JCIC-XXXIII: (U) TAYLOR/KOSHELEV DISCUSSIONS AND

S E C R E T GENEVA 001015


DEPT FOR T, VCI AND EUR/PRA
DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24
CIA FOR WINPAC
JCS FOR J5/DDGSA
SECDEF FOR OSD(P)/STRATCAP
NAVY FOR CNO-N5JA AND DIRSSP
AIRFORCE FOR HQ USAF/ASX AND ASXP
DTRA FOR OP-OS OP-OSA AND DIRECTOR
NSC FOR HAYES
DIA FOR LEA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/17/2018
TAGS: KACT PARM START JCIC INF US RS UP BO KZ

SUBJECT: JCIC-XXXIII: (U) TAYLOR/KOSHELEV DISCUSSIONS AND
STATEMENTS BY NYKONENKO AND KOSHELEV REGARDING JCIC
SESSIONS IN 2009 AT CLOSING PLENARY, NOVEMBER 21, 2008

REF: GENEVA 0991 (JCIC-XXXIII-013)

Classified By: Jerry A. Taylor, United States Representative
to the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission.
Reasons: 1.5(b) and (d).


1. (U) This is JCIC-XXXIII-030.


2. (U) Meeting Date: November 21, 2008
Time: 11:45 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


3. (S) Given the preparation requested for the
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference (RevCon) in
2009, Russian and Ukrainian representatives to the JCIC urged
all Parties to begin to think about scheduling JCIC sessions
in 2009. Ukraine proposed three sessions in 2009. The
Russian representative met separately with U.S. Head of
Delegation (HOD) to indicate support for an informal joint
briefing to the other START Parties on post-START and to
register Russian rejection of their inclusion in that regime.
He also remarked that Russia would be unable to support a
third JCIC session in 2009, as proposed by Ukraine.

--------------
SCHEDULING OF JCIC SESSIONS IN 2009
--------------


4. (S) As Taylor was about to close the plenary, Russian HOD
Koshelev raised the issue of scheduling the next JCIC
session. He remarked that 2009 was going to be quite busy in
terms of disarmament and non-proliferation meetings, which
included a meeting to prepare for the NPT RevCon that would
include many of the representatives of the START Parties. He
proposed that the representatives should think about a date
before which the JCIC would meet for its next session, and,
given that the NPT meeting would be held in April or May, he
proposed that the JCIC should meet no later than June.


5. (S) Nykonenko then took the floor to state the Ukrainian
preference for three JCIC sessions in 2009, to take into
account the issues that have been raised by Ukraine,
proposing April, July and the end of the year.


6. (S) Taylor took note of the need for preparations for
the NPT meetings and asked whether the end of March or the
beginning of April would be a possibility, while not making
this a formal proposal. Koshelev responded that this was a
good idea but that it depended upon the availability of
funding. Taylor closed the discussion on this issue by
saying that the Parties needed to discuss as early as
possible the date for the next session.

--------------
SEPARATE DISCUSSION WITH KOSHELEV
--------------


7. (S) After the closing plenary Koshelev asked Taylor if
he could speak informally one-on-one. Koshelev reminded
Taylor of Antonov's proposal that the Parties meet informally
prior to the next JCIC session as a means of sharing
information about what the United States and Russia were
doing regarding a post-START agreement (REFTEL). He stated
that this proposal was even more relevant now that Belarus
and Kazakhstan, as well as Ukraine, were seeking to be
included in the post-START deliberations. Koshelev allowed
that, for Russia, the possibility that Ukraine, Kazakhstan
and Belarus, as non-nuclear weapons states Party to the NPT,
would be included in a new treaty on the limitation of
nuclear armaments with the United States and Russia was
unacceptable, and that was why Antonov's proposal was so
important. The idea would be to share information and
thereby resolve concerns with the other Parties. Koshelev
emphasized that it was vital that the United States and
Russia meet on this issue prior to including the other
Parties, in order to coordinate positions.


8. (S) With regard to Nykonenko's proposal to meet at least
three times next year, Koshelev said that obtaining funding
to cover such a schedule would be impossible. He repeated
the comment that he had made earlier at the plenary meeting
that it would be difficult to schedule a meeting in the first
half of the year due to other pressing non-proliferation
meetings and preparation for the NPT RevCon in April and May.


9. (S) Taylor said that he would be discussing the proposal
by Antonov and the results of this conversation with his
leadership in Washington next week. Taylor indicated his
belief that Antonov's proposal would be a matter of
discussion, albeit short, between Acting Under Secretary Rood
and DFM Ryabkov when they next meet.


10. (U) Taylor sends.
TICHENOR


NNNN




End Cable Text