Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08GENEVA601
2008-07-25 14:46:00
SECRET
US Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

JCIC-XXXII: HEADS OF DELEGATION MEETING TO DISCUSS

Tags:  KACT PARM START JCIC INF US RS UP BO KZ 
pdf how-to read a cable
O 251446Z JUL 08
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6853
CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE
DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE IMMEDIATE
CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DIRSSP WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO AMEMBASSY ASTANA PRIORITY
AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY
AMEMBASSY MINSK PRIORITY
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY
S E C R E T GENEVA 000601 


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-OSA AND DIRECTOR
NSC FOR LUTI
DIA FOR LEA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/25/2018
TAGS: KACT PARM START JCIC INF US RS UP BO KZ

SUBJECT: JCIC-XXXII: HEADS OF DELEGATION MEETING TO DISCUSS
THE "CONDUCT OF AN OBLIGATORY MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO
DISCUSS THE QUESTION OF START EXTENSION," JULY 23, 2008

Classified By: Jerry A. Taylor, United States
Representative to the Joint Compliance and Inspection
Commission. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).

S E C R E T GENEVA 000601


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-OSA AND DIRECTOR
NSC FOR LUTI
DIA FOR LEA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/25/2018
TAGS: KACT PARM START JCIC INF US RS UP BO KZ

SUBJECT: JCIC-XXXII: HEADS OF DELEGATION MEETING TO DISCUSS
THE "CONDUCT OF AN OBLIGATORY MEETING OF THE PARTIES TO
DISCUSS THE QUESTION OF START EXTENSION," JULY 23, 2008

Classified By: Jerry A. Taylor, United States
Representative to the Joint Compliance and Inspection
Commission. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (U) This is JCIC-XXXII-016.


2. (U) Meeting Date: July 23, 2008
Time: 10:30 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva
--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


3. (S) A Heads of Delegation (HOD) meeting was held at the
U.S. Mission on July 23, 2008 to discuss the Article XVII
requirement by the Parties to "meet to consider whether this
Treaty (START) will be extended...." The Parties agreed that
the Treaty requires that a meeting be conducted prior to
December 5, 2008, to "consider" the question of a Treaty
extension, and also agreed that a final decision on the
matter of Treaty extension did not have to be taken either at
that meeting or by December 5, 2008. The exact format,
timing, level of representation and terms of the meeting
remain to be agreed via diplomatic channels. Only the
Ukrainian Delegation expressed a definite position on Treaty
extension, noting they would like START to be extended until
2013 in order to complete the elimination of their SS-24
systems. In preparation for this HOD meeting, U.S. and
Russian lawyers met briefly to exchange preliminary views on
legal aspects of implementing Article XVII.

--------------
WHAT ELEMENTS NEED
TO BE RESOLVED
--------------


4. (S) Koshelev began the meeting by noting that the Treaty
stipulates that Parties meet not later than one year prior to
its expiration. As the Treaty is scheduled to expire
December 5, 2009, he shared his view that this meeting must
occur prior to December 5, 2008. He identified three crucial

elements to be resolved: the format (either within the JCIC
or in a special arrangement),the level of representation,
and what the possible results could be. He said that Russia
placed this item for discussion on the agenda at the JCIC in
order to hear the perspectives of other delegations on the
matter and to determine what our future work was, which we
would then all communicate to capitals. Koshelev offered no
Russian view on extension of the Treaty.


5. (S) Kolesnik, reading from a prepared statement,
emphasized the important role the START Treaty had played in
contributing to nuclear disarmament and strategic stability.
He noted that while one of the Treaty's main objectives,
namely a 30 percent reduction in strategic offensive arms,
has already been achieved, the START Treaty remains one of
the most important elements in the international security
architecture through its transparency, which was created by a
unique and effective verification processes, that has
improved the viability and effectiveness of the Treaty. He
considered the Belarusian decision to accept the obligations
of START through the Lisbon Protocol and the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear weapon state in May
1992 to have been "well thought out" and had a historical
basis. Regarding the issue at hand, Kolesnik stated that the
Parties needed to consider the question of the future of the
Treaty in a very responsible way and that the decision should
be reached on the basis of a careful analysis in terms of
international security and nonproliferation. He acknowledged
that the issue could not be resolved at the current JCIC
session, as the representatives were not authorized to do
that and he urged that a special meeting should be held in an
agreed format to consider the issue. He stated that Belarus
would carefully study proposals and that, absent a decision
on the meeting details during this session, work should
continue via diplomatic channels.


6. (S) Making good on a pledge to keep his remarks short,
Akhmetalin made a brief reference to the importance of the
question of START Treaty extension in the context of the
global role of reduction of strategic offensive arms and the
international security framework. He stated that he joined
Belarus, Ukraine and Russia in supporting a meeting to
consider START extension prior to December 5, 2008, but he
shared no view on whether the Treaty should be extended.


7. (S) Belashov stated that Ukraine also agreed that the
fate of START was very important, noting that while many of
its provisions had been fulfilled, there was also the view
that not all of the opportunities afforded by the Treaty,
particularly with regard to the JCIC, had been realized. He
asserted that Ukraine had fulfilled all of its obligations
under the Treaty and under the 1994 Trilateral (Russia,
Ukraine and United States) Agreement, and listed some of the
Ukrainian accomplishments: -- all silo launchers had been
eliminated, all deployed weapons had been removed from active
duty and no longer exist, and the elimination of all heavy
bombers. While noting the achievements under START, the
Cooperative Threat Reduction program, and via "other
instruments,", Belashov stated that there was work left to do
regarding the second phase of the obligation to eliminate
SS-24s, and noted that Ukraine would have difficulties
dealing with the costs of this work relating to the
facilities for "washing out" propellant. He assessed that
the removal of SS-24s from accountability would be completed
by the end of 2013 (Begin comment: Using the "washing out"
process previously agreed by Parties during this JCIC
session. End comment.). Based on this assessment, he
expressed Ukraine's preference to extend the Treaty in order
to ensure that work on the SS-24 was completed. He also
noted that extending START would allow for the retention of
existing control and verification mechanisms, emphasizing
that Ukraine supported transparency and openness and that it
acts in accordance with the Treaty, other instruments and its
multilateral and bilateral agreements. He admitted that, at
this JCIC session, the Parties would not be able to come to
an agreement on a final decision on the future of START but,
while highlighting Ukrainian flexibility regarding the
meeting format, Belashov shared his opinion that the JCIC was
competent to discuss the issue and to reach a decision on
Treaty extension no later than December 5, 2008, and that no
special mechanism needed to be created. He added that there
was a need for work through diplomatic channels during the
intersessional period on this matter and that it would be one
of the most important issues for the upcoming JCIC session.


8. (S) Taylor met with Belashov during a break in the
meeting and Belashov admitted that he had no instructions on
this issue and that he just wanted to get the discussions
going. He understood that no final decision had to be
reached at the meeting to be held prior to December 5, 2008,
but he wanted to state that such a decision could be made at
that time. When the meeting resumed after the break, both
the Taylor and Koshelev sought to clarify Belashov's
misinterpretation of Paragraph 2 of Article XVII, by
explaining that the Treaty requires the conduct of a meeting
regarding Treaty extension prior to December 5, 2008, but
does not stipulate that a decision must be taken by that
date. Noting the absence of legal counsel in his delegation,
Belashov finally agreed with that interpretation and
expressed confidence that his lawyers in Kyiv would as well.


9. (S) Taylor expressed appreciation for the views expressed
and stated that they would be reported to authorities in
Washington. He shared that the subject was still being
discussed at a senior level within the U.S. Government and
anticipated continued communications between Parties in the
coming months.


10. (S) Koshelev summarized the views expressed by stating
that all of the Parties agreed that there has to be a meeting
prior to December 5, 2008, to consider whether START should
be extended, and that concerning the format, representation
and timing of such a meeting, it is still too early to reach
agreement. He stated that this is why the Parties need to
clarify how work would proceed since there is not much time
left. He asked whether the next step should be through
diplomatic channels or whether the legal advisers and other
delegation members should meet before the end of this
session, acknowledging that the Russian Delegation did not
expect to be able to solve the issue of START extension
during this session. He stated that the Russian Delegation
knew that this was a preliminary discussion and would lead to
further discussions and that the results of these preliminary
discussions would be provided to capitals.


11. (S) Belashov took the floor again to explain his
interpretation of paragraph 2 of Article XVII. He stated
that the format of the meeting was not stipulated so that
means that it is an open question. He emphasized his
preference that the meeting be conducted within the framework
of the JCIC, noting that this was still a preliminary view.
He expressed his understanding that these issues would be
discussed at a higher level, but he believed that all the
"expert" work should be done in the JCIC and that, if a
decision is taken to extend START, all the necessary
documentation could be done within the JCIC. If, on the
other hand, the decision was made not to extend START, then
there was nothing for the JCIC to do to formalize that
decision.

--------------
LAWYER'S PRE-MEETING
ON ARTICLE XVII
--------------


12. (S) At the request of Koshelev, U.S. and Russian lawyers
(Brown and Kotkova) met on July 22 to discuss in a
preliminary manner certain legal aspects of Article XVII
prior to the HOD meeting concerning this issue. Kotkova
stated that Russia fully understood that any meeting convened
under paragraph 2 of Article XVII (to consider whether the
Treaty should be extended for 5 years) must include all five
Parties and that the meeting could be held at any level of
their respective governments. She raised the issue of what
forum might be most suited for such a meeting, explaining
that, because the JCIC offers an opportunity for all five
Parties to meet together, it might be the most convenient
option. She commented that, in such a case, the JCIC
representatives (or others) might have to be
authorized by their governments to represent that Party in
the Article XVII meeting. She acknowledged that the Article
XVII meeting could take place outside of the JCIC framework
but could include representatives who had been sent to Geneva
also for the JCIC session. Brown said that the United States
was still in the process of reviewing a number of issues
related to Article XVII and that all he would be able to do
is to take her comments back to Washington or provide only
unofficial reactions. She indicated that, similarly, Russia
was still thinking through these questions, but wanted to
flag them so that there could be further exchanges during the
intersessional period through diplomatic channels.


13. (S) On the question of whether any official
acknowledgement of the Article XVII meeting had to be made,
Kotkova said that Russia recognized that there was no legal
requirement to notify or publicize to non-parties (or the
public) that the Article XVII meeting was held, but that one
possibility to record the meeting for the Parties' own
purposes could be a plenary statement at the end of a JCIC
session that such a meeting was held. Kotkova asked whether
a decision not to extend START had to be recorded formally in
any way. Brown indicated he did not think that it had to be
formally recorded but that, if the Parties wanted to do so,
he did not see a problem with some sort of an acknowledgment
by the Parties. She asked whether a decision to extend START
for five years had to be submitted for ratification by the
United States. Brown indicated that it did not, and Kotkova
confirmed that this was the same situation for Russia.


14. (S) Kotkova raised the issue of whether fewer than five
Parties could decide to extend START for five years under the
Article XVII authority and, if so, whether the U.S. and
Russia had to be included in that group. Brown stated that
it was his interpretation that, in order to use the Article
XVII procedures, all five Parties had to be part of the
agreement to extend START for five years, so this did not
appear to be a likely scenario. Kotkova sought Brown's views
on how the decision of the Parties to extend START would be
recorded, raising the ideas of government-to-government
agreements or exchanges of letters and noting that it would
probably have to be some sort of international agreement.
Brown agreed that an international agreement of some sort
would probably be what our governments would expect, adding
that executive agreements were how the Parties codified their
agreement on START implementation issues. Kotkova also
raised the question as to what would be the form of any such
exchange of letters, i.e., a letter from all four former USSR
Parties addressed to the Government of the United States, or
letters exchanged among all five Parties with each other.
Brown indicated that he would have to consult before
rendering anything more than a preliminary opinion based on
the multilaterization of the Treaty through the Lisbon
Protocol and the practice of the JCIC.


15. (S) Kotkova, referring to other possible meetings of the
Parties on START extension, asked whether the decision to
extend START could be taken even one day before termination
of START, i.e., on December 4, 2009. Brown opined that,
hypothetically, such a situation would not be inconsistent
with Article XVII but that, in practice, the timing of any
decision to extend START would depend upon all Parties being
able to reach such an agreement in time; otherwise, START
would terminate. Finally, she asked whether START could be
extended for less than five years. Brown responded that in
his view any period of less than five years would require
ratification: either as a new Treaty that superseded START
during the extended five year period, or as an amendment to
START that changed the period of extension from a five-year
period to a lesser period. She indicated that this was also
the Russian view.


16. (U) Documents exchanged. None.


17. (U) Participants:

U.S.

Mr. Taylor
Ms. Bosco
Mr. Brown
LtCol Comeau
Mr. Couch
Mr. DeNinno
Mr. Dunn
Maj. Edinger
Mr. Fortier
Mr. Hanchett
Mr. Johnston
LTC Oppenheim
Mr. Smith
Mr. Tessier
Mr. Vogel
Mr. Yaguchi
Dr. Hopkins (Int)

BELARUS

Mr. Kolesnik
Mr. Ponomarev

KAZAKHSTAN

Mr. Akhmetalin

RUSSIA

Mr Koshelev
Mr. Lapshin
Mr. Kashirin
Capt(1st Rank) Kuz'min
Col Novikov
Col Ryzhkov
Mr. Semenov
Mr. Serov
Ms. Sorokina
Col Zaytsev
Ms. Yevarovskaya (Int)

UKRAINE

Mr. Belashov
Dr. Shevtsov
Maj Gen Fedotov


18. (U) Taylor sends.
TICHENOR


NNNN




End Cable Text