US embassy cable - 05PARIS4655

C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS 004655 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPT FOR T AND EUR/WE 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/30/2015 
TAGS: PARM, MNUC, PREL, KNNP, FR 
SUBJECT: PSI: FRENCH MFA RESPONSE TO U/S JOSEPH ON STATUS 
OF THE CORE GROUP 
 
REF: STATE 118547 
 
Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor Josiah Rosenblatt, Reason 1 
.4 B/D 
 
1. (C) We delivered on June 24 the reftel letter from 
Undersecretary Joseph informing MFA Political Director 
Laboulaye of the U.S. wish to dissolve the PSI Core Group by 
June 30 through silence procedure.  On June 30, Laboulaye's 
office conveyed to us his response for U/S Joseph, in which 
Laboulaye agrees that elimination of the Core Group could 
help ensure greater participation in PSI by non core group 
members and dispel any notion that there are different 
classes of contributors.  Laboulaye suggests further 
consultations next week to determine how to make PSI 
coordination more effective and inclusive. 
 
2. (C) Begin Text of letter (in English) dated June 29, 2005 
 
Dear Bob, 
 
I am grateful for your letter and to let me know the results 
of the review of the full range of Proliferation Security 
Initiative (PSI) activities and future priorities by the 
United States Government.  Since these questions imply an 
interagency review in Paris, we will let you know our 
position in the course of next week. 
 
The PSI has enabled us to strengthen international 
cooperation to prevent the proliferation of WMD, their 
delivery systems, and related materials and to stop the flow 
of these items to and from states and non-state actors of 
proliferation concern.  The PSI has proved to be very 
effective initiative to reinforce operational cooperations 
between partners in this field, and to demonstrate our 
commitment to interdict trafficking in weapons of mass 
destruction, their delivery systems, and related materials. 
Our objective should now focus on the strengthening of this 
initiative:  how can we achieve broader support to the PSI 
and how can we achieve greater efficiency?  We have stressed 
since the launching of this initiative that inclusiveness and 
the capacity to take on board countries willing and able to 
contribute would be key factors to its success. 
 
We share your view that some countries have responded 
positively to our demarches to support the PSI, but consider 
that the PSI has two tiers of participation, and two classes 
of participants.  This perception could be a political hurdle 
for some countries which could bring valuable contribution to 
this initiative.  We must find a way to associate these 
countries to the PSI's activities and to do away with this 
perception.  Eliminating the formal core-group could be a way 
to demonstrate to these countries that the PSI is not made up 
of different classes of participants. 
 
However, eliminating the core-group raises two important 
issues:  how best to ensure coordination among the countries 
which play a leading role in counter-proliferation worldwide 
and contribute the most to PSI?  How best to ensure the 
effectiveness and the appropriate participation in the 
Operational Experts Group (OEG) in the new context? 
 
In order to keep the focus on the operational character of 
this initiative, it is essential that countries contributing 
effectively to the activities of the PSI or in a position to 
participate in a concrete way, can foster exchanges of views 
and reinforce operational cooperations.  We should find an 
appropriate way to conciliate inclusiveness and efficiency. 
 
I look forward to hearing you back on this issue. 
 
Sincerely, 
 
/S/ 
 
Stanislas de Laboulaye 
 
End text. 
 
 
STAPLETON