RUSSIA: NEW CONCILIATORY TONE AT ISTC MEETINGS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 MOSCOW 001521

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

DEPARTMENT FOR ISN/CTR, EUR/RUS AND EUR/PRA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/05/2017
TAGS: GG KNNP PARM PREL RS TSPL
SUBJECT: RUSSIA: NEW CONCILIATORY TONE AT ISTC MEETINGS

REF: A. MOSCOW 1493

B. MOSCOW 12858

Classified By: EST Counselor Daniel O'Grady. Reasons: 1.4 (b,d)


1. (C) SUMMARY: The March 29-30 meetings in Moscow of the
Coordinating Committee and Governing Board of the
International Science and Technology Center (ISTC) succeeded
in resolving some of the controversial issues facing the
center, while defusing others to allow for their resolution
down the road. Agreements were reached on how to label areas
of weapons expertise for project participants, on allowing a
reduction in the Russian labor force employed at the ISTC,
and on implementing improvements in the Center's procurement
procedures. On the other hand, varied perspectives on the
Vision Statement and Strategic Plan to govern the Center's
future indicated that an effort to reach agreement was
premature. The parties decided to form a working group to
see if a common draft could be produced in time for the next
Governing Board meeting at the end of June. Problems in
gaining access to do audits and monitor projects also were
deferred, with the parties entrusting the Executive Director
to try to achieve a compromise solution. Finally, the issue
of Georgia's dual membership in both the ISTC and the Science
and Technology Center in Ukraine (STCU) -- raised only by
Russia -- was also given to the Executive Director to study
in the context of increasing cooperation between the two
centers over the next eight months. END SUMMARY.


2. (SBU) The March 29-30 Governing Board meeting exhibited
almost none of the rancor evident at recent ISTC gatherings.
All parties, but especially the Russian side, seemed to take
pains to achieve harmonious solutions and not to hold up the
Center's operations pending resolution of some of the
thornier issues. The only agenda item producing moments of
sharp repartee was the issue of weapons expertise areas to be
used to characterize scientists and projects. On other
potentially contentious issues, all sides were amenable to
working out compromise language in small group meetings that
took place before plenary sessions or outside the room during
them. The result, by and large, was the presentation of
draft language for the decision sheet that found speedy
assent at the plenary before there was any great debate.


3. (C) Vision Statement and Strategic Plan: It quickly
became apparent that other parties had not had sufficient
time to fully digest the extensive comments and alternative
language provided by the US to the Secretariat's draft. The
Russians stated that they also had extensive comments that
they had not yet presented. The EU said that it had some
fundamental concerns over the detailed implementation
specified in the draft. The EU wanted a document that was
more vision and less planning. After some debate over the
merits of including concrete implementation steps in the
document, in which the EU seemed isolated in its position,
all parties agreed that a working group should take over to
try to reconcile the contending positions. The Russians
professed to be alarmed that some of the comments by other
parties would take the ISTC away from its original purpose
and insisted that the tasking to the working group include an
admonition not to stray from the ISTC founding agreement.
This was recast in a more positive sense in a US-brokered
deal to say that the working group should produce a document
"consistent with" the founding agreement. The working group
will make at least an interim report at the next Governing
Board Meeting at the end of June.


4. (SBU) Access to Institutes: The Russian party asked for
improved coordination of institute visits, noting the high
volume of visits at Obelensk and Vector in particular. The
Russians suggested an increase in the advance notification
period and recommended that parties provide a list of
individuals who might be visiting over the course of a year
as a means of speeding the approval process. Canada and the
EU indicated that they could provide such a list; the U.S.
party said that it would be difficult to do. The question

MOSCOW 00001521 002 OF 003


raised by several parties was whether provision of such a
list would actually speed approval of visits and, if so, why
it was necessary to increase the advance notification time.
The rights of the funding parties to audit and monitor
projects were reaffirmed. In the absence of any clear route
to consensus, the parties asked the Secretariat to review the
issue and provide a report.


5. (SBU) Weapons Expertise Areas: Although the Russian party
had seemed to agree on language characterizing scientists as
"biological weapons experts" at working-level ISTC meetings
over the past months, the Russian side immediately objected
to such language at the executive session of the Governing
Board. Approval of the Project Proposal Package that asks
project participants to self-identify by area of expertise
was threatened by the dispute, which featured Canada and
Russia trading barbs about which country might have engaged
in biological weapons production in the past. A compromise
text was hammered out at the table that would allow the
Russians to continue their official denial that they ever had
worked on biological weapons, but also allowed them to
concede that some of their scientists had such expertise.
The new text asks participants to identify their "weapon or
dual use technology expertise" as "missile, chemical,
biological, nuclear, or other." This language also
effectively expands the number of scientists who can engage
on ISTC projects.


6. (C) Georgian Dual-Membership: Donor parties feared the
worst when the Russians refused to discuss Georgia's dual
membership in the ISTC and STCU at a pre-meeting on March 29
specifically called to address this issue. However, at a
second pre-meeting on the 30th, the Russians sought to allay
fears. MFA rep Kruitskikh, saying he had received explicit
instructions from Deputy FonMin Kislyak, averred that the
Russians did not want to punish Georgia in any way and did
not want the issue cast in terms of Georgia. It was a
question of administrative efficiency and principle. The
Russians said they had been approached by other members of
the STCU about joining the ISTC as well and they did not want
other countries coming in. They also said that they were not
interested in merging the two centers. The Western parties
remained unconvinced that it was necessary to have any
statement about dual membership, but the Russians said one
was needed from their perspective.


7. (C) In order not to delay the opening of the Governing
Board session, a small group stayed behind to try to reach
compromise language on the issue. After almost two hours of
haggling, agreement was reached on a paragraph for the
decision sheet that would ask the Executive Director to
consult with all parties on the issue of improving
administrative efficiency, including in terms of
"membership," in the context of studying increased
cooperation between the ISTC and STCU. The Russians fought
for mention of "dual-membership" in this context, but bowed
to Western resistance. The Russians had to be content with
mention of dual membership in the agenda item title, which
the West conceded could not be changed because it previously
had been agreed. At one point, the Russian rep seemed to
indicate that after study of the issue for six months if the
conclusion was that Georgia could remain a member of both
centers, then that would be acceptable to the Russians. When
asked to confirm this, the Russian rep retreated, saying that
Moscow would have to consider its position again at that
time. The Executive Director is scheduled to report his
findings at the November 2007 Governing Board meeting.


8. (U) Staff Reductions: After raising issues with how the
ISTC would select employees to be released at a pre-meeting
on the 29th, the Russians did not raise objections to the
Executive Director,s new staffing plan that included the
elimination of 18 positions.


9. (U) After a presentation by the firm assessing the ISTC's
procurement procedures, all parties expressed relief that no

MOSCOW 00001521 003 OF 003


serious wrong-doing had been found. Parties quickly agreed
to a US recommendation that the Executive Director make a
determination of how to implement "best practices" outlined
in the report that are not currently being followed at the
Center. The Board also welcomed the future accession of
Switzerland to the ISTC and approved the new Russian Deputy
Executive Director, Sergey Vorobyov. The Board agreed that
the next Governing Board meeting will be held on 29 June in
Dushanbe, Tajikistan.


10. (C) COMMENT: Georgian dual membership was obviously the
dog that did not bark at the ISTC meeting. Kruitskikh
clearly had to have something in the decision sheet (perhaps
for no other reason than that the prominence Russia had given
to the issue meant it had to be addressed),but his
willingness to back off in the face of Western opposition to
any language directly or indirectly critical of Georgia
contrasted with Russian behavior at the previous Governing
Board meeting. It remains to be seen how the Russians will
react in eight months to a Western position that promises to
remain fundamentally unchanged. No other party gave any
indication of weakening its support for Georgia. On other
agenda items, the Russian position was similarly conciliatory
even where there were clear differences in point of view from
the Western parties (e.g., on the Vision Statement). It may
be that the US bilateral with Kruitskikh on March 29 (REF A)
softened the Russian approach; they clearly appreciated
working in a small group with the US to achieve compromise
positions rather than dueling over language at the plenary.
BURNS