VZCZCXRO5539
PP RUEHBW
DE RUEHNO #0185/01 1500539
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 290539Z MAY 08
FM USMISSION USNATO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1919
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHPS/AMEMBASSY PRISTINA PRIORITY 3271
RHMFISS/USNMR SHAPE BE PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH PRIORITY
RUFDTFA/CDR TASK FORCE FALCON PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USNATO 000185 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/28/2018 
TAGS: PREL MOPS NATO KFOR KV
SUBJECT: NORWAY PROPOSES SPLITTING NATO MISSIONS IN KOSOVO; 
U.S. CALLS IT A "TRAP" 
 
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Richard G. Olson for reasons 1.4 
 (b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (C)  SUMMARY AND COMMENT.  Norway has proposed that NATO 
create a stand-alone mission in Kosovo, separate from KFOR, 
to implement the Ahtissari tasks relating to new security 
structures in Kosovo.  Supported by Hungary and Italy, Norway 
argued that keeping these tasks separate from the existing 
KFOR mission would preserve KFOR's good working relationship 
and credibility with Serbia, which opposes the new tasks. 
The U.S. strongly opposed the idea, saying it would allow 
opponents of the new tasks to kill off the separate mission, 
and was wasteful.  France, Germany, Belgium, the UK, 
Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, and Slovenia all expressed doubts 
about the Norwegian proposal.  The Chairman of the NATO 
Military Committee also said he could not support the 
proposal from a military perspective.  Perm Reps agreed to 
have a follow-on discussion May 29 when Perm Reps visit 
SHAPE.  The proposal is problematic on numerous levels and 
USNATO will continue to oppose it and urge other Allies to do 
the same.  END SUMMARY AND COMMENT. 
 
¶2.  (C)  At an informal May 27 NATO Perm Reps' meeting on 
Kosovo, Norwegian Perm Rep Traavik said that at a recent 
meeting with several NATO Perm Reps, Serbian Army Chief of 
General Staff Ponos warned that KFOR's high credibility with 
Serbs would be undermined if it proceeded with plans to take 
on new tasks contained in the Ahtissari Plan to stand down 
the Kosovo Protection Corps and stand up the new Kosovo 
Security Force.  Ponos reportedly said that if NATO must take 
on these new tasks, they should be done by a separate, 
stand-alone NATO mission so KFOR would not be tainted by 
them.  Traavik said that creating a separate mission would 
also be a service to the "good guys" in Serbia.  The new 
mission would have a different name -- he proposed the 
Security Sector Reform Mission -- with a different command 
structure and badge.  Norway's proposal was supported by 
Hungary and Italy, who argued that Serbs see NATO and KFOR as 
different entities, and so a separate mission was an idea 
worth exploring in order to preserve KFOR's contact with the 
Serbs. 
 
¶2.  (C)  Ambassador Nuland responded that it did not make 
sense to separate KFOR from its ultimate exit strategy, which 
was to build up a credible, multi-ethnic Kosovo Security 
Force of limited scope to take its place.  In any case, the 
new mission would still be part of NATO, as would KFOR, so 
the benefits of a separation were unclear and would 
complicate unity of command and logistics.  A separate 
mission would also greatly complicate U.S. contributions 
toward the new tasks.  She said that Washington "hated" the 
proposal and the more the proposal was described the more it 
looked like a trap set by the Serbs to later kill the 
separate mission by arguing it was illegitimate.  The 
proposal was designed to split NATO and ensure NATO's exit 
strategy failed. 
 
¶3.  (C)  Several countries expressed skepticism over the 
proposal.  German Perm Rep Brandenburg said he "did not buy" 
the argument in favor of a second mission, could not see what 
it would gain, and had the "strongest reservations" about it. 
 Belgium said creating a separate mission risked opening a 
debate about UNSCR 1244, since a separate mission would have 
no legal basis because the tasks it would perform were not 
called for in UNSCR 1244.  The Slovenian Perm Rep objected to 
the idea of creating a "good" and "bad" NATO mission in the 
eyes of Serbs and asked whether the proposal's proponents had 
checked with Kosovar Albanians for their views.  UK Deputy 
Perm Rep Kidd said KFOR still would presumably provide force 
protection for the separate mission, which would blur any 
distinction between the two missions.  France expressed 
hesitation and said it did not think the distinction between 
NATO and KFOR was large enough to make separate missions 
worthwhile.  Bulgaria backed comments of other skeptics and 
said NATO should not go down a path that would allow Serbia 
to divide NATO.  Romania said it was cautious and Poland 
objected to Norway's characterization of "good guys' and "bad 
guys" in Serbia. 
 
¶4.  (C)  Chairman of the NATO Military Committee General 
Henault commented that, from a military perspective, he could 
not support the proposal, which was "hugely problematic." 
 
USNATO 00000185  002 OF 002 
 
 
Henault said a separate mission would harm unity of command 
in Kosovo.  In addition, Allies would have to negotiate a new 
Initiating Directive and revise the Balkans Operations Plan, 
both of which have already been difficult under the current 
construct.  Positions have also already begun to be filled in 
KFOR to execute the new tasks. 
 
¶5.  (C)  Following a Dutch suggestion not to come to a final 
decision that day, but rather hold a second discussion, Perm 
Reps agreed to discuss the proposal again on May 29 when the 
NAC visits SHAPE and meets with SACEUR. 
NULAND