNNP CBW TRGY GM JA RS
SUBJECT: OCTOBER 30 G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP MEETING FOCUSES 
ON GEOGRAPHIC EXPANSION AND MODALITIES 
 
 
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY:  The final G-8 Global Partnership Working 
Group (GPWG) meeting of the German G-8 Presidency took place 
in Berlin on October 30, and included focused discussions on 
geographic expansion and related modalities.  The delegates 
also heard presentations from implementing agencies 
describing progress on specific Global Partnership (GP) 
projects and from donor countries on related bilateral 
initiatives.  Japan tabled a draft Plan of Work for the GPWG 
under the 2008 Japanese Presidency and provided dates for the 
2008 G-8 Nonproliferation Directors Group (NPDG) and GPWG 
meetings in Japan.  The delegates reached broad agreement on 
the need for geographic expansion, but further discussion on 
the modalities thereof will continue under the Japanese 
presidency.  Germany proposed possible mechanisms for moving 
forward on expansion, including the integration of existing 
and future bilateral projects into the GP scope of work, 
endorsement of new recipient countries by the GPWG itself, 
and high-level endorsement at future G-8 Summits. 
 
¶2. (SBU) SUMMARY CONTINUED:  Delegates from Canada, France, 
the UK, Italy, the EU Commission, Japan, and the United 
States expressed support for expansion and pledged to honor 
existing GP commitments to Russia and other former Soviet 
Union (FSU) countries.  While agreeing in principle to the 
need for geographic expansion, Russia proposed a formal, 
highly structured selection process and admission procedure. 
ISN DAS Andrew Semmel, who headed the U.S. delegation, 
pointed to the role GP expansion and extension could play in 
countering new and emerging threats.  Semmel suggested 
admission should be driven by necessity and threat and 
expressed concern about creating an overly formalized 
mechanism for admitting new recipient countries.  The UK 
argued that future expansion should be based on clearly 
identified needs, should add value to the GP, and should be 
consistent with priorities and objectives identified at the 
Kananaskis Summit in 2002.  The Japanese delegation cited the 
need to assess what projects GP countries are currently 
undertaking outside of Russia and the FSU.  Japanese head of 
delegation Yasunari Morino indicated strong interest in close 
discussion with the United States on how to move GP expansion 
forward.  END SUMMARY. 
 
¶3. (SBU) German Commissioner for International Energy Policy 
Viktor Elbing and Thomas Meister, Director of the German 
MFA's International Energy and Nuclear Energy Policy and 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Division co-chaired an October 30 
meeting of G-8 and other donor nations to discuss the Global 
Partnership's (GP) geographic scope, as well as possible 
modalities and geographic focus of future expansion.  In an 
effort to spur discussion, the German chair put forward three 
ideas for admitting new recipient states:  bilateral 
initiatives, GPWG endorsement, and high-level endorsement at 
the G-8 Summit.  Under the bilateral procedure, each country 
would define the scope of its own bilateral cooperation 
programs and report to the GPWG.  Under the second option, a 
group of donor countries could recommend a new recipient 
country to the GPWG for endorsement.  The third option gives 
the GPWG the option to seek high-level endorsement of new 
recipients by heads of state and government at the annual G-8 
Summit. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Canadian delegate Troy Lulashnyk reiterated Canadian 
support for expanding the geographic scope of the GP, 
focusing on the importance of modalities.  Lulashnyk 
suggested the GPWG should build and accelerate the work of 
the GP.  He noted G-8 partners had agreed to expansion 
previously at both Sea Island (2004) and Heiligendamm (2007). 
 It is not a question of whether the GP expands but, rather, 
 
BERLIN 00002008  002 OF 004 
 
 
when and by what modalities.  Lulashnyk reaffirmed Canada's 
position that the GP needs to expand to respond to emerging 
global threats, but offered assurances to the Russian 
delegation that Canada and other countries remain committed 
to fulfilling the core GP objectives vis-a-vis Russia and the 
FSU. 
 
------------------------------------ 
Russia Cautiously Endorses Expansion 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶5. (SBU) Russian delegate Oleg Rozhkov said Russia agreed in 
principle with geographic expansion.  He suggested future 
expansion should be modeled on the procedures followed in 
2004 when Ukraine joined the GP as a recipient state.  As in 
the case of Ukraine, Rozkov explained, the GP should 
undertake a formal confirmation process that would require a 
new recipient state to formally apply and to subscribe to the 
Kananaskis principles.  Rozhkov discouraged "expansion for 
expansion's sake," noting that Russia does not believe all 
countries possess the proliferation/terrorism nexus described 
in the Kananaskis principles.  Rozhkov resisted the idea of 
including partners' bilateral projects outside of Russia and 
the FSU under the auspices of the GP.  He emphasized the GP 
is a practical instrument for implementation and cooperation 
with dedicated funding, established agreements, and 
identifiable, tangible outcomes.  Rozhkov questioned whether 
GP donors have sufficient funds and human resources to carry 
out expansion activities.  He concluded by endorsing 
geographic expansion but stressed it should be done on a 
case-by-case basis, beginning with a review of the 2004 
applications from other FSU states, specifically Kazakhstan. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
Expansion Necessary to Confront Emerging Threats 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶6. (SBU) DAS Semmel highlighted the success of the GP and 
stressed the need to accelerate efforts inside and outside 
Russia and the FSU.  Semmel reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to 
Russia to finish work started under Kananaskis but emphasized 
the importance of expanding the geographic scope of the GP 
and extending the partnership beyond 2012.  Turning to 
modalities for expansion, Semmel stated the U.S. preference 
for flexible admissions procedures rather than a formal 
admission process.  In order to preserve the GP's flexibility 
to react to emerging threats, admission criteria and 
decisions should be driven by ongoing assessments of needs 
and threats.  Semmel stated the U.S. will continue its 
bilateral threat reduction activities outside Russia and the 
FSU and reiterated the need to keep the GP expansion process 
as flexible as possible in order to facilitate admission and 
to address new and emerging threats, rather than make it more 
difficult.  DAS Semmel also briefed the GPWG plenary (G-8, 
all donor countries, and international organizations) on U.S. 
threat reduction programs and activities outside Russia and 
the former Soviet Union.  The briefing placed special 
emphasis on the Biosecurity Engagement Program (BEP) and the 
Nuclear Smuggling Outreach Initiative (NSOI). 
 
¶7. (SBU) UK Delegate Nick Low reaffirmed his government's 
commitment to finishing projects in Russia under the 
Kananaskis objectives.  On modalities for expansion, Low 
suggested three criteria for identifying additional 
beneficiary countries:  (1) the existence of a clear need 
and/or threat; (2) new undertakings must add value to the 
GP's capacity to address that threat; and, (3) new 
undertakings must be coherent and consistent with Kananaskis 
 
BERLIN 00002008  003 OF 004 
 
 
objectives.  Low expressed confidence that the GP would be 
able to successfully integrate additional recipient countries 
and to confront new challenges.  He also assured Russia that 
any geographic expansion would not undermine the UK's work in 
Russia and the FSU.  Low also presented the UK's 
"Inter-Governmental Threat Reduction Model Agreement" as a 
potentially useful tool for GP donors and recipients to use 
to expedite and simplify the negotiation of implementation 
agreements.  Low stated the Model Agreement could be a 
resource for other future recipient countries to see what 
provisions a donor nation might expect, particularly in the 
areas of taxes and liability, but stressed that the UK will 
not seek to have the Model Agreement officially endorsed by 
the GPWG. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Italian delegate Antonio di Melilli suggested the 
GPWG revisit the 2004 process used to bring Ukraine in as a 
beneficiary.  French delegate Jean-Hugues Simon-Michel said 
France supports geographic expansion but was ambivalent about 
which specific countries should be targeted.  He suggested 
geographic expansion could focus on nuclear safety and 
security. 
 
¶9. (SBU) European Commission delegate Bruno Dupre lauded the 
GPWG as an excellent coordination mechanism and reaffirmed 
the EC's commitment to activities in Russia under the EU's 
TACIS program.  Dupre also explained that the EU is 
undertaking additional projects outside Russia and the FSU 
under the auspices of an (unspecified) EU Joint Action to 
address issues related to export controls, biological safety 
and security, and combating illicit trafficking in WMD 
materials. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
Japan Unveils Draft Work Plan for 2008 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) Japanese delegate Yasunari Morino stated the issue 
of expansion has been under GPWG consideration since 
Kananaskis.  He asked the group to share information about 
bilateral and other activities currently underway outside 
Russia and the FSU and to consider what more could or should 
be done.  At the conclusion of the meeting, Morino circulated 
a draft plan of work for the 2008 Japanese G-8 Presidency. 
He stated the focus would be on how to move forward on 
geographic expansion by broadening the GP mandate to include 
"promoting existing multilateral instruments" such as UNSCR 
1540, safeguards and the Additional Protocol, the UN 
Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials 
(CPPNM), and others. 
 
¶11. (SBU) In response to the plan of work, Russian delegate 
Rozhkov asked whether Japan will try to reach a decision on 
expansion and extension by the June 2008 G-8 Summit.  Morino 
was non-committal, suggested that Japan will seek maximum 
progress but such a decision would be driven by how 
discussions at future GPWG meetings develop.  The Japanese 
delegation also announced a provisional schedule for the GPWG 
and NPDG meetings under the Japanese Presidency in 2008. 
GPWG dates are as follows: January 30 (G-8 only); February 26 
(G-8 plus non-G-8 partners) and February 27 (G8 only); April 
23 (G-8 only).  All GPWG meetings will be held in Tokyo. 
NPDG dates are as follows: January 31; February 28; March 37; 
April 24; and June 5.  All NPDG meetings will be held in 
Tokyo except for June 5, which will take place at a location 
to be determined. 
 
-------------------------------- 
 
BERLIN 00002008  004 OF 004 
 
 
Sidebar Consultations with Japan 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶12. (SBU) In a meeting with the U.S. delegation before the 
GPWG, Morino solicited U.S. input on the Global Partnership 
for 2008 and expressed concern about Russian opposition to 
expansion.  Morino did not propose a new initiative separate 
from the GP.  (NOTE:  Japanese Embassy officials in 
Washington had raised the idea several times in earlier 
bilateral meetings.  END NOTE.)  Nonetheless, Semmel conveyed 
U.S. concerns on a separate initiative outside the GP, citing 
"initiative fatigue," countries' potential difficulties 
securing additional funding, and the amount of time required 
to formulate a framework and have it endorsed at high levels. 
 Morino indicated the Japanese delegation would meet with the 
Russian delegation to discuss Japanese plans to distribute a 
questionnaire to GPWG members on current bilateral projects 
outside Russia and the FSU, as well as what possible future 
non-Russia/FSU GP projects they may be willing to undertake. 
Semmel suggested that the Japanese inform the Russians of 
their intent to distribute a questionnaire, rather than 
seeking Russian approval.  (NOTE:  Morino approached Semmel 
on the margins of the GPWG and indicated he had followed this 
advice and simply informed the Russian about the 
questionnaire.  END NOTE.) 
 
¶13.  (SBU)  In a follow-on meeting after the GPWG, Morino 
indicated Japan is extremely interested in U.S. ideas on GP 
for 2008 and wants to continue close discussions.  Morino 
seemed more positive about the possibility of containing 
Russian opposition to expansion following Russian statements 
on the subject during the plenary.  Japan's concerns about 
Russian opposition were assuaged after Russia did not object 
to Japan's plans to circulate a questionnaire on WMD threat 
reduction activities outside of Russia and the FSU.  Morino 
would not be drawn out on Japan's position on a separate G-8 
initiative focusing on Asia but seemed to be heading away 
from the idea of a separate initiative given 
less-than-anticipated Russian opposition.  Semmel and Morino 
discussed possible mechanisms for expanding the geographic 
scope of the GP.  Semmel stressed that expansion should be 
flexible and encourage the broadest participation of new 
recipients and donors.  Morino concurred with this position 
but noted the formal admission process used for Ukraine's 
admittance would be an obstacle to overcome in the coming 
year. 
 
¶14. (U) DAS Semmel has cleared this cable. 
 
TIMKEN JR