CFE CROSS-GROUP STATIONING LANGUAGE: OPTION ONE

C O N F I D E N T I A L BUCHAREST 000268 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR EUR/RPM E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/08/2010 TAGS: PARM PREL KCFE NATO GR TU NO UK CA BU RO SUBJECT: CFE CROSS-GROUP STATIONING LANGUAGE: OPTION ONE BEST REF: A. STATE 28280 ¶B. HLTF-N(2006)0023-REV8 Classified By: Political Counselor Ted Tanoue for Reasons 1.5(b) and (d). (C) Polmiloff on March 8 discussed ref A with Director for Non-Proliferation, Arms Control and Combating Terrorism (and HLTF rep) Mihaela Vasiu and CFE Desk Officer Dana Marca. They agreed option one was the best, and added that Allies should avoid opening the door for Germany to reinsert "formally" or offer up any other modifiers into paragraph 5 of ref B which could reopen discussion over how to package the consolidated paper's language for Russia's benefit. As Romania's fall back position, they would prefer option 2 over option 3, but even that would run the risk of reopening the debate. Vasiu and Marca agreed that the reference to NATO's 1997 policy statement -- while accurate -- did not address the issue of cross-group stationing nor address Russia's question. They also noted that while the 1997 reference was probably unnecessary in the context of the paragraph, it was not a problem unless it continued to distract from what should be the essence of the HLTF paper -- CFE not NATO. TAUBMAN