US embassy cable - 05OTTAWA286

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 OTTAWA 000286 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/26/2009 
TAGS: MCAP, PREL, PGOV, CA, KCRS, START, FAC 
SUBJECT: S/CRS AMBASSADOR PASCUAL,S OTTAWA CONSULTATIONS: 
SEEKING COLLABORATION AND SYNERGY 
 
Classified By: Pol Mincouns Brian Flora, reasons 1.4 (b) (d) 
 
 
1.    (C) Summary: In consultations January 20 with 
colleagues from Foreign Affairs Canada, Defense, and the 
Prime Minister,s Office, Coordinator for Reconstruction and 
Stabilization (S/CRS) Ambassador Carlos Pascual broke new 
ground in sharing ideas and seeking synergy for shared 
efforts to improve the capacity to respond in post conflict 
stabilization and reconstruction (S&R) missions.  Our 
Canadian hosts were extremely interested in the USG,s new 
Coordinator,s office and appear anxious to emulate the model 
as much as possible, although with the caveat that for Canada 
it would fit firmly in a multilateral framework.  Canada,s 
proposed equivalent organization, the Stabilization and 
Reconstruction Task Force (START), will be written into the 
International Policy Statement and if it survives the 
upcoming policy review and receives funding, START will be a 
reality by the fall. 
 
2.  (C) Key follow-up items from the visit include: (1) 
ongoing information exchanges on the design of our respective 
efforts to strengthen internal coordination on S&R; (2) 
continuing consultations on our approach to the peacebuilding 
aspects of the UN High Level Report on reform (Canada could 
be a key ally in moving this forward); (3) an exchange of 
lessons learned from previous S&R missions; and (4) joint 
planning/exercises between post-conflict civil-military 
planners on areas where we share an interest and may need to 
act.  End Summary 
 
BETTER, SMARTER, FASTER 
----------------------- 
 
3. (SBU) S/CRS Ambassador Carlos Pascual met with a wide 
variety of Canadian foreign ministry, defense, and 
development officials January 20 to exchange views on 
improving our national and collective capacity to participate 
in reconstruction and stabilization missions in post-conflict 
environments.  The GOC has expressed considerable interest in 
how our Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and 
Stabilization is organized and many in the foreign affairs 
and defense bureaucracies recommend that Canada adopt a 
similar approach.  Ambassador Pascual met with Assistant 
Deputy Minister for Global and Security Policy Jim Wright, 
had lunch with officers from the MFA, DND, and the PMO, 
offered a speech to a large gathering of public and private 
sector individuals involved in peacebuilding, and met with 
former ISAF head MG Andrew Leslie and Director of Foreign 
Affairs Canada Policy Planning Rob McRae.  The consultations 
were extremely useful for both sides. 
 
4. (C) Assistant Deputy Minister Wright began by expressing a 
theme that was common throughout the day -- that Canada 
shares the U.S. view that post-conflict reconstruction and 
stabilization is too important to leave to chance and that we 
need to be able to do it better, smarter, and faster.  He 
said that Canada feels it is continually relearning the same 
lessons, and after Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, Afghanistan, and 
the tsunami, should by now have an off-the-shelf capacity 
both for decisionmaking and for the actual management of 
post-conflict operations.  Wright said that the GOC is moving 
in the same direction as the U.S., and hopes that the current 
International Policy Review will include policy guidance and 
funding for a Stabilization and Reconstruction Task Force 
(START).  The START would provide a longer-term option for 
Canada,s efforts to participate in post-conflict R&S, and 
allow for earlier intervention in key areas such as judicial 
and police reform.  Canada, a recognized leader in such areas 
as civilian police deployment and election monitoring, 
suffers not so much from lack of expertise and capacity, as 
from a simple lack of coordination, he said.  Wright also 
noted that the government was considering establishing a 
&global peace and security fund8 to provide resources for 
the acute needs of countries in transition from war to peace. 
 This fund would be managed by Wright, but decisions on 
allocations would be made by an inter-agency team, he said. 
 
5. (C) Wright was keenly interested in how our military 
colleagues have accepted the new concept and how far we 
intend to go to form integrated civil-military teams.  He was 
also interested in how we intend to integrate USAID into 
planning.  He expressed some frustration with his colleagues 
in CIDA, which he said tends to focus on conventional issues 
of development and would often not get involved in 
post-conflict cases, or if it does, focuses on traditional 
issues and not on the kinds of things, e.g. drug production 
in Afghanistan, which are essential to long-term recovery. 
Ambassador Pascual underscored that in order to knit together 
the efforts of multiple USG agencies in S&R environments, 
S/CRS had been created as an inter-agency team.  S/CRS staff 
includes representation from State, AID, DoD, Treasury, Army 
Corps of Engineers, and CIA with Justice representation in 
the works.  Enhancing coordination between USG actors in 
post-conflict settings is central part of the S/CRS mandate, 
Pascual said. 
 
6. (SBU) Wright expressed special interest in continuing 
collaboration on joint training exercises, increasing 
interoperability, and the sharing of lessons learned. 
Pascual agreed to follow up in these areas. 
 
SEEKING A MULTILATERAL APPROACH 
------------------------------- 
 
7. (C) In a lunch hosted by Director General for Global 
Issues Marie Gervais-Vidricaire and Director General for 
International Security Paul Chapin, our Canadian colleagues 
added a very strong pitch for us to consider how our new 
capacity could be useful as leaven for a multilateral loaf, 
and how it would fit in a multilateral framework.  Wendy 
Gilmore, Deputy Director for Regional Security and 
Peacekeeping, asked that we consider cases where U.S. 
resources could be used to jump-start an international effort 
and how our infrastructure, always first in, could help 
anchor other early responders.  Ambassador Pascual pointed 
out that shortfalls in international capacity to respond in a 
timely and effective fashion should be remedied by building 
the capacity and empowering relevant international players, 
rather than by relying on the U.S. to provide the logistical 
tail for all participants. 
 
8. (C) Gilmore returned again to the issue of international 
collaboration by asking how we saw the issue of donor 
coordination and a division of labor.  She recalled that in 
Afghanistan and Haiti there was a donor mechanism that failed 
to provide for a clear funding stream and wondered if we had 
thought through how this could be improved.  It was clear 
from this discussion that while the GOC would like to develop 
an independent capacity to respond, it does so with a clear 
intention of docking that capacity in a multilateral 
framework.  Pascual noted that in the majority of R&S 
situations, the U.S. anticipates working with international 
partners.  Strengthening our cooperation with international 
partners in preventing and responding to conflict is a key 
U.S. goal.  S/CRS will focus on engaging with those partners 
)- who will likely be different in each case -) to ensure 
the most effective international response. 
 
9. (U) In the afternoon Ambassador Pascual participated in 
Ottawa,s annual peacebuilding conference, which brought 
together some 200 government officials and NGO leaders who 
are active in the field.  He laid out the principles and 
vision of S/CRS as a new hub of interagency coordination on 
civilian aspects of R&S and the fulcrum of civilian-military 
coordination in this area.  Other panelists called repeatedly 
for governments to adopt an interagency &task force8 
approach -) along the lines of S/CRS -- to better coordinate 
the efforts of national governments.  Members of the audience 
engaged in a very positive discussion about the future of the 
effort.  It was a very valuable opportunity to engage the 
entirety of the peacekeeping community and was clear from the 
scope of the discussion that there is broad support for 
Canada,s development of a standardized post-conflict 
response capacity. 
 
CANADA TO ADOPT A MODULAR, SEQUENCED APPROACH 
--------------------------------------------- 
 
10.  (C) At the end of the day Ambassador Pascual met with 
Rob McRae, head of FAC Policy Planning and a key author of 
the International Policy Review (IPR), and Major General 
Andrew Leslie, former head of ISAF and currently another key 
voice in the IPR.  McRae began by sketching the evolution of 
Canada,s thinking in the area of post-crisis response. 
Central to Canada,s current policy development was its 
experience in the Balkans, where the need for an integrated 
humanitarian, military, and governance team was clear, but 
was tempered by a fear that too robust a capability could 
lead to mission creep.  This fear of overextension was put to 
rest by the end of Kosovo, McRae said, and Macedonia saw 
Canada using a 3D (diplomacy, defense, development) approach 
to prevent a crisis. 
 
11. (C) Since the Balkans, the experience in Afghanistan has 
added to the debate and confirmed the need for a standing 
&task force8 that integrates all the key elements and moves 
quickly to respond.  It would be modular, with plug and play 
components depending on the mission, and would have docking 
mechanisms for outside elements and to connect it to 
international organizations and other players.  It would take 
a modular approach to planning which could be adapted to a 
range of contingencies, and would be extremely sensitive to 
sequencing, as experience has shown that the introduction of 
different elements must be properly timed to ensure success. 
The new approach would include more robust capabilities, and 
the policy planners hope to write into the new policy review 
statement the requirement for a standing capability with 
funding for training and deployment.  It would also clean up 
the lines of authority and ensure a clear chain of command. 
 
12. (C) McRae said it still remains to be seen how much of 
this concept will survive the policy review process in the 
coming months.  He also said there remain a number of 
questions for the future.  What will be the linkages to civil 
society, both in Canada and in the target country?  How far 
can Canada go to achieve full 3D (diplomacy, defense, 
development) coordination and how will the different elements 
be integrated?  He envied how far we have gone in this 
regard.  How far can Canada go to transform the 3Ds and how 
much individual transformation will be needed in order to be 
effective?  McRae believes that just corralling the current 
3D organizations will not be adequate and that independent 
transformation will be necessary.  Finally, given that Canada 
does not have the wherewithal to be involved in all aspects 
of complex R&S missions, what is the unique Canadian 
contribution to post conflict stabilization?  Further, since 
Canada would almost never be able to undertake R&S missions 
alone, how can the GOC best help create a global consensus 
for doing it better? 
 
13. (C) MG Leslie offered two comments based on his 
experience on the ground in the Balkans and Afghanistan. 
First, is the criticality of any civilian coordinating office 
having a robust liaison system whereby it is closely linked 
through LNOs to the military commands and other key 
organizations.  Second, since the U.S. will always be ahead 
of others on this concept, and since the U.S. will be the de 
facto leader of any operation it participates in, S/CRS 
should be prepared to take a role of international leadership 
and should be robustly resourced to account for this. 
 
FOLLOW-UP 
--------- 
 
14. (C) In final discussions with DCM, Ambassador Pascual 
noted that S/CRS would look forward to working with the 
Embassy on follow-up with the GOC in the following areas: 
 
-- First, we should continue our consultations on the design 
of our respective post-conflict stabilization offices.  The 
Canadians have acknowledged an intense interest in how we are 
doing this, down to the details of inter-agency coordination, 
systems for accessing the right personnel, and office 
structure.  We may also learn something from their approach. 
 
-- Second, Ambassador Pascual shared with his Canadian 
colleagues a draft paper on Post-Conflict Peacebuilding 
Reforms that follows up on the UN High Level Panel Report. 
We should continue to consult with the Canadians on this and 
hope to find a natural ally in Canada. 
 
-- Third, we should continue a dialogue on lessons learned. 
Canada,s vast experience in post-conflict stabilization and 
peacekeeping could help us with the development of concepts 
and procedures, and an exchange of views among practitioners 
would be helpful to both sides. 
 
-- Fourth, we should include Canada in our efforts to review 
specific countries and issues where we share concerns and 
expertise (the Great Lakes for example) and consider 
conducting joint exercises or joint planning.  S/CRS will 
look for opportunities to include Canada in roundtable and 
gaming exercises of such contingencies to elicit Canadian 
perspectives and to assist in U.S. thinking on international 
coordination in such scenarios. 
 
Visit Canada's Classified Web Site at 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/wha/ottawa 
 
DICKSON