Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07BUCHAREST268
2007-03-09 13:40:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Bucharest
Cable title:
CFE CROSS-GROUP STATIONING LANGUAGE: OPTION ONE
how-toVZCZCXYZ0013 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHBM #0268 0681340 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 091340Z MAR 07 FM AMEMBASSY BUCHAREST TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6219 INFO RUEHXP/ALL NATO POST COLLECTIVE IMMEDIATE RUEHAK/AMEMBASSY ANKARA IMMEDIATE 0584 RUEHTH/AMEMBASSY ATHENS IMMEDIATE 0972 RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON IMMEDIATE 0203 RUEHNY/AMEMBASSY OSLO IMMEDIATE 0518 RUEHSF/AMEMBASSY SOFIA IMMEDIATE 4882
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
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