VZCZCXRO6135
PP RUEHIK
DE RUEHBS #1571/01 3271649
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 231649Z NOV 09
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY
INFO RUCNAFG/AFGHANISTAN COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 001571 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL EAID KDEM EUN AF
SUBJECT: AFGHANISTAN CONTINUES TO DOMINATE EU MINISTERIAL 
AND WORKING LEVEL DISCUSSIONS 
 
REF: BRUSSELS 1480 
 
BRUSSELS 00001571  001.2 OF 003 
 
 
¶1. (SBU)  Summary:  EU Foreign Ministers devoted considerable 
time and attention to Afghanistan at their monthly GAERC 
meeting November 16 and 17 (SEPTEL), with discussions on the 
issue at their informal meeting November 16 with EU Defense 
Ministers, their dinner November 16 with NATO Secretary 
General Fogh Rasmussen, and their meeting with Development 
Ministers November 17 at which UN Special Representative to 
Afghanistan Kai Eide spoke.  The Afghanistan conversation 
dominated the opening dinner on November 16, forcing 
postponement of a planned discussion on the EU-Russia Summit 
to the next day.  Kai Eide also delivered public remarks 
November 16 to the Development Committee of the European 
Parliament (EP), urging re-thinking of how European countries 
deliver development assistance.  Reflecting this heightened 
attention, discussions among EU working-level contacts are 
focusing on improving the EU's civilian efforts in 
Afghanistan.  On Pakistan, Council Secretariat and Commission 
contacts admit this remains an area where the European Union 
could do more.  Despite the importance of these 
Brussels-focused EU-wide discussions, decisions about 
concrete increases in non-military and military assistance to 
Afghanistan will be made mainly in member state capitals. 
End Summary. 
 
GAERC Discussions Focus on NATO-EU Cooperation and 
Development Assistance 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  Afghanistan issues figured prominently in the 
November 16-17 "Jumbo GAERC," which brings EU Foreign 
Ministers together for meetings with their Defense and 
Development counterparts, and brought outside speakers to 
address both civilian and military concerns.  NATO Secretary 
General Rasmussen spoke at the Ministers' November 16 dinner 
meeting.  A member of the Swedish representation to NATO told 
USNATO that Rasmussen focused on four themes:   the need to 
work on an ISAF-EUPOL arrangement (making pointed comments 
about the Greece/Turkey nexus in the follow-up press 
statement); the importance e, urging 
reference t rather than an "exit 
@used on 
increasing the EUPOL numbers, holdin' an extraordinary 
meeting of Interior Ministries in Brussels November 10 to 
encourage furthe participation in the mission.  Reportedly,Q 
the EU now has approximately 310 trainers for Qn original 
mandate of 400.  The Swedes again asked the gathered Foreign 
Ministers to increasQ their countries' contribution to EUPOL. 
 Wit respect to the EU police mission in AfghaniQtan, FM 
Bildt told the press, "We have appealed to the member states 
to increase their contributions.  We are making progress." 
Bildt said the situation in Afghanistan required "strategic 
patience." 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  UN Special Representative to Afghanistan, Kai 
Eide, spoke to the joint meeting of EU Foreign and 
Development ministers about civilian efforts at what has been 
described to us as a "very intense" November 17 meeting. 
Echoing his previous day's speech to the European Parliament, 
Eide emphasized the importance of reducing government 
corruption in Afghanistan.  He argued the need for increasing 
the civilian role and improving civilian-military 
coordination.  He spoke bluntly about the weakness of the 
United Nations in Kabul, and said there are essentially two 
options:  further decrease the role of the UN or 
significantly increase it (his preferred option).  Either 
way, he argued, there is a need for an 
internationally-recognized senior civilian representative who 
will be able to partner with General McChrystal.  "NATO alone 
is not enough," he said, arguing there must be a strong 
civilian apparatus in order to  mobilize the Muslim world and 
other international donors.  Eide argued that PRTs are not 
the proper vehicle for aid.  He called for coordination among 
donors and said international donors should change their 
 
BRUSSELS 00001571  002.2 OF 003 
 
 
focus and spend more money on activities that can generate 
revenue for the Afghans themselves, instead of infrastructure 
projects that he argued bring little economic activity.  Eide 
encouraged the EU to consult with the Afghans about new aid 
projects, and reportedly said the U.S. did not talk to the 
Europeans, but also did not consult the Afghans about their 
priorities.  Eide also announced that he was working on the 
civilian equivalent of the McChrystal strategy paper and 
would consult European countries and the EU about it. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  Eide's comments to the GAERC resonated with the 
ongoing discussions among EU senior and working level 
representatives in Brussels about increasing the civilian 
role in Afghanistan.  According to Council Secretariat 
contacts, there is growing discussion about what is seen as 
NATO/ISAF mission creep into civilian fields, but also 
recognition that there currently is not a civilian voice 
strong enough to successfully lobby for the civilian role on 
the ground, given the UN's weak position.  The EU Action plan 
announced at the October GAERC (REFTEL) was meant to be a 
first step in improving civilian coordination, but despite 
significant pressure from the EU foreign ministers to quickly 
implement the "dual-hatting" of the European Commission and 
Special Representative Office in Kabul, it has been difficult 
for the Council and Commission to draw up a workable plan for 
the new operations.  As an European Commission contact noted, 
even if the missions were combined today, the same people 
would be working there in the short term and it would be 
August at the earliest before a new staff recruited to work 
under the combined mission could be in place.  Many see this 
difficulty in coordinating even the European Union's own 
approach as increasing the importance of quickly finding a 
workable civilian representative. 
 
Conference Must be Afghan-led 
 
¶6. (SBU)  Despite UK Prime Minister Brown's public offer to 
host an international conference on Afghanistan in London, 
many member states still prefer a Kabul-based conference to 
foster more Afghan buy-in to the process.  If Kabul is ruled 
out for security reasons, Eide opined in his Brussels 
statements, the Afghan government needed first to set out its 
program to its own people.  A later conference in Europe 
could set the stage for the next five years of cooperation, 
but it would be a mistake to do it too soon, without 
preparation.  Specifically citing the March 2009 conference 
at The Hague, Eide noted that unprepared commitments usually 
went unimplemented.  A Council Secretariat contact noted to 
us that no European countries were likely to challenge Brown 
over London for the location of the conference, but stated 
the European press has largely picked up Brown's comments 
that the conference would possibly discuss military 
withdrawal and thought this conference would be the wrong 
place for such a discussion. 
 
Pakistan - Falling Off the Agenda? 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  While discussions on Afghanistan have intensified 
in the EU, Pakistan rarely creeps into the conversation.  A 
Council Secretariat staff member recently said Pakistan has 
fallen off the agenda since the AfPak Action Plan was 
announced.  He opined that the Spanish push to announce a 
summit with Pakistan actually hurt engagement levels with 
Pakistan, and that Pakistan has not been keeping currently 
scheduled EU meetings (except for trade-related discussions). 
 Professional staff from the Commission and Council 
Secretariat say they do not think the Summit (likely to occur 
late in the Spanish Presidency, i.e., in late spring or early 
summer 2010) will have any concrete deliverables.  Contacts 
say the United Kingdom is the only advocate for keeping 
Pakistan high on the agenda of EU discussions.  Council 
Secretariat and Commission contacts separately voiced concern 
that the Friends of Democratic Pakistan process is stagnant, 
with regional actors and Pakistan absent from the scene. 
Additionally, they note the U.S. has taken a strong lead on 
the energy and electricity fields, leaving other countries 
unsure about where else to invest funding, with many still 
waiting for the Trust Fund. 
 
Comment 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  The European Union at a political level is clearly 
committed to a civilian solution in Afghanistan, but is 
having difficulty coordinating its own efforts, let alone a 
broader international civilian focus.  Brussels would welcome 
a civilian plan that lays out a senior civilian 
representative with the proper international standing.  The 
European Commission is currently preparing an implementation 
program for its Action Plan, which is due out by the December 
GAERC meeting.  It will list the priority areas for EU 
 
BRUSSELS 00001571  003.2 OF 003 
 
 
assistance as defined in the Action Plan, including targeted 
amounts of funding.  The member states will be asked to fill 
in their contributions.  Despite the Commission plan, the 
bulk of funding and thus the success of the effort remains 
with member states, who individually must decide how much to 
increase both military and non-military contributions.  While 
the Commission will be increasing its assistance for both 
Afghanistan and Pakistan, such increases are modest in 
comparison to the overall need.  Rasmussen, Eide, and others 
in Brussels have clearly emphasized that in addition to 
soldiers, funding, civilians, and non-military assistance 
will all be needed in the coming months.  The European Union 
has the ability to increase its support, but this must be 
encouraged in capitals if we are to see a true increased 
commitment. 
 
 
 
MURRAY 
 
.