

Currently released so far... 12453 / 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
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 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
ASEC
AORC
AMGT
APER
AU
AF
AS
ACBAQ
AFGHANISTAN
AFIN
AR
AE
AJ
ADANA
AEMR
AG
ATRN
ADPM
APECO
AGAO
AMED
AX
AM
AL
ADCO
AA
AECL
AADP
ABUD
AMEX
ACAO
ANET
AODE
ASCH
AY
APEC
AID
AORG
ASEAN
AFSI
AFSN
AINF
AGR
AROC
AO
AMBASSADOR
AFFAIRS
ASIG
ABLD
ASUP
AND
ARM
ARF
AQ
ATFN
AC
ACOA
AORL
ADM
AUC
AGMT
ACABQ
ASEX
AFU
ALOW
AZ
APCS
AVERY
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AER
AN
AIT
AMG
AGRICULTURE
AMCHAMS
ACS
BR
BA
BD
BL
BO
BF
BU
BILAT
BEXP
BRUSSELS
BK
BN
BM
BT
BY
BX
BTIO
BIDEN
BG
BE
BP
BBSR
BC
BTIU
BWC
BB
BH
BMGT
CH
CY
CA
CU
CS
CO
CVIS
CPAS
CMGT
CE
COUNTER
CASC
COUNTRY
CJAN
COUNTERTERRORISM
CG
CI
CD
CIDA
CJUS
CDG
CBSA
CEUDA
CR
CM
CLMT
CAC
CBW
CODEL
COPUOS
CWC
CIC
CW
CBE
CHR
CFED
CT
CONS
CIA
CTM
CDC
CVR
CF
CLINTON
CITEL
CLEARANCE
COE
CN
CACS
CAN
CONDOLEEZZA
CB
CSW
CITT
CARSON
CNARC
CACM
CDB
CARICOM
COM
CROS
CAPC
CTR
CV
CKGR
CBC
CL
CICTE
CIS
ECON
EFIN
ELAB
ETRD
EIND
EC
EINV
EAGR
ENRG
ETTC
EAID
EPET
ELTN
EWWT
EAIR
EFIS
EMIN
EG
EU
ER
EUN
EPA
ENVI
EXTERNAL
ECPS
ENGR
ETRC
ECIN
EN
EI
ELN
ET
EINT
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ES
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
EZ
ETRO
EDU
ETRN
EFTA
EAIG
EK
EUREM
EURN
ECONCS
ECONOMICS
ENVR
ELECTIONS
EAP
ENIV
ECONOMY
ESA
EINN
ECONOMIC
EIAR
EXBS
ECA
ECUN
EINDETRD
EUR
EREL
EUC
ESENV
ECONEFIN
ECIP
ENERG
ENNP
EFINECONCS
EFIM
ENGY
EAIDS
EINVEFIN
EINVETC
EUMEM
ETRA
ETC
ERNG
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUNCH
ECINECONCS
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EXIM
ERD
EEPET
IR
IS
IZ
IAEA
IO
IAHRC
ID
IC
IT
IRAQI
IWC
IN
IL
ISLAMISTS
IV
ICAO
INDO
ITPHUM
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
IPR
ICRC
INTERPOL
IQ
IBET
IMO
INR
ITRA
INTERNAL
ICJ
ICTY
IRS
ILO
INRA
INRO
ISRAELI
IEA
INRB
ITALY
ITU
IBRD
IIP
ILC
INTELSAT
IZPREL
IMF
INMARSAT
IRAJ
IDA
ICTR
IA
IGAD
IF
IDP
ITF
ISRAEL
IEFIN
IRC
IACI
KN
KCRM
KOMC
KNNPMNUC
KIPR
KPAL
KWBG
KSCA
KFRD
KNNP
KUNR
KTIP
KWMN
KSTC
KFLU
KOLY
KISL
KPAO
KMDR
KJUS
KSTH
KDEM
KCOR
KIRF
KAWC
KU
KTFN
KWAC
KNPP
KERG
KSEO
KACT
KHLS
KZ
KGHG
KTIA
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCRCM
KE
KPKO
KCIP
KDRG
KVPR
KV
KIDE
KICC
KPRP
KBIO
KSUM
KGIT
KCFE
KG
KBTS
KFLO
KMPI
KS
KGIC
KPAI
KHSA
KTLA
KSEP
KTEX
KFSC
KOCI
KHDP
KPLS
KTDB
KHIV
KCSY
KSAC
KTRD
KID
KMRS
KOM
KSAF
KRVC
KR
KMOC
KNAR
KIRC
KBCT
KSPR
KFIN
KBTR
KJUST
KNEI
KAWK
KGCC
KMCA
KREL
KMFO
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFTFN
KVRP
KCOM
KO
KLIG
KAID
KVIR
KNSD
KHUM
KSEC
KRAD
KPRV
KCMR
KPWR
KCHG
KIFR
KCFC
KICA
KPIN
KSCI
KESS
KDEV
KTBT
KCRS
KCGC
KOMS
KRIM
KTER
KREC
KPOA
KWWMN
KRGY
KPAK
KWNM
KMIG
KDDG
KRFD
KWMM
KWMNCS
KX
KRCM
KPAONZ
KNUC
KDEMAF
KNUP
MARR
MOPS
MASS
MCAP
MTCRE
MNUC
MIL
MX
MEDIA
MO
MPOS
MU
ML
MA
MP
MY
MERCOSUR
MG
MD
MW
MK
MAS
MEETINGS
MR
MT
MI
MOPPS
MASC
MTS
MLS
MILI
MAR
MTRE
MEPN
MAPP
MTCR
MEPI
MQADHAFI
MAPS
MARAD
MASSMNUC
MEPP
MCC
MZ
MILITARY
MDC
MRCRE
MC
MV
MIK
MUCN
NATO
NL
NZ
NPT
NI
NAFTA
NU
NDP
NIPP
NP
NPA
NG
NRR
NO
NSC
NEW
NE
NH
NR
NA
NS
NSF
NZUS
NATIONAL
NSG
NC
NT
NAR
NK
NGO
NV
NSFO
NSSP
NASA
NW
NPG
NORAD
NATOPREL
OTRA
OAS
OPRC
OIIP
OVIP
OREP
OPDC
OEXC
OSCE
OFFICIALS
OMIG
ODIP
OFDP
OECD
OPIC
OBSP
OPCW
OFDA
OTR
OSAC
OSCI
ON
OCII
OES
OVP
OIC
OPAD
OIE
OHUM
OCS
PREL
PGOV
PK
PHUM
PINS
PARM
PA
PTER
PINR
PREF
PHSA
PBTS
PBIO
PO
POL
PE
PARMS
PM
PROG
PL
PAK
POLITICS
PORG
PTBS
PNAT
PUNE
POLICY
PDOV
PCI
PROP
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PBT
PP
PS
PAO
PG
PY
PTERE
PGOF
PALESTINIAN
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PPA
PINT
PMAR
PRELP
PSEPC
PREFA
PGOVE
PINF
PHUMPGOV
PNG
PMIL
PGOC
PFOR
PCUL
PLN
PSA
PGIV
POLINT
PAS
POGOV
PHUMPREL
PHUMBA
PEL
PGGV
PNR
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PGOVLO
PRAM
PHUS
PDEM
PECON
PF
POV
PROV
PRL
PREO
PAHO
PHUH
PSI
PINL
PU
PRGOV
PAIGH
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POSTS
RS
RU
REACTION
REPORT
REGION
RIGHTS
RO
RW
RCMP
RF
RM
RFE
RSP
RP
RICE
ROBERT
ROOD
RELATIONS
RIGHTSPOLMIL
RUPREL
RSO
SU
SNAR
SO
SOCI
SW
SENV
SMIG
SCUL
SP
SZ
SENVKGHG
SR
SY
SA
SYRIA
SF
SI
SC
SWE
SARS
STEINBERG
SN
SG
SIPRS
ST
SEVN
SL
SPCE
SNARIZ
SSA
SNARCS
SYR
SK
SPCVIS
SHUM
SIPDIS
SHI
SH
SOFA
SEN
SNARN
SAARC
SAN
SANC
SCRS
TRGY
TBIO
TU
TF
TERRORISM
TI
TSPL
TPHY
TH
TIP
TSPA
TC
TO
TW
TX
TZ
TNGD
TT
TL
TV
TFIN
TS
TRSY
TINT
TN
TURKEY
TBID
TD
TK
TR
THPY
TP
TAGS
UNGA
UN
UK
US
UNC
UNSC
USUN
UG
UP
UY
USEU
UNESCO
USPS
USTR
UZ
UNHRC
UNO
UNMIK
UNAUS
UNHCR
UNCHR
USAID
UNVIE
UAE
USOAS
UNFICYP
UV
UNEP
UNODC
UNCHS
UNIDROIT
UNDESCO
UNDC
UNCHC
UNDP
UNCND
USNC
UNPUOS
UNICEF
UNCSD
UE
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 06REYKJAVIK150, 4/26-27 DEFENSE TALKS: ICELAND LOOKS FOR
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. #06REYKJAVIK150.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
06REYKJAVIK150 | 2006-04-27 19:07 | 2011-01-13 05:05 | CONFIDENTIAL | Embassy Reykjavik |
VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB
DE RUEHRK #0150/01 1171943
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 271943Z APR 06
FM AMEMBASSY REYKJAVIK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2724
INFO RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO IMMEDIATE 0241
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0213
RUEAHLC/HOMELAND SECURITY CENTER WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC IMMEDIATE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC IMMEDIATE
C O N F I D E N T I A L REYKJAVIK 000150
SIPDIS
SIPDIS
OSLO FOR DATT
E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/26/2016
TAGS: PREL MARR MASS NATO IC
SUBJECT: 4/26-27 DEFENSE TALKS: ICELAND LOOKS FOR
POLITICAL HELP
REF: A. (A) REYKJAVIK 107
¶B. (B) REYKJAVIK 140
Classified By: AMBASSADOR CAROL VAN VOORST, REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D).
¶1. (C) Summary: EUCOM briefed Iceland Chief Defense
Negotiator Albert Jonsson 4/26 on the Draft Concept Plan (the
Conplan) for the Defense of Iceland. Jonsson responded 4/27
that the Conplan was fundamentally acceptable as a plan but
did not go far enough toward meeting Iceland's political
needs. He set out a list of references Reykjavik proposes to
include in a U.S.-Icelandic agreement that could be used by
the GOI to underpin their assurance to Icelanders that the
U.S. commitment continues even without a base. This
agreement would include references that Jonsson believes are
necessary to help the government make the case to the public
that the U.S. commitment to defend Iceland remains credible.
While the U.S. studies the Icelandic defense proposals,
working-level talks will continue on transition issues in
preparation for 9/06 closure of Naval Air Station Keflavik
(NASKEF). End summary.
-----------------------------------
Conplan 4287-06 and its Discontents
-----------------------------------
¶2. (C) In its briefing to the Icelanders April 26, the U.S.
European Command team led by RADM Richard Gallagher stressed
that the EUCOM plan is not fully developed, that we welcome
Icelandic comment, and explained the approval system as the
plan moves up to SecDef. At several points in the discussion
the U.S. side urged the Icelanders to take advantage of the
intelligence sharing and other proposals that we offered in
the March meeting (ref A).
¶3. (C) Ambassador Albert Jonsson, the Icelandic delegation
head, commented on the Conplan in a follow-up session April
¶27. He said that his side was disappointed with the plan as
measured against Icelandic expectations of a U.S. commitment
to a "robust" and "visible" replacement for the four F-15
fighters. While noting that the Conplan "has an internal
logic and is consistent," Jonsson said the defense plan as it
now stands is insufficient politically to reassure the
Icelandic public, parliament, and ministers that Iceland is
adequately defended.
¶4. (C) He proposed that the defense plan be supplemented with
a "conclusion" signed at the SecDef level and issued in
conjunction with the completion of the plan. The conclusion
would contain references to:
1) 1951 Defense Agreement.
2) Conplan 4287-06.
3) The resources and capabilities that stand behind the
Conplan. Wording would not need to be specific as to what
units might be deployed to Iceland but should cite the range
of capabilities that the U.S. has available and where they
are sourced.
4) How the U.S. would provide for Iceland's air defense.
This would not need to specify what units might be deployed
if the U.S. were to continue operation of the radar stations.
5) What personnel and facilities would be maintained at
Keflavik to assist forces redeploying to Iceland.
6) Visible manifestations of the bilateral defense
relationship, whether exercises or deployments or other ways
of 'showing the flag.'
7) The option for Iceland to call on U.S. forces to defend
against terrorist threats and attacks. In this regard
Jonsson noted that the 1951 Defense Agreement is not specific
in saying that it applies only to state threats (as the
Conplan does); and cited NATO's Article 5 invocation after
September 11 as evidence that military forces can properly
respond to terrorist attacks.
8) What is envisaged with respect to law
enforcement/non-military security cooperation. (Note:
Ministry of Justice Deputy Permanent Secretary Stefan
Eiriksson added that Reykjavik wishes to prioritize
intelligence cooperation as described by the U.S. side in
March and hopes to enhance cooperation between the U.S. and
Icelandic Coast Guards. He announced that the National
Commissioner of Police and the Icelandic Coast Guard would
contact the Embassy in early May to initiate collaboration in
these areas as well as on training and non-proliferation
activities. End note.)
¶5. (C) As to the Conplan itself, Jonsson asked for some
specific changes and raised some questions:
-- pp. 1 and 2: Refer to "1951 Defense Agreement" or
"bilateral 1951 Defense Agreement" rather than "Defense of
Iceland."
-- p. 9: Delete "US mission will not include enforcing
peacetime air sovereignty."
-- p. 10: To "GOI will continue to provide access to its
territory," add "in accordance with the 1951 Defense
Agreement."
-- p. 10: Why is "GOI will maintain Keflavik as an operating
international airport" not a redundant assumption if the GOI
is providing access to its territory? (Jonsson said we could
leave this assumption in if we believed it did in fact add
something.)
-- p. 21: Could the U.S. and Iceland undertake to defend
Iceland bilaterally without NATO having to invoke collective
defense? (Reassured that it could, Jonsson accepted the text
as drafted.)
---------
Follow-up
---------
¶6. (C) Jonsson stated that the GOI would like to come to the
next bilateral meeting with a draft text for this
"conclusory" document. He hoped this meeting could take
place very soon; Ambassador van Voorst said the U.S. would
take this Icelandic proposal under consideration. In the
meantime, both sides agreed, the governments should continue
cooperation on the technical and practical aspects of
disposing of NASKEF assets and ensuring smooth functioning of
Keflavik International Airport after September 30, 2006.
Jonsson reiterated five areas of Icelandic concern in this
regard:
1) U.S. military footprint: What will remain after 9/30?
2) What is the timetable for transition?
3) In the event that few or no military forces remain, how
will the U.S. maintain and monitor its installations in the
Agreed Areas?
4) How will the U.S. carry out its host nation duties for
NATO?
5) How does the U.S. wish to dispose of the special
communications installation at Grindavik?
The U.S. side assured the GOI that we are working on these
issues and will answer the Icelandic questions as soon as
possible.
¶7. (C) Comment: Jonsson and his government want our help in
reassuring the Icelandic public as concretely and believably
as possible that the U.S. commitment to defend Iceland
remains intact despite the pullout of the planes. Iceland's
success in negotiating two agreed minutes with us during the
1990's is probably at the bottom of this new proposal for
greater definition in our military and security relationship.
We may at some later point choose to seriously consider this
option -- but before reaching for this device, we should
explore all options of helping the GOI get the political
cover it needs without the cost of the time, effort, and
legal complexities of a signed understanding. End comment.
van Voorst