VZCZCXRO3630
OO RUEHDH RUEHSL
DE RUEHBS #0066/01 0210447
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 210447Z JAN 10
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHYY/GENEVA CD COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHII/VIENNA IAEA POSTS COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USSOCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEPVAA/COMJSOC FT BRAGG NC PRIORITY
RUEAHQA/CSAF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUWFAFK/COMNAVSPECWARCOM CORONADO CA PRIORITY
RUEADWD/HQ DEPT OF ARMY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUFGSOC/COMSOCEUR VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEFHLC/DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/HQ USAFRICOM STUTTGART GE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUENAAA/SECNAV WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHHMUNA/CDR USPACOM HONOLULU HI PRIORITY
RHMFISS/USSTRATCOM OFFUTT AFB NE PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000066 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/19/2020 
TAGS: EMIN ENRG ETTC AORC EUN MNNC PARM TBIO KGIC
KNNP, KRAD, XA, XC, XF, G-8 
SUBJECT: EU SUPPORT FOR G-8 GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP AGAINST WMD 
 
Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor Christopher R. Davis for re 
ason 1.4 (b/d) 
 
¶1.  (C) SUMMARY:  During her January 11 meeting with EU 
officials, Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins, Coordinator for Threat 
Reduction Programs, sought EU support for extending and 
expanding the mandate of the G-8 Global Partnership against 
the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction and 
ensuring that the Partnership be adequately resourced into 
the future.  Senior officials from the European Union Council 
Secretariat and the European Commission agreed that the G-8 
Global Partnership's mandate should be extended and that it 
should take on work in new functional and geographic areas. 
The European Commission's Richard Wright was confident that 
EU would continue to provide significant financial support, 
specifying that EU support to the Global Partnership was 
locked in through 2013, when the next multi-year funding 
program would be agreed.  END SUMMARY 
¶2.  (SBU) Ambassador Jenkins was joined in Brussels by 
Canada's Troy Lulashnyk, who will chair the Global 
Partnership Working Group while Canada leads the G-8 in 2010. 
  Lulashnyk noted that the G-8 Global Partnership had been 
largely successful, withtension of the G-8 Global 
Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of 
Mass Destruction.  Details on how long to extend it and how 
much funding the U.S. would devote to it would be taken soon. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The EU's Annalisa Giannella, the High Rep's 
Personal Representative on Non-Proliferation, said that while 
some chemical weapons and plutonium disposition programs were 
funded by the EU Common Foreign and Security Policy budget 
and overseen by the EU Council Secretariat, most work was 
being carried out through European Commission programs.   The 
EU was the major donor to the IAEA's nuclear security fund. 
As for future non-proliferation priorities, she cited the 
Balkans, North Africa, Central Asia, Caucasus, and South East 
Asia as key areas.   Biological security was a priority.  She 
said the EU would like to engage further on scientist 
redirection and export controls.  As for geographic scope, 
Gianella agreed that it was time to expand the Global 
Partnership's geographic scope beyond Russia and the Ukraine. 
 
Shared Priorities 
¶6.  (SBU) The European Commission's Richard Wright affirmed 
that the EU shared U.S. and Canadian priorities.  He cited 
nuclear safety; biological safety; and export controls as 
areas that deserve an enhanced focus.  He touched on the EU's 
 
BRUSSELS 00000066  002 OF 003 
 
 
plan to establish regional CBRN Centers of Excellence in 
South East Asia, the Middle East, and Africa over the next 
three to five years.  He suggested that these Centers could 
be used to support the Global Partnership.   Jenkins and 
Lulashnyk both agreed that the Centers of Excellence might be 
able to play a needed capacity-building role. 
EU Budget Cycle 
¶7. (SBU) Wright was supportive of extending and expanding the 
G-8 Global Partnership mandate. The existing multi-year 
budget had seen 700 million Euros spent to support activities 
linked to the G-8 Global Partnership, with an additional 200 
million Euros to be spent by 2013.  He acknowledged that High 
Representative Catherine Ashton's approach to the issue was 
not yet known, but opined that U.S. and Canadian priorities 
seemed to fit well with the EC approach and its funding 
mechanisms.  He noted, however, that it would be difficult to 
harmonize the Commission's budget cycle with the G-8 Global 
Partnership's mandate.  He was reluctant to predict how much 
the EU would be able to spend after 2013 and doubted that 
there could be any change in what was programmed through 
¶2013. 
¶8. (SBU) Lulashnyk underlined that Canada was focused on the 
same regions.  Jenkins noted that the U.S. has 
non-proliferation programs in over 100 countries.  Numerous 
projects were needed to make a difference given the size of 
the challenge.  Giannella interjected that there was no need 
to convince the EU of the importance of this effort.  The 
question would be how much money the EU would be able to 
devote to the issue, which relied upon a political decision 
on EU priorities.  Wright added that EU external action 
programs were pre-coordinated with all 27 EU member states in 
management committees.  Given the scarcity of resources, it 
was critical to plan in synergy, she said, but putting money 
in trust funds and creating new structures often only 
complicated matters.  We should enhance coordination and 
cooperation, as was done on CWC, without centralizing all 
cooperation. 
¶9. (SBU) Lulashnyk agreed that flexibility was important but 
noted that for small countries, it was often easier to 
contribute money to a central pool.  He noted that the IAEA 
nuclear security fund allowed them to contribute to action in 
situations when bilateral action was impossible for them.  He 
acknowledged that multilateral funds often failed to be 
responsive and effective, as demonstrated by the Chernobyl 
Containment project. 
  Russia's Role 
¶10. (SBU) Turning to Russia, Richard Wright asked how Russia 
could move from being the G-8 Global Partnership's major 
beneficiary to playing a role as a contributor.  Russia could 
do more on scientist engagement, addressing trans-regional 
threats such as smuggling without duplicating the work now 
being done by the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear 
Terrorism.  On the issue of scientist engagement, Wright 
expressed interest in the future of the International Science 
and Technology Center (ISTC), raising the possibility of 
shifting its focus in some way, while still keeping a 
non-proliferation element to its work, which is a requirement 
for EU funding; all parties agreed to continue discussing 
this issue.  Lulashnyk agreed that Russia had been the major 
beneficiary of programs on chemical weapons, submarines and 
nuclear security and now had a new list of priorities, such 
as dealing with waste and fuel for their navy.   Before the 
crisis, Russia had expressed interest in playing a role as a 
donor and has put between 7-8 Billion dollars in to the G-8 
Global Partnership.  Jenkins added that Russia had continued 
to express the desire to move from recipient to partner. 
Summit Goals and Prospects 
¶11.  (C)  Lulashnyk said that Canada's Summit goals for the 
G-8 Global Partnership were likely to center on extending the 
Partnership, expanding the Partnership's activities into new 
regions and functions and securing future funding.   There 
 
BRUSSELS 00000066  003 OF 003 
 
 
had been expressions of support for extension from London, 
Paris, Berlin, Rome and Tokyo, he said.  Giannella commented 
that Russia seemed to be "reluctant" about geographic 
expansion.  Lulashnyk explained the perception of Russian 
opposition might stem from Moscow's feeling that it had been 
assured funding from France and Italy that had not 
materialized.   In Canada-Russia bilateral meetings, however, 
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov had not opposed expansion of 
the partnership, as long as Russia continued to benefit from 
the partnership's future activity.  Jenkins said that the 
U.S. had gotten a similar message from Russia: expansion was 
acceptable as long as existing commitments were met, 
including the chemical issue. 
¶12. (U) This cable was cleared by Ambassador Bonnie Jenkins, 
Coordinator for Threat Reduction Programs. 
KENNARD 
.