

Currently released so far... 12478 / 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 Sapporo
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
AU
ASEC
AE
AF
AORC
AEMR
AMGT
ABUD
AFFAIRS
APER
AS
AMED
AY
AG
AR
AJ
AL
AID
AM
AODE
ABLD
AMG
AFIN
ATRN
AGAO
AFU
AN
AA
ALOW
APECO
ADM
ARF
ASEAN
APEC
AMBASSADOR
AO
ASUP
AZ
AADP
ACOA
ANET
AMCHAMS
ACABQ
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
APCS
AGMT
AINF
AIT
AORL
ACS
AFSI
AFSN
ACBAQ
AFGHANISTAN
ADANA
ADPM
AX
ADCO
AECL
AMEX
ACAO
ASCH
AORG
AGR
AROC
ASIG
AND
ARM
AQ
ATFN
AC
AUC
ASEX
AER
AVERY
AGRICULTURE
BL
BR
BO
BA
BD
BM
BK
BG
BU
BB
BH
BTIO
BY
BEXP
BP
BE
BRUSSELS
BF
BIDEN
BT
BX
BC
BILAT
BN
BBSR
BTIU
BWC
BMGT
CA
CASC
CVIS
CM
CH
CO
CU
CD
CWC
CI
CS
CY
CMGT
CF
CG
CR
CB
CV
CW
CE
CBW
CT
CPAS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CJAN
CODEL
CIDA
CDG
CDC
CIA
CTR
CNARC
CSW
CN
CONS
CLINTON
COE
CROS
CARICOM
CONDOLEEZZA
COUNTER
CL
COM
CICTE
CIS
CFED
COUNTRY
CJUS
CBSA
CEUDA
CLMT
CAC
COPUOS
CIC
CBE
CHR
CTM
CVR
CITEL
CLEARANCE
CACS
CAN
CITT
CARSON
CACM
CDB
CAPC
CKGR
CBC
EC
EG
EPET
ECON
ETRD
EFIN
EIND
EMIN
ENRG
EAID
EAGR
EUN
ETTC
EAIR
ENIV
ES
EU
EINV
ELAB
ECIN
EFIS
ELTN
EWWT
ECPS
ECONOMIC
ENGR
EN
EINT
EPA
ELN
ESA
EZ
ER
ET
EFTA
EINVECONSENVCSJA
EUMEM
ETRA
EXTERNAL
EI
EUR
EK
ERNG
ENGY
ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS
ENERG
EINVEFIN
ENVR
ECA
ELECTIONS
ETC
EUREM
ENNP
EFINECONCS
EURN
ECINECONCS
EEPET
EXIM
ERD
ENVI
ETRC
ETRDEINVTINTCS
ETRO
EDU
ETRN
EAIG
ECONCS
ECONOMICS
EAP
ECONOMY
EINN
EIAR
EXBS
ECUN
EINDETRD
EREL
EUC
ESENV
ECONEFIN
ECIP
EFIM
EAIDS
ETRDECONWTOCS
EUNCH
EINVETC
IZ
IT
IR
IS
IN
IC
IAEA
IO
ICAO
IWC
ID
IV
ISRAEL
IAHRC
IQ
ICTR
IMF
IRS
IDP
IGAD
ICRC
ICTY
IMO
IL
INRA
INRO
ICJ
ITU
IBRD
INMARSAT
IIP
ITALY
IEFIN
IACI
ILO
INTELSAT
ILC
ITRA
IDA
INRB
IRC
INTERPOL
IA
IPR
IRAQI
ISRAELI
INTERNAL
ISLAMISTS
INDO
ITPHUM
ITPGOV
ITALIAN
IBET
INR
IEA
IZPREL
IRAJ
ITF
IF
KDEM
KU
KPAL
KNNP
KCRM
KZ
KN
KS
KJUS
KTFN
KSCA
KV
KISL
KPAO
KPKO
KIRF
KTIA
KIPR
KFLO
KFRD
KTIP
KAWC
KSUM
KCOM
KAID
KE
KTDB
KMDR
KOMC
KWBG
KDRG
KVPR
KTEX
KGIC
KWMN
KSCI
KCOR
KACT
KDDG
KHLS
KSAF
KFLU
KSEO
KMRS
KSPR
KOLY
KSEP
KVIR
KGHG
KIRC
KUNR
KIFR
KCIP
KMCA
KMPI
KBCT
KHSA
KICC
KIDE
KCRS
KMFO
KRVC
KRGY
KR
KAWK
KG
KFIN
KHIV
KBIO
KOCI
KBTR
KNEI
KPOA
KCFE
KPLS
KSTC
KHDP
KPRP
KCRCM
KLIG
KCFC
KTER
KREC
KTBT
KPRV
KSTH
KRIM
KRAD
KWAC
KWMM
KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KOMS
KX
KMIG
KRCM
KVRP
KBTS
KPAONZ
KNUC
KNAR
KPWR
KNPP
KDEMAF
KNUP
KNNPMNUC
KERG
KGIT
KPAI
KTLA
KFSC
KCSY
KSAC
KTRD
KID
KOM
KMOC
KJUST
KGCC
KREL
KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG
KFTFN
KO
KNSD
KHUM
KSEC
KCMR
KCHG
KICA
KPIN
KESS
KDEV
KCGC
KWWMN
KPAK
KWNM
KWMNCS
KRFD
MOPS
MCAP
MPOS
MARR
MO
MNUC
MX
MASS
MG
MY
MU
ML
MR
MILITARY
MTCRE
MT
MEPP
MA
MDC
MP
MAR
MASSMNUC
MARAD
MAPP
MZ
MD
MI
MEETINGS
MK
MCC
MEPN
MRCRE
MAS
MIL
MASC
MC
MV
MTCR
MIK
MUCN
MEDIA
MERCOSUR
MW
MOPPS
MTS
MLS
MILI
MTRE
MEPI
MQADHAFI
MAPS
NO
NATO
NL
NP
NZ
NSF
NI
NH
NG
NAFTA
NU
NASA
NR
NATOPREL
NSSP
NSG
NA
NT
NW
NK
NPT
NPA
NATIONAL
NPG
NSFO
NS
NSC
NE
NGO
NDP
NIPP
NRR
NEW
NZUS
NC
NAR
NV
NORAD
OTRA
OPCW
OVIP
OAS
OREP
OPIC
OIIP
OPRC
ODIP
OEXC
OPDC
OSCE
OIC
OSCI
OECD
OFDP
OFDA
OMIG
OPAD
OFFICIALS
OVP
OIE
OHUM
OCS
OBSP
OTR
OSAC
ON
OCII
OES
PGOV
PREL
PHUM
PTER
PINS
PINR
PREF
PK
PROP
PA
PARM
PBTS
PMAR
PM
PGIV
PE
PRAM
PHUH
PHSA
PL
PNAT
PO
PLN
PAO
PSA
PHUMPGOV
PF
PEL
PBIO
POLITICS
PHUMBA
PAS
POL
PREO
PAHO
PMIL
POGOV
POV
PAK
PNR
PRL
PG
PREFA
PSI
PINL
PU
PARMS
PRGOV
PALESTINIAN
PAIGH
POLITICAL
PARTIES
POSTS
PROG
PORG
PTBS
PUNE
POLICY
PDOV
PCI
PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA
PBT
PP
PS
PY
PTERE
PGOF
PKFK
PSOE
PEPR
PPA
PINT
PRELP
PSEPC
PGOVE
PINF
PNG
PGOC
PFOR
PCUL
POLINT
PGGV
PHALANAGE
PARTY
PGOVLO
PHUS
PDEM
PECON
PROV
PHUMPREL
RS
RU
RELATIONS
RW
RO
RM
RP
ROOD
RICE
RUPREL
RSO
RCMP
REACTION
REPORT
REGION
RIGHTS
RF
RFE
RSP
RIGHTSPOLMIL
ROBERT
SU
SCUL
SNAR
SOCI
SF
SA
SHUM
SENV
SP
SR
SY
SANC
SC
SMIG
SZ
SARS
SW
SEVN
SO
SEN
SL
SNARCS
SNARN
SI
SG
SN
SH
SYR
SAARC
SPCE
SHI
SCRS
SENVKGHG
SYRIA
SWE
STEINBERG
SIPRS
ST
SNARIZ
SSA
SK
SPCVIS
SOFA
SIPDIS
SAN
TC
TI
TBIO
TH
TSPL
TRGY
TSPA
TPHY
TU
TW
TS
TAGS
TK
TX
TNGD
TZ
TF
TL
TV
TN
TD
TIP
TR
TP
TO
TT
TFIN
THPY
TERRORISM
TINT
TRSY
TURKEY
TBID
US
UK
UNGA
UP
UZ
UNMIK
USTR
UNO
UNSC
UN
UNESCO
UNAUS
UNHRC
UY
UG
UNHCR
UNCND
USOAS
USEU
UNICEF
UNEP
UV
UNPUOS
UNCSD
USUN
UNCHR
UNDC
USNC
UE
UNDP
UNC
USPS
USAID
UNVIE
UAE
UNFICYP
UNODC
UNCHS
UNIDROIT
UNDESCO
UNCHC
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 11:09 | 2011-04-28 00:00 | 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