

Currently released so far... 12404 / 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 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
AE
AF
AM
AR
AJ
AU
AORC
AG
AEMR
AMGT
APER
AGMT
AL
AFIN
AO
AMED
ADCO
AS
ABUD
ABLD
ASUP
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
APECO
AID
AND
AMBASSADOR
AN
ARM
AY
AODE
AMG
ASCH
AMCHAMS
ARF
APCS
APEC
ASEAN
AGAO
ANET
ADPM
ACOA
ACABQ
AORL
AFFAIRS
ATRN
ACS
AFSI
AFSN
ADANA
ASIG
AA
AX
AUC
AC
AECL
AADP
AGRICULTURE
AMEX
ACAO
ACBAQ
AQ
AORG
ADM
AINF
AIT
ASEX
AGR
AROC
ATFN
AFGHANISTAN
AFU
AER
ALOW
AZ
AVERY
BA
BY
BU
BR
BE
BL
BO
BK
BM
BILAT
BH
BEXP
BF
BTIO
BC
BBSR
BMGT
BTIU
BG
BWC
BB
BD
BX
BP
BRUSSELS
BN
BIDEN
BT
CW
CH
CF
CD
CV
CVIS
CM
CE
CA
CJAN
CLINTON
CIA
CU
CASC
CI
CO
CACM
CDB
CN
CMGT
CS
CG
CBW
CIS
CR
CONDOLEEZZA
CPAS
CAN
CWC
CY
COUNTER
CDG
CL
CT
CIC
CIDA
CSW
CHR
CB
CODEL
COUNTERTERRORISM
CTR
COM
CICTE
CFED
CJUS
CKGR
CBSA
CEUDA
CARSON
CONS
CITEL
CLMT
CROS
CITT
CAC
CVR
CDC
CAPC
COPUOS
CBC
CBE
CARICOM
COE
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CACS
CTM
CNARC
ECON
EFIN
ETRD
EUN
EFIS
EG
ETTC
EZ
EPET
EAID
EAGR
ENRG
ECUN
EU
ELAB
ECPS
EAIR
EINV
ELTN
EWWT
EIND
EMIN
EI
ECIN
ENVR
ELECTIONS
EINVEFIN
EN
ES
ER
EC
EUC
EINT
EINVETC
ENGR
ET
EK
ENIV
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ECONOMY
EAP
EFTA
EUR
EUMEM
EXIM
ERD
ENERG
EUREM
ESA
ERNG
EXTERNAL
EPA
EINVECONSENVCSJA
ECONOMICS
ELN
EINN
EFINECONCS
ENNP
EEPET
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ENVI
ETRO
ESENV
ECINECONCS
ECONOMIC
EAIDS
EDU
ETRA
ETRN
EFIM
EIAR
ETRC
EAIG
EXBS
EURN
ECIP
EREL
ECA
ENGY
ECONCS
ECONEFIN
ETC
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUNCH
EINDETRD
IR
IZ
IS
IAEA
INRB
IRAJ
IQ
IN
IT
IMO
INTERPOL
ICAO
IO
IC
ITALY
ITALIAN
IRAQI
ICTY
ID
IPR
IWC
ILC
INTELSAT
IL
IBRD
IMF
IA
IRC
ICRC
ILO
ITU
ITRA
IV
IDA
IAHRC
ICJ
ISRAELI
IRS
INMARSAT
ISRAEL
ISLAMISTS
INDO
IZPREL
ITPHUM
ITPGOV
ITF
IBET
IEFIN
INR
IACI
INTERNAL
IDP
IGAD
IEA
ICTR
IIP
INRA
INRO
IF
KJUS
KSCA
KNNP
KU
KCOR
KCRM
KDEM
KTFN
KHLS
KPAL
KWBG
KACT
KGHG
KPAO
KTIA
KIRF
KWMN
KS
KG
KZ
KN
KMDR
KISL
KSPR
KHIV
KPRP
KAWK
KR
KUNR
KDRG
KCIP
KGCC
KTIP
KSUM
KPKO
KVIR
KAWC
KPIN
KGIC
KRAD
KIPR
KOLY
KCFE
KMCA
KE
KV
KICC
KNPP
KBCT
KSEP
KFRD
KFLU
KVPR
KOCI
KBIO
KSTH
KMPI
KCRS
KOMC
KTBT
KPLS
KIRC
KREL
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFLO
KBTS
KSTC
KTDB
KFSC
KX
KFTFN
KNEI
KIDE
KREC
KMRS
KICA
KPAONZ
KCGC
KSAF
KRGY
KCMR
KRVC
KVRP
KSEO
KCOM
KAID
KTEX
KNUC
KNAR
KNUP
KNNPMNUC
KLIG
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KCRCM
KHDP
KGIT
KNSD
KOMS
KWMM
KPAI
KHSA
KTLA
KO
KMFO
KRCM
KCSY
KSAC
KTRD
KPWR
KID
KWNM
KRIM
KPOA
KCHG
KOM
KSCI
KFIN
KMOC
KESS
KWAC
KMIG
KSEC
KIFR
KDEMAF
KPRV
KBTR
KERG
KTER
KDDG
KPAK
KRFD
KHUM
KDEV
KCFC
KWWMN
KWMNCS
KJUST
MARR
MOPS
MU
MTCRE
MNUC
MY
MASS
MCAP
MOPPS
MAR
MPOS
MO
ML
MR
MASC
MX
MD
MP
MA
MTRE
MIL
MCC
MZ
MK
MDC
MRCRE
MAPS
MV
MI
MEPN
MAPP
MEETINGS
MAS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MTCR
MG
MC
MARAD
MIK
MILITARY
MEDIA
MEPI
MUCN
MEPP
MT
MERCOSUR
MW
MASSMNUC
MQADHAFI
NZ
NATO
NG
NI
NO
NATIONAL
NU
NPT
NIPP
NL
NPG
NS
NA
NGO
NP
NSG
NDP
NAFTA
NR
NC
NH
NE
NSF
NPA
NK
NSSP
NRR
NATOPREL
NSC
NT
NW
NORAD
NEW
NV
NSFO
NAR
NASA
NZUS
OTRA
OVIP
OPRC
OPDC
OSCE
OAS
ODIP
OIIP
OFDP
OVP
OREP
OFFICIALS
OSAC
OEXC
OPCW
OIE
OIC
OFDA
OSCI
OPIC
OBSP
OECD
ON
OCII
OHUM
OES
OCS
OMIG
OPAD
OTR
PGOV
PREL
PHUM
PINR
PTER
PSOE
PINS
PARM
PK
PBTS
PEPR
PM
POLITICAL
PARTIES
PREF
PBIO
PROP
PA
PSI
PINT
PO
PKFK
PL
PAK
PE
POLITICS
PINL
POL
PHSA
PU
PF
POV
PFOR
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PARMS
PRGOV
PNAT
POLINT
PRAM
PMAR
PG
PAO
PROG
PRELP
PPA
PCUL
PSEPC
PSA
PREO
PAHO
PGIV
PREFA
PALESTINIAN
PAIGH
POSTS
PTBS
PGOVLO
PORG
PGOVE
PLN
PINF
PAS
PUNE
POLICY
PDEM
PDOV
PCI
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PBT
PHUMPGOV
PMIL
PNG
PP
PS
PHUH
PECON
POGOV
PY
PHUMPREL
PHUS
PRL
PGOC
PNR
PGGV
PROV
PTERE
PGOF
PHUMBA
PEL
RS
RU
RW
REGION
RP
RICE
ROBERT
RSP
RUPREL
RM
RO
RCMP
RSO
RELATIONS
REACTION
REPORT
RIGHTS
ROOD
RF
RFE
RIGHTSPOLMIL
SP
SA
SY
SF
SYR
SENV
SCUL
SOCI
SNAR
SO
SU
SG
STEINBERG
SHUM
SW
SMIG
SR
SZ
SIPRS
SI
SAARC
SPCE
SARS
SN
SYRIA
SANC
SL
SCRS
SC
SENVKGHG
SAN
SNARCS
SHI
SWE
SNARIZ
SIPDIS
SEN
SNARN
SPCVIS
SEVN
SSA
SH
SOFA
SK
ST
TPHY
TU
TRGY
TI
TX
TS
TW
TC
TFIN
TD
TSPA
TH
TT
TIP
TBIO
TSPL
TZ
TERRORISM
TRSY
TN
THPY
TINT
TF
TL
TV
TK
TO
TP
TURKEY
TNGD
TBID
TAGS
TR
UP
US
UNSC
UK
UZ
UE
UNESCO
UV
UNGA
UN
UNMIK
UNO
UY
UAE
UNEP
UG
UNHCR
UNHRC
USUN
UNAUS
USTR
USNC
USOAS
UNCHR
UNCSD
UNDP
USEU
USPS
UNDC
UNDESCO
UNCHC
UNFICYP
UNC
UNODC
UNPUOS
UNCND
UNICEF
UNCHS
UNVIE
USAID
UNIDROIT
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 07LONDON1062, BTEX FORENSIC EPIDEMIOLOGY WORKSHOP CATALYZES G8 EFFORTS AGAINST BIOTERRORISM
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. #07LONDON1062.
Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|---|
07LONDON1062 | 2007-03-20 11:11 | 2011-04-28 00:12 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | Embassy London |
VZCZCXYZ0002
PP RUEHWEB
DE RUEHLO #1062/01 0791109
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 201109Z MAR 07
FM AMEMBASSY LONDON
TO RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN PRIORITY 2407
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 2214
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA PRIORITY 1004
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS PRIORITY 2833
RUEHRO/AMEMBASSY ROME PRIORITY 3335
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO PRIORITY 1019
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2519
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY
UNCLAS LONDON 001062
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
SIPDIS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PTER TBIO CA FR GM IT JA RS UK EUN
SUBJECT: BTEX FORENSIC EPIDEMIOLOGY WORKSHOP CATALYZES G8 EFFORTS AGAINST BIOTERRORISM
REF: A. STATE 8958
¶B. 06 STATE 112285
¶C. 05 STATE 230244
¶1. (SBU) SUMMARY: The UK and Germany co-hosted, with
U.S. co-sponsorship, the G8 "Forensic Epidemiology
Workshop," in London March 13-15, 2007 (Ref A).
Although the U.S. was the primary source for workshop
design and facilitation, all three nations worked
collaboratively to plan and execute the event. The
highly successful workshop combined principles of
public health, epidemiology, and law enforcement in
investigating suspected bioterrorism -- and brought
together for the first time public health, law
enforcement, and foreign affairs officials from all G8
nations plus the EU/EC. Incorporating innovative
tabletop exercises, the workshop was an important
first step in strengthening communication and
collaboration both across sectors and across borders.
Importantly, the dynamic workshop stimulated the
first-ever public declarations of support from Germany
and other G8 partners for the ongoing work of the G8
Bioterrorism Experts Group (BTEX). Germany also noted
publicly the synergy with extant G8 Counterterrorism
efforts through Roma-Lyon -- a critical step in moving
forward with G8 efforts to combat bioterrorism. END
SUMMARY.
¶2. (U) The UK and Germany co-hosted, with U.S. co-
sponsorship, the G8 "Forensic Epidemiology Workshop,"
in London March 13-15, 2007 (Ref A). Although the
U.S. was the primary source for workshop design and
facilitation, all three nations worked collaboratively
to plan and execute the event. The highly successful
workshop combined principles of public health,
epidemiology, and law enforcement in conducting
concurrent criminal and epidemiological investigations
of suspected bioterrorism threats or incidents -- and
brought together for the first time public health, law
enforcement, and foreign affairs officials from all G8
nations plus the EU/EC. Incorporating U.S.- and UK-
designed tabletop exercises along with plenary
sessions and country presentations on joint law
enforcement-public health investigations, the workshop
was an important first step in strengthening
communication and collaboration both across sectors
and across borders. The Chairs' Summary (para 9)
highlights, in particular, the workshop's formidable
political and policy achievements in catalyzing G8
partners to an enhanced commitment to combating
bioterrorism; a full USG report on the workshop itself
will follow via septel.
--------------------------------------------- -
SEA CHANGE IN G8 VIEWS OF BIOTERRORISM EFFORTS
--------------------------------------------- -
¶3. (SBU) Since initiating at Sea Island in 2004, the
G8 efforts to combat bioterrorism through the G8
Bioterrorism Experts Group (BTEX), the U.S. has
usually been the primary or, at times, only voice
within the G8 pushing for continued work in this
critical area of counterterrorism cooperation.
Various G8 partners have supported the U.S. in this
(most notably Canada, Germany, and Japan), but most G8
partners have typically been more passive partners --
reacting to U.S. initiatives but rarely if ever
proactively engaging in G8 efforts to prepare for or
respond to bioterrorism. But, the Forensic
Epidemiology Workshop in London represents a
pronounced shift in G8 support for BTEX's continued
work. The UK decision in late 2006 to co-host the
workshop was the first step in this shift -- and was a
direct result of FBI and HHS/CDC discussions with
their UK law enforcement and public health
counterparts who, in turn, encouraged their colleagues
at the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) to
take action. Together, the U.S. and the UK approached
Germany about co-hosting the workshop (given the
German G8 Presidency). According to German officials,
Germany came on board somewhat reluctantly and unsure
of the potential value of this work. The months of
preparatory work -- involving collaboration among law
enforcement, public health, and foreign affairs
officials from all three countries -- set the stage
for the dynamic and successful workshop and,
significantly, German and British forceful
declarations of support for BTEX's ongoing efforts,
which also recognized the unique multi-sectoral nature
of BTEX initiatives.
¶4. (SBU) All G8 nations sent robust, thoughtfully
composed delegations for the Workshop. While not
every delegation included all three sectors (law
enforcement, public health, foreign affairs), all
delegations participated actively and extensively in
every aspect of the workshop -- including the three
tabletop exercises focused on the themes of: (1)
intersectoral information sharing, (2) overt
bioterrorism attack, and (3) covert bioterrorism
attack. Notably, for the first time ever, Russia sent
an appropriate delegation from Moscow for a BTEX
event, including two foreign affairs officials from
the MFA's New Threats (counterterrorism) division, and
two public health experts. While it was clear that
countries are at varying levels of sophistication in
intersectoral collaboration in bioterrorism-related
investigations, it was equally clear that the workshop
(particularly the innovative, interactive tabletop
exercises) stimulated great interest in ways to
develop such multi-sectoral capacity -- and strong
linkages were forged between sectors and across
borders on these issues. Although not an official
host, the U.S. was clearly seen as the leading force
both in this workshop and in this work in general --
and the workshop participants drew particularly on the
combined expertise of the eight U.S. facilitators from
the FBI, HHS, and CDC. These U.S. facilitators, along
with several UK counterparts (from Scotland Yard and
the Health Protection Agency) and two German
facilitators with infectious disease backgrounds, were
responsible for bringing a diverse group of technical
and policy officials through a complex, interactive
series of exercises and plenary sessions. Their
design and preparation paid off handsomely in a
smoothly run workshop that stimulated energetic
discussion, recognition of the concrete importance of
multi-sectoral collaboration, and, importantly,
declarations of G8 nations' support for the importance
of BTEX's continued work.
--------------------------------------------- -----
FIRST TIME PUBLIC DECLARATIONS OF SUPPORT FOR BTEX
--------------------------------------------- -----
¶5. (SBU) At the German-hosted reception during the
workshop, the German head of delegation (Alexander
Olbrich) emphasized in his toast that the workshop
reinforced for Germany the critical importance and
value of G8 efforts to combat bioterrorism through
BTEX's work. Olbrich and the UK's Sarah Broughton had
each indicated, in earlier conversations, strong
Russian resistance to continued support for BTEX under
the G8 Nonproliferation Directors' Group (NPDG), and
Olbrich took the dramatic step of indicating that as
far as Germany was concerned, BTEX work would continue
and expand in 2007 -- if not through NPDG then through
G8 counterterrorism (Roma-Lyon) efforts or other G8
channels. Germany's remarks generated quite a buzz
among G8 delegations, and many sought out the U.S.
head of del (Marc Ostfield) for consultation about
U.S. ideas for next steps for BTEX, including creating
a G8 BTEX tabletop exercise on Food Defense (Ref B),
and, most notably, the possibility of moving G8 BTEX
work to the Roma-Lyon channel where it would have
greater synergy with extant G8 counterterrorism
efforts. It was clear that not only were Germany, the
UK, Japan, and France making strong declarations of
support for BTEX, but that they were interested in
exploring ways for BTEX to become a Roma-Lyon
subgroup. Acknowledging that BTEX never had much
traction within NPDG, these delegations -- composed
primarily of MFA non-proliferation officials -- were
motivated to find a better G8 fit for BTEX to further
the G8 agenda on combating bioterrorism.
¶6. (SBU) It is worth noting that Olbrich also
stated in his toast that G8 BTEX efforts were "valued-
added" and not redundant with the bioterrorism work in
the Global Health Security Action Group (GHSAG), the
coalition of Health Ministers of the so-called "G7
plus Mexico." In subsequent conversations, officials
from the UK, France, and Japan echoed Olbrich's
sentiment about BTEX. In fact, a UK health official
expressed the opinion that the G8 forum was
particularly productive because BTEX includes foreign
affairs, law enforcement, agriculture, and other
sectors beyond just health. Such sentiments help
enhance G8 nations' support for BTEX's continued work.
¶7. (SBU) On the workshop's final day, Broughton
arranged for Esther Blythe of the FCO's
counterterrorism division to meet with Ostfield and
Lindsey Hillesheim of the U.S. delegation. Blythe
expressed clear UK interest in constituting BTEX as a
subgroup of G8 Roma-Lyon efforts, and offered that the
UK could possibly co-sponsor with the U.S. such a
proposal at the upcoming Roma-Lyon meeting in Berlin.
Separately, Olbrich had likewise indicated that he
would talk with his Roma-Lyon counterparts in the
German foreign ministry to advocate for continuing
BTEX work under the auspices of Roma-Lyon
counterterrorism efforts. Japanese and French
officials signaled that they, too, would be having
similar conversations in Tokyo and Paris. (NOTE:
Canada had, almost two years earlier, signaled its
awareness of BTEX synergy with G8 CT efforts and had,
as far back as December 2005 (Ref C), switched its
representative for BTEX from a nonproliferation
official to a counterterrorism official with
responsibility for Roma-Lyon efforts. Russia,
meanwhile, had indicated to UK and German officials
its disdain for BTEX in NPDG channels. However,
Russia, by sending MFA CT officials to the Workshop,
has possibly signaled its openness to G8 work on
bioterrorism and to continuing BTEX in Roma-Lyon
channels. END NOTE.)
¶8. (SBU) Thus, in addition to being an important and
concrete example of valuable interagency teamwork
involving FBI, HHS, CDC, and State, the Workshop was
an invaluable catalyst for a deepening commitment
within the G8 for further efforts to combat
bioterrorism. Since 2004, the U.S. has sought to keep
BTEX and G8 bioterrorism-related work alive through
the somewhat passive (on this issue) UK G8 Presidency
of 2005, and the resistant (on this issue) Russian G8
Presidency of 2006, the dynamic bioterrorism workshop
last week created the perfect venue and opportunity
for Germany to signal its strong support for BTEX.
Germany has now indicated its interest in hosting
follow-on G8 bioterrorism-related work in Berlin later
this year, along with the next BTEX policy meeting in
¶2007. German support has, likewise, helped encouraged
enhanced Japanese interest -- of particular importance
because Japan takes up the G8 Presidency in 2008.
Japanese officials are now contemplating the
possibility of hosting in 2008 the proposed G8 BTEX
Food Defense Tabletop Exercise (Ref B). The U.S.'s
exemplary interdisciplinary and interagency teamwork
in developing the Forensic Epidemiology Workshop has
helped solidify the groundwork for potentially two
solid years of support for collaborative G8 efforts to
combat bioterrorism.
¶9. (U) BEGIN TEXT OF CHAIRS' SUMMARY.
G8 FORENSIC EPIDEMIOLOGY WORKSHOP, 13-15 MARCH 2007:
CHAIRS' SUMMARY
The G8 held a workshop from 13-15 March 2007 to share
perspectives on the importance of a coordinated
approach by public health professionals, law
enforcement, and other agencies in conducting joint
epidemiological and law enforcement bioterrorism
investigations and to recommend ways to pursue and
promote such an approach more widely.
This was the first multi-sectoral meeting for public
health, law enforcement and foreign affairs officials
in the G8 framework on this important topic.
Participants came from all G8 members as well as a
representative from the UN as an observer.
Within G8 countries levels and experience of joint
investigations varies. Participants heard examples of
where joint working had been used in the past
successfully and discussed the potential benefits of
joint working. Participants agreed that joint
investigations add value and are beneficial.
Participants shared perspectives and experiences on
collaborative efforts by law enforcement and public
health officials to investigate suspected bioterrorism
incidents. Through three table-top exercises and
plenary discussions, workshop participants shared and
discussed national law enforcement and public health
policy and procedural issues in order effectively to
identify, assess, respond to a bioterrorism/weapons
attack and to enable a prosecution. All delegations
presented their current experience of joint working
between law enforcement and public health.
Participants considered potential impediments to law
enforcement-public health collaboration, and agreed
that it would be useful to develop effective
strategies to address them within a nation and among
G8 nations.
The workshop emphasized the international dimension of
bioterrorism and noted that some lines of
communications exist on the law enforcement side by
using Interpol offices but that bilateral contacts are
currently the primary mechanism. On the public health
side there are also bilateral contacts and the
established reporting and alarm systems of the WHO,
designed primarily for natural diseases.
Participants agreed that to pursue effective forensic
epidemiology through law enforcement-public health
collaboration to assist with investigations into
bioterrorism and other relevant incidents it was
necessary at a national level to:
-- Identify all the relevant public bodies responsible
for investigating crimes affecting the public's
health, as well as those responsible for investigating
the cause of infectious diseases and preventing their
spread and create networks to enable collaborative
investigations;
-- Develop and implement or refine procedures or
arrangements for conducting joint investigations on
potential biological terrorism incidents or other
public health problems resulting from criminal or
other intentional actions;
-- Identify ways to strengthen the capacities of
public health and law enforcement official public
bodies related to joint investigations of bioterrorism
events, such as: disease surveillance and reporting;
laboratory capacities for testing and identifying
biological terrorism agents; training law enforcement
and public health representatives to understand the
priorities of epidemiologic work on a crime scene; and
developing common procedures for the safe collection
of samples and to maintain a chain of custody that
fulfills both the requirements of jurisdictional
prosecution as well as laboratory and medical
practice.
Internationally, it would be beneficial to identify
regional and international organisations that can help
to build networks and procedures towards enabling
collaborative investigations.
Participants agreed that the workshop was very useful
and a successful exchange of views and experiences in
national and international co-operation of law
enforcement and public health. It provided insights
and ideas that may provide information for improving
national systems or agreeing best practices.
Participants agreed that further work in the G8
grouping on forensic epidemiology and other topics
relevant to bioterrorism would be valuable. The
successful outcome of this workshop is an incentive to
continue close co-operation of G8 members in the
Bioterrorism Experts Group (BTEX) to improve G8 common
efforts in combating bioterrorism.
END TEXT OF CHAIRS' SUMMARY.
¶10. (U) This cable has been cleared by the USG BTEX
delegation.
Visit London's Classified Website:
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/london/index. cfm
Tuttle