VZCZCXYZ0006
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0565/01 1831338
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
R 011338Z JUL 08
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1686
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RUEAEPA/HQ EPA WASHDC
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC

S E C R E T THE HAGUE 000565 
 
NOFORN 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/WMDT (TLOWE), OES/FO, EUR/WE (TSMITH) 
DEFENSE FOR OSD/ATL (DBINIAZ) 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/26/2018 
TAGS: MARR MNUC PARM TRGY KRAD NL
SUBJECT: NETHERLANDS/NUSOG: REMEDIATION STILL AN ISSUE 
 
REF: THE HAGUE 397 
 
Classified By: Charge d'Affaires Michael Gallagher, reasons 
1.4 (a) and (d) 
 
¶1. (S) Summary and action request:  The issue of whether to 
discuss remediation under the Netherlands - United States 
Operational Group (NUSOG) auspices once again proved 
contentious at the NUSOG Plenary on June 18-19.  The Dutch 
argued that environmental remediation in the event of an 
incident involving a U.S. nuclear weapon or component is an 
integral part of the NUSOG, and outlined plans for a "first 
step" remediation workshop -- hopefully with USG 
participation -- to be held later in the year.  The U.S. 
delegation questioned whether any discussion of remediation 
falls under the NUSOG mandate.  A temporary compromise was 
reached when the Dutch agreed to hold the workshop outside of 
the NUSOG, to which they would invite U.S. experts whom post 
would help identify.  Dutch civilian and military 
participants were visibly agitated by the U.S. position 
questioning whether remediation is an appropriate topic for 
discussion in the NUSOG.  It is clear the Dutch attach great 
importance to this issue; Post believes non-engagement is 
untenable and could negatively impact our bilateral 
relationship with a strong ally.  We urge the Department to 
identify guidelines or parameters in which limited engagement 
on remediation in the NUSOG is possible.  End summary and 
action request. 
 
The Crux of the Matter 
--------------------------- 
¶2. (C) CDA and Emboffs attended the NUSOG Plenary on June 
18-19 in Amsterdam.  As anticipated, the issue of remediation 
led to a contentious and at times heated discussion.  The 
Dutch maintained that since remediation, that is, not just 
financial responsibility but all issues concerning clean-up, 
is identified as one of the functional areas in the NUSOG and 
is discussed in the Implementing Joint Operation Plan (IJOP), 
it is an integral part of the NUSOG and an appropriate topic 
of discussion.  Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the 
Environment (VROM) Crisis Management Division Director, Chris 
Dijkens, gave an overview of a remediation workshop with a 
broad agenda that the Dutch had previously proposed for 
October or November 2008.  Dijkens acknowledged that 
remediation was admittedly a "complicated subject" that 
lacked a clear definition.  He suggested the workshop would 
be used as a "first step" to acquaint Dutch actors with U.S. 
subject matter experts, the results of which could 
potentially be used to help develop a Dutch national 
remediation plan. 
 
¶3. (C) In response, the U.S. co-chair questioned whether a 
policy-level discussion on remediation fell under the NUSOG 
mandate.  He pointed out that unlike other functional areas, 
there is no tasking in the NUSOG to establish a remediation 
working group, and that language regarding remediation is 
purposefully vague.  This in effect creates a "chicken or 
egg" scenario in which an operational group such as the NUSOG 
should not discuss remediation issues without clear policy -- 
nor should the NUSOG attempt to create remediation policy in 
its absence.  Dijkens agreed that NUSOG was not a 
policy-making body, but argued that the proposed workshop 
would not address policy issues.  CDA stated that the U.S. 
delegation could not engage on this issue without official 
guidance, but that we would report Dutch questions and 
concerns back to Washington. 
 
¶4. (S) Side discussions yielded a temporary compromise -- the 
Dutch will organize an internal/GONL remediation workshop 
outside the NUSOG to begin developing a national remediation 
plan, to which they would invite U.S. experts.  The workshop 
will remain on the NUSOG five-year training calendar for 
informational purposes only.  Dutch civilian and military 
participants were visibly agitated by the U.S. position 
questioning whether remediation is an appropriate topic for 
discussion in the NUSOG;  DAO Air Attache reported that in a 
side conversation the Dutch co-chair hinted to him that if 
the USG  remains unwilling to engage on remediation, the 
Dutch might have to consider reviewing overflight rights. 
 
The Proposed Workshop: Questions Beyond Financial Liability 
--------------------------------------------- --------------- 
¶5. (C) Dijkens presented a proposal for an all-encompassing 
NUSOG remediation workshop whose ultimate goal would be to 
develop a remediation plan based on information gathered 
during proposed discussions between Dutch and U.S. subject 
matter experts over the issue.  The broad agenda would 
include a discussion of fundamental questions such as what is 
meant by remediation, contamination, and cleanup, as well as 
response organization, information management, legal issues, 
safety, zoning, communication, finances, logistics, and 
elements necessary for developing a remediation plan.  The 
Dutch would also welcome a discussion of U.S. experiences 
with remediation.  Participants would include relevant 
government and local community representatives, and emergency 
fire responders.  Dijkens stated that the GONL does not 
currently have a national remediation plan, although he later 
acknowledged that a patchwork of policies exists on specific 
issues such as cleaning up contaminated soil.  (Note: Dijkens 
denied that VROM had discussions regarding remediation with 
U.S. experts outside the NUSOG.  However, he later confirmed 
that experts from his ministry frequently met with their U.S. 
counterparts on technical and other issues.  End note.) 
 
Comment and Action Request 
------------------------------------ 
¶6. (S) Post received ISN/WMDT,s preliminary response to our 
May 9 guidance request (reftel), which stated the U.S. 
position that remediation is primarily an issue of financial 
liability, and therefore should not be discussed in the 
NUSOG.  We are convinced that a policy of absolute 
non-engagement is untenable, and will negatively impact our 
bilateral relationship with a strong ally.  Recently, the 
Dutch media reported on a Time magazine article questioning 
the safety of U.S. thermonuclear weapons stored in several 
European countries, including the Netherlands, as well as the 
recent visit of USAFE Commander Gen. Brady to Volkel AFB. 
Public and parliamentary interest is rising.  The Dutch will 
continue to raise this issue, presumably at higher levels. 
Agreeing to discuss any aspect of remediation is potentially 
a slippery slope, but perhaps a limited discussion is 
possible, provided strict ground rules make clear that 
financial liability is not open for discussion. 
Participation by U.S. subject-matter experts in the Dutch 
internal remediation workshop this fall also could help 
assuage Dutch remediation concerns.  We urge the Department 
to identify guidelines or parameters in which engagement on 
remediation in the NUSOG is possible.  End comment and action 
request. 
 
¶7. (U) The next NUSOG plenary is tentatively scheduled for 
November 17-19, to be hosted by the United States in Germany. 
 
Gallagher