Commentaires

1. Le dimanche 28 novembre 2010, 18:47 par

La position de Morin et Robert Gates sur l'OTAN et la DAM (Défense anti-missile) :

----------------------
NATO Strategic Concept
----------------------

¶2. (S/NF) Morin welcomed SecDef to France and asked about U.S positions
regarding the revised NATO Strategic Concept. Morin noted France's
interest in a document that would inject new ideas, be adopted with
great momentum, and define NATO's roles and missions. It should not
just be a restatement of the conventional wisdom.

¶3. (S/NF) SecDef told Morin he favored a short document that was
perhaps three to five pages in length. The Strategic Concept should
move NATO from a traditional defensive alliance to a security alliance
that can address a wide range of global threats. SecDef said that the
Strategic Concept must better align resources with NATO's level of
ambition; it must lay out a comprehensive approach to civil-military
cooperation and enhance partnerships with the EU, UN and other
international organizations. SecDef concluded that, above all,
financial and broader structural reform must be pursued -- either as
part of the Strategic Concept or in parallel.

¶4. (S/NF) Morin agreed on length and the need for NATO to take on new
missions, but he wondered what types of missions members had in mind.
Cyber attacks? Terrorism? Proliferation? Missile Defense? Morin
also stated his belief that NATO needed to bring some clarity to its
area of operation so that NATO did not end up extending to the Pacific.
He added that, in his view, extending the Alliance to Georgia would
weaken Article 5. SecDef stated his preference for NATO to focus its
efforts in the Euro-Atlantic area, perhaps extending into the
Mediterranean. He concurred with Morin that a bigger Alliance posed
challenges.

¶5. (S//NF) Morin told SecDef that the UK MoD had proposed drafting a
joint French-UK proposal on NATO reform to then present to the U.S.
Noting that the objective was to overcome blockages from those
countries that had underwhelming General Staffs, Morin asked whether
SecDef thought it would be better for Europe to build consensus at home
and work its own ideas, or for Europe and the United States to develop
joint proposals. SecDef replied that he thought it best not to have
two proposals, but that he would consult with SecState. He also said
he hoped that the Senior Officials Group would come up with some
concrete and viable ideas for reform.

---------------
Missile Defense
---------------

¶6. (S/NF) Morin, having expressed strong reservations to new U.S. and
NATO missile defense (MD) plans at the NATO ministerial in Istanbul
(reftel), said he wanted to explain how France sees MD and raise some
questions. First, he believes that the shift from Theater Missile
Defense (TMD) to defense of populations and territory will give publics
a false sense of security, since the sword was ultimately stronger than
the shield. For France, security came from strong defense and
deterrence. Second, Morin asked what threat the system aims to
counter. Nuclear states or rogue states? Third, Morin asked about
funding and how European countries would participate in command and
control (C2) decisions. Morin summarized his own personal opposition
to MD by asserting that the U.S. and Europe have differing mentalities
on defense spending. He said the U.S. has true resiliency with

PARIS 00000170 002.2 OF 004


"infinite" means, while in Europe defense spending has collapsed in
every country but the UK and France. As a result, any development
needing common funding will dilute the already weak European defenses.
Morin concluded by stating that it was folly to assume that MD would
give us added security.

¶7. (S/NF) SecDef refuted Morin's arguments, pointing out that MD
contributes to deterrence. SecDef explained to Morin that the system
was aimed at nations with a handful of nuclear weapons and a limited
but growing missile capability to launch them. Noting Iran fits that
profile, SecDef said that MD provides a good deterrent against limited
attacks.

¶8. (S/NF) SecDef agreed with MoD Morin that the U.S. owed NATO answers
on C2, costs, and the role of common funding. He pledged to provide
more details on these issues, as well as on how ALTBMD and the U.S.
Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) fit together. However, SecDef said it
was important to move ahead with the MD study that was endorsed at the
2009 NATO summit, since it would provide some of the answers France was
seeking. SecDef reminded Morin that POTUS will want to obtain a
decision affirming the Alliance role in MD at the Lisbon summit in late
¶2010.

¶9. (S/NF) Responding to SecDef's discussion of MD, Morin asked why
there was a need to shift from theater to population defense. SecDef
said the systems the U.S. was deploying have broader applications. For
example the THAAD system, which the U.S. had deployed to Hawaii as a
measure against North Korean threat, protects both the theater and the
population. Gates offered the Aegis ship-borne SM-3, which was used to
shoot down a defunct satellite, as a second example of a system that
could also have broader applications and deter Iran from holding us
hostage by threatening missile launches.

¶10. (S/NF) Recalling that Russian Prime Minister Putin once told him
Iran was Russia's greatest threat, SecDef noted that Russia could plug
into the new system. SecDef highlighted two Russian objections to the
former system: first, the radar in the Czech Republic would have been
so powerful that it could see into Russia; second, Russia believed that
the three-stage Ground-Based Interceptor could have been converted
easily to an offensive weapon. The SM-3 missiles in the new approach
can only be defensive in nature, however. For these reasons, the U.S.
believed partnering with Russia is once again potentially possible.
(NOTE: Following the meetings, Morin's critical comments on Missile
Defense were disavowed by senior officials at the MoD and the MFA, who
said that his views were his own and that the U.S. should essentially
"erase" what he had just said. END NOTE.)

Dévoilé par Wikileaks sur
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/cabl...

La discussion continue ailleurs