

Currently released so far... 12689 / 251,287
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/24
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/10
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/08
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
2011/05/13
2011/05/14
2011/05/15
2011/05/16
2011/05/17
2011/05/18
2011/05/19
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
Consulate Dubai
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Kolkata
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Melbourne
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Peshawar
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
USUN New York
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
UNVIE
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AF
ASEC
AR
AEMR
AMGT
AE
AU
AID
AORC
APER
AS
AM
AFIN
AMED
AJ
AGR
ACOA
ANET
ASIG
ABLD
AL
AA
APECO
AGAO
AY
AGMT
APEC
AINF
AG
ACS
AECL
AFFAIRS
ABUD
ASUP
ADANA
AADP
AMCHAMS
ARF
ASEAN
ADPM
ATRN
ALOW
APCS
ADCO
ACAO
AORG
AROC
AO
AODE
ACABQ
AX
AMEX
AFGHANISTAN
AZ
AND
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
ACBAQ
AFSI
AFSN
AC
AUC
ASEX
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
ASCH
AFU
AMG
ATPDEA
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AORL
ADM
AN
AIT
BU
BR
BL
BO
BA
BB
BG
BM
BBSR
BH
BEXP
BK
BD
BTIO
BT
BE
BY
BF
BX
BP
BRUSSELS
BILAT
BIDEN
BC
BMGT
BWC
BN
BTIU
CH
CG
CF
CU
CE
CVIS
CASC
CO
CS
CA
CIDA
CBW
CW
CMGT
CI
CODEL
CY
CPAS
CJAN
CD
CWC
CDG
CIA
CL
CROS
CAPC
CTR
CT
CR
CBSA
CEUDA
COM
CFED
CV
CACS
CARSON
CLINTON
CN
CONS
CM
CAC
CIC
COPUOS
CDC
CONDOLEEZZA
CICTE
COUNTER
COUNTRY
CBE
CKGR
CHR
CVR
COUNTERTERRORISM
CITEL
CLEARANCE
COE
CARICOM
CB
CSW
CITT
CACM
CDB
CJUS
CTM
CAN
CLMT
CBC
CNARC
CIS
EG
EZ
EUN
ECON
ETRD
ECPS
EFIN
ENRG
ETTC
EPET
EINV
EAID
EAIR
EWWT
EU
EAGR
EC
ELAB
EIND
EN
EMIN
ESENV
ENNP
EFIS
ELTN
ET
ECIN
EFTA
ES
EINT
EI
ENGR
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENVI
ETRDECONWTOCS
ECINECONCS
ELN
ELECTIONS
ENVR
EXTERNAL
EXIM
ETRO
ENIV
ESA
ER
EK
EUR
EFINECONCS
EUMEM
EUREM
EPA
ERNG
ENERG
ECA
ETRC
EINVEFIN
ETC
EAP
ECONOMY
EINN
ECONOMIC
EXBS
ECUN
ENGY
ECONOMICS
EIAR
EINDETRD
ECONEFIN
EURN
EDU
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ECIP
EFIM
EAIDS
EREL
EINVETC
ECONCS
ETRA
EAIG
EUC
ERD
ETRN
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EEPET
EUNCH
IS
IZ
IR
IC
IO
IN
ID
IGAD
IT
ILC
IAEA
ITU
ICAO
IMO
IBRD
IMF
ICJ
IAHRC
ITF
INRA
INRO
IWC
IQ
IV
ICRC
ICTY
INRB
IEFIN
ILO
ITRA
ITALY
IBET
ISRAELI
IL
INTELSAT
IRC
IDP
ICTR
IRAQI
IPR
IIP
INMARSAT
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
INTERNAL
IRS
IA
INTERPOL
IEA
INR
IZPREL
IRAJ
IF
ITPHUM
ISRAEL
IACI
INDO
IDA
ISLAMISTS
KSPR
KNNP
KWBG
KAWK
KISL
KPAO
KN
KS
KIPR
KCRM
KDEM
KIRF
KJUS
KHLS
KSCA
KOMC
KAWC
KV
KFRD
KWMN
KTIP
KPWR
KSUM
KGHG
KTIA
KTFN
KIRC
KCOR
KACT
KMDR
KGIC
KOLY
KUNR
KIDE
KMPI
KPKO
KCFE
KVPR
KRAD
KPAL
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KTEX
KTDB
KFSC
KZ
KSEP
KFLU
KE
KU
KPLS
KRVC
KRIM
KSTH
KG
KFLO
KPOA
KICC
KDDG
KPRV
KTBT
KBCT
KSAF
KMOC
KDRG
KBIO
KREC
KSTC
KVRP
KBTR
KMIG
KENV
KNSD
KCGC
KWAC
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KWMM
KPRP
KNEI
KPAI
KO
KVIR
KX
KMCA
KCRS
KMFO
KID
KCIP
KNAR
KR
KCRCM
KBTS
KSEO
KHDP
KFIN
KOCI
KGIT
KNUP
KPAONZ
KNUC
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KSCI
KTLA
KHIV
KCSY
KTRD
KMRS
KNPP
KJUST
KCMR
KTER
KRCM
KCFC
KSAC
KCHG
KREL
KFTFN
KCOM
KLIG
KDEMAF
KAID
KGCC
KICA
KHUM
KSEC
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KWWMN
KOM
KWNM
KRFD
KRGY
KIFR
KWMNCS
KPAK
KOMS
KHSA
MPOS
MOPS
MARR
MTCR
MNUC
MASS
MX
MCAP
MAR
MTRE
MASC
MK
MG
MTCRE
MI
MD
MA
MO
MY
MU
ML
MRCRE
MAS
MEDIA
MC
MR
MIL
MW
MARAD
MAPP
MZ
MP
MOPPS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MEPN
MEPI
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MT
MCC
MIK
MAPS
MV
MILITARY
MDC
MEPP
MASSMNUC
MUCN
MQADHAFI
NATO
NG
NL
NZ
NT
NW
NO
NU
NS
NPT
NASA
NI
NK
NSG
NE
NORAD
NAFTA
NP
NATIONAL
NSSP
NSF
NA
NGO
NV
NR
NDP
NIPP
NZUS
NH
NC
NEW
NRR
NAR
NATOPREL
NPG
NSC
NPA
NSFO
OPDC
OPRC
OEXC
OTRA
ODIP
OIIP
OVIP
OPIC
OPCW
OAS
OREP
OSCE
OSCI
OES
OFDP
OECD
OCS
OIC
OPAD
OVP
OHUM
OFFICIALS
OIE
OTR
OMIG
OSAC
OBSP
OFDA
ON
OCII
PREL
PGOV
PARM
PINR
PTER
PHUM
PK
PREF
PM
PHSA
PA
PINS
PE
PBTS
PCI
PO
PL
POGOV
PAK
PEL
PGIV
PROP
PP
PBIO
POL
POLITICS
POLICY
PINL
PBT
PMIL
POV
PTBS
PG
POSTS
PALESTINIAN
PROV
PNAT
PINF
PRL
PAS
PDOV
PRAM
PREO
PAHO
PHUMPGOV
PAO
PREFA
PSI
POLITICAL
PAIGH
PARMS
PROG
PTERE
PRGOV
PORG
PS
PGOF
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PNG
PFOR
PUNE
PGOVLO
PHUMBA
PSEPC
PNR
POLINT
PGOVE
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PDEM
PECON
PGOC
PY
PLN
PHUH
PF
PHUS
PU
PARTIES
PCUL
PGGV
PSA
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PHUMPREL
RS
RU
RW
REACTION
RCMP
RSO
RO
RP
ROOD
RM
ROBERT
RICE
REGION
RSP
RF
RIGHTS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
RUPREL
RELATIONS
RFE
REPORT
SY
SP
SOCI
SMIG
SNAR
SCUL
SC
SU
SO
SI
SENV
SZ
SW
SA
SR
SF
SEVN
SN
STEINBERG
SEN
SG
SYR
SWE
SK
SH
SNARCS
SAARC
SNARIZ
SPCE
SARS
SNARN
SCRS
SYRIA
SL
SENVKGHG
SAN
ST
SIPDIS
SSA
SPCVIS
SOFA
SANC
SHI
SHUM
SIPRS
TSPA
TSPL
TU
TBIO
TRGY
TPHY
TS
TP
TW
TBID
TI
TF
TZ
TD
TT
TN
TNGD
TC
TX
TH
TL
TIP
THPY
TV
TK
TERRORISM
TO
TRSY
TURKEY
TINT
TFIN
TAGS
TR
US
UNSC
UNGA
UK
UP
UNCHC
UN
UNMIK
UNCSD
UY
USTR
USOAS
UNHRC
UNFCYP
UG
UNAUS
UNESCO
UNIDROIT
UNO
UV
UNHCR
USUN
UZ
USNC
UNCHR
UNCND
UNEP
USEU
USPS
USAID
UE
UNVIE
UAE
UNDP
UNODC
UNCHS
UNFICYP
UNDESCO
UNC
UNPUOS
UNDC
UNICEF
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 09USNATO555, RFG: ISAF DECISION MAKING - INVOLVING NON-NATO
If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs
Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
- The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
- The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
- The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #09USNATO555.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
09USNATO555 | 2009-11-27 18:11 | 2011-04-28 00:00 | CONFIDENTIAL | Mission USNATO |
VZCZCXRO1774
OO RUEHDBU RUEHPW RUEHSL
DE RUEHNO #0555/01 3311811
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 271811Z NOV 09
FM USMISSION USNATO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3669
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUCNAFG/AFGHANISTAN COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA PRIORITY 0731
RUEHBUL/AMEMBASSY KABUL PRIORITY 1306
RUEHUL/AMEMBASSY SEOUL PRIORITY 0723
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE PRIORITY 0512
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 1042
RUEHUM/AMEMBASSY ULAANBAATAR PRIORITY 0042
RUEHWL/AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON PRIORITY 0134
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/USNMR SHAPE BE PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 USNATO 000555
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/27/2019
TAGS: PREL MOPS MARR MCAP NATO AS NZ AF
SUBJECT: RFG: ISAF DECISION MAKING - INVOLVING NON-NATO
CONTRIBUTING NATIONS
Classified By: Ambassador Ivo Daalder. Reasons: 1.4 (b) and (d).
¶1. (SBU) This is a request for guidance. See para 4.
¶2. (SBU) Several non-NATO troop contributing nations to the
NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in
Afghanistan, particularly Australia and New Zealand, have
pressed for a larger role in the ISAF-related decision
process at NATO HQ in Brussels. They have received support
from a number of Allies, including the UK. In response to
these requests, NATO Secretary General Rasmussen distributed
to Allies on November 23 a non-paper proposing a number of
pragmatic steps for strengthening in the short-term our
dialogue and consultation on Afghanistan with non-NATO ISAF
contributors (see para X below). He intends to have an
informal PermRep discussion of the non-paper on Tuesday,
December 1.
¶3. (C/REL NATO) Recommendations: We strongly support finding
ways to further involve non-NATO troops contributing nations
(NNTCNs), while also recognizing that there will be limits to
how far we can go. With this in mind, we recommend the
following response to the Secretary General's proposals:
-- For the foreseeable future, Afghanistan will remain NATO's
top operational priority and should be discussed at NATO
ministerials and Summits;
-- If Afghanistan is going to be discussed at a ministerial
or summit, then the standard operating procedure should be to
do this in an ISAF-format meeting, with both Allies and
non-NATO troop contributors;
-- Moreover, any document that is going to be put out in the
name of ISAF contributors, not NATO, should be negotiated
from the beginning with non-NATO troop contributors. Summit
and Ministerial statements are good examples of when this
might apply;
-- We recognize that there may be times, however, when
negotiating "at 45" may be too ponderous and that numbers
might need to be reduced. In those cases, we would recommend
that Allies negotiate with a representative sample of
non-NATO troop contributors. This could be accomplished by
meeting in a format where each Regional Command is
represented by a non-NATO troop contributing nation. We
could, therefore, meet "at 33" (28 Allies, plus 5 NNTCNs
representing the Regional Commands), rather than at 45. The
NNTCN representation within each Regional Command would
rotate.
-- We oppose the proposal in the non-paper of a Troika. This
was proposed by the UK and seems to be intended to ensure the
long-term involvement of Australia and New Zealand, but would
run the serious risk of creating divisions by appearing to
set a "two-tier standard" for involvement of non-NATO troops
contributors. In a November 27 meeting with Ambassador
Daalder, the Australian and New Zealand Ambassadors
acknowledged this and said that they were planning to tell
the UK they opposed the proposal. (Note: They also indicated
that they were extremely happy with the paper overall.)
-- We must continue to maintain the distinction between
non-NATO troops contributors and other partners, such as
Russia, who do not contribute troops.
¶4. (C) RFG: Unless otherwise directed, Ambassador Daalder
intends to draw from the recommendations in para three above
during the December 1 PermRep discussion.
¶5. (SBU) The text of the SecGen's non-paper (which was
e-mailed to EUR/RPM) is reproduced below:
USNATO 00000555 002 OF 003
BEGIN TEXT
ISAF Decision Making -- Involving the Non-NATO Contributing
Nations
¶1. At Bratislava, several Defence Ministers of non-NATO ISAF
contributing nations intervened strongly on the issue of
consultation and involvement in the development of policy
documents. While actions have been taken in recent months to
strengthen their involvement, a number of these nations
remain dissatisfied with current arrangements. This non-paper
sets out pragmatic and quick to implement proposals for
improved dialogue and consultation with regard only to the
ISAF operation. In the longer term we might wish to consider
whether the Political-Military Framework for NATO-Led
Partnership for Peace Operations needs to be revised.
¶2. Council Meetings. One of the most vocal complaints of
non-NATO ISAF partners is a lack of early involvement in
issues of interest, associated with a compressed timescale
for them to consider issues in capitals. While an increasing
number of ISAF issues are discussed in ISAF format, we could
do more. Our default position should be that key ISAF
decisions are from the outset discussed formally in ISAF
format. This will require the scheduling of additional
meetings in this format (Council, Policy Coordination Group,
Military Committee, Working Groups, etc.), but it provides an
opportunity which should be well received by non-NATO ISAF
partners, and which can be implemented immediately. We will
also need to consider the handling of such issues in an
informal setting. Frequently, key issues are discussed in a
luncheon (or similar) format before placing them on the
agenda for regular Council meetings. The consequence of this
is that ideas can become crystallized before they are
discussed in a formal setting, and non-NATO ISAF partners can
be left with the impression that they are being presented
with a fait accompli. We should therefore also consider
holding informal Council discussions in ISAF format when key
issues justify this. On the other hand, we should not exclude
that some issues related to our engagement in Afghanistan
would be sensitive to the Alliance's interests as such and
that Allies therefore would need to discuss such issues at
¶28. This may particularly be the case as the group of
non-NATO ISAF contributing nations continues to widen, both
geographically and politically.
¶3. Ministerial Meetings and Summits. It is increasingly the
case that high-level meetings of the Council are scheduled in
ISAF format. This should be the norm, at least while the
tempo of the mission remains at current levels. However, we
need to consider also the involvement of other stakeholders
in these meetings. The presence of EU, UN and Afghan
authorities is important, but there is a risk that discussion
will be inhibited in the presence of these players. We should
consider scheduling Ministerial meetings where attendance is
limited only to Allies and non-NATO ISAF partners. This in
itself would be a strong signal to our partners. We would
need, however, to schedule a further session in an expanded
format when the inclusion of other stakeholders was
considered necessary.
¶4. Development of Policy Documents. Once again, committee
procedures have already been adapted to be more inclusive.
However, while non-NATO ISAF partners are kept well informed
throughout this process, they are not invited to contribute
formally until an issue is agreed 'at 28'. It is seldom the
case that comments subsequently provided by non-NATO ISAF
contributors require us to re-open an issue, but this could
be partly due to a reluctance on the behalf of our partners
to delay the process. We should therefore consider inviting
input from non-NATO ISAF contributors throughout the
development process while Allies' deliberations are going on.
USNATO 00000555 003 OF 003
This would strengthen the principles of transparency and
inclusion of the Political-Military Framework, and it would
reflect the importance of non-NATO involvement in the ISAF
mission. And it could be a pragmatic start from which we will
gain experience for a potential subsequent revision of the
Political-Military Framework.
¶5. Improved Information Sharing. There will inevitably be
issues that come up at 28, either by circumstance, or by
necessity. We should institute a system of prompt ex post
facto briefings to inform non-NATO contributing nations when
this occurs, probably delivered by the Assistant Secretary
General for Operations. We might also elevate the current
regular informal working level meetings that the Assistant
Secretary General for Operations currently holds with
non-NATO contributors to Ambassadorial level from time to
time.
¶6. A Non-NATO 'Troika'. It has been suggested that a smaller
group of non-NATO nations might be formed as a conduit for
information flow regarding Afghanistan. This concept might
see a single representative nation, supported by two others
on a rotational basis. Arguably, this would be less
cumbersome, and logistically easier than holding meetings 'at
43'. A variation on this idea might be to have each of the
Regional Commands represented by a single non-NATO
Contributing Nation. But there are dangers here. Could such a
group be truly representative of 'the 15', and would it be
seen as divisive? By definition, some nations would receive
key information before others, and this is likely to generate
a 'them and us' split within the group of partners.
¶7. In summary, we have improved our consultation with
non-NATO ISAF partners considerably over the recent years;
but it is clear that a number of these nations feel strongly
that we could do more. The steps outlined above are
consistent with our aspiration for full transparency and
involvement, and would be seen as a pragmatic approach which
addresses concerns raised at Bratislava and elsewhere. In
addition, they are quick deliverables. There are potential
implications for the wider Political Military Framework, but
they will have to be addressed at a later stage.
END TEXT
DAALDER