VZCZCXRO0688
OO RUEHIK RUEHPOD RUEHYG
DE RUEHNO #0148/01 1051658
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 151658Z APR 09
FM USMISSION USNATO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2875
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE
RUEANAT/NASA WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEHNO/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE IMMEDIATE
RHMFIUU/USNMR SHAPE BE IMMEDIATE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USNATO 000148 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/RPM AND OES - RUDNITSKY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: NATO OSCI TSPL AF
SUBJECT: SCIENCE AT NATO: UPDATE ON CURRENT PROGRAMS, 
REQUEST FOR GUIDANCE 
 
REF: A. USNATO 100 
     ¶B. NATO DOCUMENT AC/328-D(2008)-REV1 
     ¶C. NATO DOCUMENT PDD(2009)0033 
     ¶D. NATO DOCUMENT AC/328-D(2009)0002 AND 0003 
     ¶E. NATO DOCUMENT AC/119-N(2008)0116 
     ¶F. NATO DOCUMENT PDD(2008)0248 
     ¶G. ROSS-LUCAS-RUDNITSKY EMAILS 11-25 NOVEMBER 2008 
     ¶H. ROSS-LUCAS EMAILS 28 NOVEMBER-19 DECEMBER 2008 
     ¶I. PDD-ROSS-VIKMANIS KELLER EMAILS 12-16 MARCH 2009 
     ¶J. ROSS-VIKMANIS KELLER EMAIL 11 FEBRUARY 2009 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: The NATO Committee on Science for Peace and 
Security (SPS) will meet in Allied-only format April 23 and 
in NATO-Russia Council format on April 24.  USNATO provides 
the following update on SPS projects and current U.S. actions 
and policy to focus and guide the interagency group in 
preparation for the April 23-24 meetings. USNATO further 
requests front-channel guidance on U.S. priorities for the 
Science for Peace and Security Program consistent with the 
United States' overall goals for the NATO Alliance. Please 
see action items in Paras 5, 7, 9, 11 and 14. End summary. 
 
¶2. (U) Background: The SPS Committee meeting on April 23 will 
bring national science representatives from the 28 Allies to 
Brussels to discuss SPS priorities, the 2009 budget and work 
program, and current and planned projects including Stand-Off 
Detection of Explosives and the Virtual Silk Highway, as well 
as any outstanding issues.  A meeting of the NATO-Russia 
Council SPS Committee will take place on April 24.  SPS 
meetings at the representative level occur two-to-three times 
per year. The last meeting took place in November 2008 and 
the next is tentatively scheduled for June 2009.  Between 
these meetings, the SPS Liaison Group including 
representatives from national delegations to NATO, meets 
regularly to manage the ongoing work of SPS and its science 
initiatives.  At NATO, science programs are facilitated by 
the SPS Section of the Public Diplomacy Division (PDD). 
 
¶3. (U) Budget: PDD intends to release a revised draft of its 
2009 budget before the April 23 meeting.  The approved budget 
is 10,850,000 Euros, including the one million "additional" 
Euros approved by the North Atlantic Council (NAC) that has 
yet to be allocated to specific projects.  This represents a 
cut from the 2008 budget of 13.3 million Euro, a cut 
supported by the U.S.  Science is the largest part of the 
non-discretionary civil budget, which is  facing a 70 million 
Euro shortfall over the next five years (ref A).  As a 
result, significant savings in SPS future programs must be 
found.  USNATO believes that the April 23 meeting should be 
used to lay down a marker on this issue. 
 
¶4. (U) Work Program: PDD may release a revised draft of the 
2009 Work Program before the April 23 meeting.  The original 
draft work program released in November 2008 sparked requests 
from many Allies for further information on projects and the 
planned "intensive exercise to define the SPS Program's 
future directions... and develop and implement a public 
information approach."  As instructed, USNATO also called for 
a realignment of SPS priorities with the overall priorities 
of NATO and a greater emphasis on public diplomacy within the 
overall program and any project proposals.  As a result, PDD 
contracted consultants McKinsey and Company to conduct a 
"pre-diagnostic" review of the SPS program, structure and 
priorities (see Para 6).  This review has led to an improved 
work program, however we have again asked for an emphasis on 
public diplomacy. 
 
¶5. (U) Action request: The interagency group should review 
the latest draft work program draft (ref B) and present 
comments to the Committee at the April 23 meeting.  A final 
work program will need to be approved by the Committee. 
 
¶6. (U) McKinsey "Pre-Diagnostic" Review: In an effort to 
gauge support for science programs within NATO, the 
effectiveness of SPS programs, and Allies' interpretation of 
Science priorities, PDD engaged McKinsey and Company in late 
¶2008.  McKinsey interviewed representatives from several 
Allies, including the U.S., UK, Italy and Turkey, as well as 
members of NATO's International Staff and the international 
community, and produced an initial report highlighting common 
priorities and possible future steps for SPS.  This will be 
presented more fully on April 23, however a preview given to 
the Liaison Group on April 14 indicates a positive step 
 
USNATO 00000148  002 OF 003 
 
 
toward clearly defining SPS priorities tied to NATO's overall 
priorities, and an important recognition of the relationship 
between science, public diplomacy and NATO partnership 
activities.  As noted above, the Liaison Group asked that 
this be reflected in the Work Program.  The SPS Committee may 
be asked to discuss the McKinsey findings and decide whether 
to proceed with a full SPS review.  (PDD has promised a 
document to guide this discussion, which will be forwarded as 
soon as received.) 
 
¶7. (U) Action request: In order to move ahead with defining 
NATO Science priorities, the interagency group should define 
and articulate to the Committee our national priorities for 
science consistent with U.S. national priorities for NATO as 
a whole. 
 
¶8. (U) Stand-Off Detection of Explosives: The SPS Committee 
has agreed that the "Stand-Off Detection of Suicide Bombers 
and Mobile Objects," a project bringing together scientists 
from NATO, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Russia, 
addresses a major threat to modern society.  The initial 
stages of the project were ready to be launched in November 
2008, however PDD approved only 2.3 million Euro of the 4.3 
million Euro budget.  In the March and November 2008 SPS 
Committee meetings, the U.S. Representative suggested this 
program could best be funded through national contributions. 
In late 2008, the United Kingdom requested full funding from 
national contributions be obtained prior to the start of the 
project (ref C).  NATO asked for national commitments to be 
submitted by 15 March; to date, only France has made a firm 
commitment of 600,000 Euros.  On 14 April, Turkey hinted at a 
50,000 Euro commitment, leaving a shortfall of 1.35 million 
Euro.  The U.S. fully supports this program and its direct 
link to the safety and security of NATO Allies. 
 
¶9. (U) Action request: The interagency group should examine 
the existing Department of Homeland Security proposal to 
commit funds to this project.  If a decision on funding has 
been made by April 23, the U.S. Representative should fully 
brief the SPS Committee on USG plans. 
 
¶10. (SBU) Virtual Silk Highway: In the November Committee 
meeting, PDD briefed on the success of the Central Asia and 
Afghanistan Virtual Silk Highway (VSH) projects that bring 
internet connectivity to key areas.  On April 23, PDD will 
offer an update on VSH Afghanistan, including expansion into 
Afghan provinces.  PDD will also present again a proposal for 
a one-year, 1.34 million Euro contract extension for VSH 
Central Asia service provider "VIZADA" to bridge the gap 
between NATO-supported satellite internet access and a 
planned EU project to provide fiber optic-based internet 
access (ref D).  The U.S. strongly supports this, not only to 
ensure continued access for Central Asia, but also because 
the VIZADA project currently offers increased bandwidth to 
Afghanistan necessary to support institutional access in 
Kabul and expansion to the provinces.  In late 2008, Italy 
blocked the approval of the VIZADA extension if cuts to the 
SPS budget were approved, and pending local funding 
commitments in Central Asia.  The reduced 2009 SPS budget was 
subsequently approved by all Allies, and 150,000 Euros was 
pledged by beneficiary countries, however Italy continues to 
block this project. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Action request: The Science Representative should 
voice strong support for the extension of this project, 
noting that it directly supports NATO's priority mission in 
Afghanistan.  If necessary, the Science Representative should 
expressly note that the NATO Political Committee in May 2008 
passed under the silence procedure a document outlining 
cooperation activities with Afghanistan under the Afghanistan 
Cooperation Program (ref E)  which includes a specific 
reference to extending "VSH connectivity in Kabul... and in 
other locations outside Kabul to support access to 
information and contribute to successful implementation of 
(the Afghan Cooperation Program) including R&D 
Capacity-Building." 
 
¶12. (U) Award Recommendations: In December 2008, the U.S. 
followed instructions and broke silence on a document 
requesting approval of "Award Recommendations for the SPS 
Committee Advisory Panel" (ref F).  USNATO asked for a review 
of SPS priorities to "ensure that future projects reflect 
NATO's overarching goals" and noting that until "Allies agree 
 
USNATO 00000148  003 OF 003 
 
 
on clear priorities for the Science program, we cannot 
support projects that we believe fall outside NATO's main 
goals."  The U.S. declined support to two projects, "Flood 
monitoring and forecasting in a Ukrainian river basin" and 
"Desertification observatory for environmental and 
socio-economic sustainability" (ref G and H).  PDD informed 
USNATO on 14 April that the Assistant Secretary General 
expects to raise this on 23 April under "Any Other Business." 
 
 
¶13. (U) PDD provided further information on only one of the 
two projects, the Ukraine Pripyat River project, noting its 
importance to NATO-Ukraine relations and preparing Ukraine 
for membership, and its "national priority for Ukraine-NATO 
SPS cooperation" (ref I).  PDD has also noted that this 
project has received explicit support from Ukraine, Belarus, 
Slovakia and Norway.  The U.S. Mission to NATO remains 
skeptical about the direct link between this project and 
NATO's main goals to ensure Alliance security, and the 
ability to guarantee future funding for this project proposal 
estimated to cost 250,000-300,000 Euro over the next 
three-five years. 
 
¶14. (U) Action request: The interagency group should review 
Pripyat River documents and determine if the project 
addresses our goals for Science within a NATO context.  If 
not, then no further support should be offered.  If 
determined that it does address U.S. goals, USNATO will 
contact PDD directly to request this be brought before the 
full Committee on April 23 for a decision, with the 
suggestion that if support is offered to this project the 
full funding for the three-five year project be allocated 
from the 2009 budget, perhaps from the one million 
"additional" funds approved by the NAC.  This approach 
ensures full Committee approval, full project funding, and 
provides PDD the opportunity to showcase a program, its 
benefits to NATO, and its importance in terms of public 
diplomacy.  (While we still have not received further 
information on the second held project, USNATO recommends 
requesting PDD present this project also to the Committee.) 
 
¶15. (U) NATO-Russia Council SPS Committee Meeting: On April 
24, the NRC(SPS) Committee will meet to discuss the Stand-Off 
Explosives Detection Program, and present and future SPS 
activities with Russia in Defense Against Terrorism.  PDD and 
Russia are still developing the 2010-2013 NRC(SPS) action 
plan, however cooperation in 2009 will be discussed at the 
April 24 meeting.  NATO halted cooperation with Russia 
following Russia's August 2008 invasion of Georgia.  In 
December, NATO Foreign Ministers agreed to a "measured and 
phased" reengagement with Russia which has been further 
defined to include only areas in which NATO and Russia share 
common objectives. 
 
¶16. (U) Action request: The interagency group should define 
priority areas for scientific cooperation with Russia that 
address U.S. priorities as well as NATO's main goals.  The 
U.S. should raise this with NATO Allies in the SPS Committee 
in preparation for the NRC(SPS). 
ANDRUSYSZYN