Viewing cable 08TALLINN272
Title: BALTICS: GETTING THE MOST OUR OF FOREIGN POLICY COOPERATION

IdentifierCreatedReleasedClassificationOrigin
08TALLINN2722008-08-01 13:24:00 2011-08-30 01:44:00 CONFIDENTIAL Embassy Tallinn
VZCZCXRO1333
RR RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHTL #0272 2141324
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 011324Z AUG 08
FM AMEMBASSY TALLINN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0743
INFO RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
C O N F I D E N T I A L TALLINN 000272 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EUR/NB, EUR/ERA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/16/2018 
TAGS: PREL EUN EN LG LH
SUBJECT: BALTICS:  GETTING THE MOST OUR OF FOREIGN POLICY COOPERATION 
WITH THE EU 
 
Classified by: CDA KAREN DECKER for reasons 1.4 (b) & (d) 
 
REF: BRUSSELS 943 
 
¶1. (U) This is a joint message from Embassies Riga, Tallinn and 
Vilnius. 
 
¶2. (C) Embassies Riga, Vilnius and Tallinn want to express our 
appreciation and support for the proposals in reftel geared toward 
engaging our missions in EU capitals more actively and improving our 
foreign policy coordination with the EU. 
 
¶3. (C) In particular we would like to highlight our strong support 
for several of the practical proposals made by USEU: 
 
-- WEEKLY PRESIDENCY DISCUSSIONS:  We concur with the idea of looping 
missions into the Presidency discussions.  A weekly or biweekly 
briefing by the EUR PDAS, USEU, and a rep from the Embassy in the 
presidency capital (for DCMs or Pol Chiefs in member capitals) would 
be an effective way to ensure we have the most up to date information 
on key issues.  This would, in turn, better enable us to engage 
directly and substantively with host country MFAs. 
 
-- RETHINKING THE GAERC:  We strongly support the idea of moving away 
from the pre-GAERC demarche process.  We believe, in its current 
format, the GAERC demarche has limited utility.  While we commend 
efforts by EUR/ERA to get information to posts earlier (e.g. via 
Intellipedia), inevitably the information comes too late, as 
decisions about the GAERC agenda are made a week to ten days before 
the GAERC; as a result, MFA responses are often pro-forma.  Also, to 
truly engage on the substance, we need to work with the functional or 
regional experts in the MFA, who are often not in the EU section. 
That requires more time than the current process allows.  Demarches 
focused on post-GAERC readouts as well as planning for the next cycle 
will be more useful to us and our counterparts in MFAs.  Presidency 
calls (above) would still enable us to follow up on issues that arise 
mid-stream. 
 
-- INFORMATION HUBS: We particularly endorse the idea for developing 
information hubs for priority issues.  The Balts are interested in 
and want to engage more on an array of issues on the US-EU agenda. 
However, their staffs are small and generally do not have the issue 
expertise they need.  We are frequently told that these smaller EU 
nations have no "on the ground" reporting in much of Africa, Latin 
America, or East Asia, so they are not in a position to counter the 
policy positions of the larger states that do.  This makes them 
reluctant to speak up in EU fora and more likely to "go with the EU 
consensus."  Issue hubs would make it possible for us to access 
information (beyond talking points) on the issues that resonate in 
each of our countries.  In that vein, as more and more information is 
pushed out by e-mail and other non-front channel sources, we need to 
ensure that posts can access these sources of information.  Sometimes 
our countries have no interest in an issue, but other times we may 
see opportunities for engagement that may not be obvious to others 
and easier it is for to access the latest USG thinking, the more 
effective we can be. 
 
DECKER