JCIC-XXXIII: (U) HEAD OF DELEGATION MEETING ON

S E C R E T GENEVA 000998 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) HEAD OF DELEGATION MEETING ON THE UKRAINIAN PROPOSAL TO CHANGE THE CATEGORY OF ELIMINATED ICBMS AND COURTLAND MISSILE ASSEMBLY FACILITY, NOVEMBER 18, 2008 REF: ANC/STR 07-614/17 26 AUGUST 2007 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-015. ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: November 18, 2008 Time: 10:30 A.M. - 11:50 A.M. Place: Russian Mission, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) A Heads of Delegation (HOD) Meeting was held at the Russian Mission on November 18, 2008, to discuss the Ukrainian proposal to change the category of those Ukrainian ICBMs that have been completely eliminated to date to formerly declared types of ICBMs; and the status of the Courtland ICBM Missile Assembly Facility. All Parties were represented. ¶4. (S) The Ukrainian Delegation introduced a proposal to change the designation of its completely eliminated ICBMs to former types under the START Treaty. The Ukrainian side expressed its belief that the redesignation of these ICBMs would simplify implementation of the Treaty and would not require any amendment to the Treaty. ¶5. (S) On the issue of the Courtland Missile Assembly Facility, the Russian Federation reiterated its concerns and the United States again provided clarification. The Russian Delegation repeatedly asked the U.S. side what it considers the target vehicles produced at the Courtland facility to be, SLBMs or something else. It asked if the United States would consider drafting a Joint Statement similar to Joint Statements 21 and 31 to capture the target vehicles. -------------- YOU WANT TO DO WHAT? -------------- ¶6. (S) At a Heads of Delegation (HOD) Meeting on November 18, 2008, at the Russian Mission, the Ukrainian Delegation introduced a proposal to change the category of SS-24 and SS-17 ICBMs to former types as defined under the START Treaty. Shevtsov explained that the proposal would apply to 
ICBMs whose launchers had been completely eliminated to date under the Treaty. Shevtsov stated that after 14 years of reducing strategic offensive arms there were significantly fewer existing types of strategic arms than those listed in Paragraph 10 of Article III of the Treaty at the time of signature. By using the Treaty definition of former type, the Ukrainian side expressed its belief that the redesignation of these ICBMs would simplify implementation of the Treaty and would not require any amendments. ¶7. (S) Shevtsov stated that the under the Ukrainian proposal the SS-17 and SS-24 ICBMs could be designated as former types and that additional types of missiles could be added to this list by the other Parties as applicable. ¶8. (S) The Ukrainian Delegation proposed a new JCIC Agreement to provide a legal format for establishing what types of ICBMs and SLBMs would be on this new list of former types as of an agreed upon date such as December 2009. (Begin Comment: The Ukrainian proposal appears to be an attempt to establish an updated list of former types of ICBMs and SLBMs under the conditions of an extended START Treaty. End Comment.) ¶9. (S) The other Delegations agreed that the Ukrainian proposal was complex and required further examination before any formal responses could be made. ¶10. (S) Begin text of the official translation of the Ukrainian Non-Paper: Official Translation JCIC-XXXIII Non-Paper of the Ukrainian Side November 18, 2008 The Ukrainian side placed on the agenda of this session the issue of "Moving types of ICBMs that have been completely eliminated to date into the category of former type of ICBMs." The advisability of discussing this issue and adopting an agreed solution is based on the following considerations: ¶1. To date, after fourteen years of reducing strategic offensive arms in accordance with the Treaty requirements, the number of "existing types" of strategic arms (including ICBMs) is significantly less than those recorded in paragraph 10 of Article III of the Treaty as of the date of signature. ¶2. The substance of definition 34 (11) of the Definitions Annex allows a significant portion of "existing types of ICBMs" as of the date of signature to be moved into a different category, i.e., "former type of ICBMs." ¶3. Since the Treaty provisions do not apply to this category of arms, such a solution would in practice mean considerably simplifying the current Treaty. In other words implementation of this proposal creates totally new conditions for implementing the Treaty, without completely revising it and working out a new agreement. As the main argument in favor of such a solution we note the following: it derives from the substance of the term "former type" that all types of ICBMs, the deployment of which was completed prior to entry into force of the Treaty and none of which is currently deployed, can be classified as "former types of ICBMs." Under this principle, the following should be classified as former types of ICBMs for the Ukrainian side: - SS-17 (RS-16); - SS-24 (RS-22). As a precedent for the use of this category in the Treaty we note subparagraph 10(c) of Article III: "Article III ¶10. As of the date of signature of this Treaty: (c) Former types of ICBMs and SLBMs are the types of missiles designated by the United States of America as, and known to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as, Minuteman I and Polaris A-3." We would like to hear from the U.S. Delegation what the inclusion of this provision in the Treaty did for the U.S. side. In our view, adoption of a JCIC Agreement recording the actual situation with respect to "existing types" and "former types" of strategic arms as of December 2009 could be a possible legal format for codifying an agreement. Adoption of such a document in the JCIC will be useful no matter how the discussion of the Treaty's future unfolds. End text. -------------- COURTLAND - IT'S DISNEYLAND WITHOUT THE FUN -------------- ¶11. (S) Koshelev stated that the Russian Federation had expressed its concerns about Courtland in a number of documents including its October 20, 2008, aide-memoire. Since the United States had not responded to this document, Koshelev repeated the Russian concerns. He stated that the United States had not adequately explained how Courtland fit the definition of a production facility under the START Treaty and that actual activities at Courtland did not correlate to those of a production facility. Koshelev asserted that a target missile utilizing a Trident I SLBM first stage could not be considered a Trident I SLBM under Paragraph 3 of Article III to the Treaty. He reminded the Parties that Joint Statements 21 and 31 were adopted to help resolve this type of issue but that the United States had not provided any of the information required by the two Joint Statements. Additionally, the Russian Delegation inquired as to which launchers the new target vehicles would be launched from and sought the procedures that would be used by inspectors should they encounter the target vehicles during an inspection. ¶12. (S) Taylor thanked Koshelev for his comments and delivered the following points: -- The U.S. declared the Courtland Missile Assembly Facility, Alabama, in accordance with Paragraph (10) of Section I of the Notification Protocol. The Courtland Missile Assembly Facility, Alabama, is listed in Annex B of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as an SLBM production facility. -- Trident I SLBM first stage motors, which had been used previously as part of accountable Trident I SLBMs, that are brought to Courtland will undergo activities consistent with work done at production facilities, including stage assembly. -- The technical data of the Trident I SLBM first stage, as contained in Annex F of the U.S. MOU, remains unchanged. -- As stated in the remarks section of U.S. notification ANC/STR 07-614/17, this facility will assemble target vehicles using Trident I SLBM first-stage motors. -- These target vehicles will be for use in testing the U.S. ballistic missile defense system. This facility will not produce any new Trident I SLBM first stages or any new items subject to the Treaty. -- Information required by Joint Statements 21 and 31 will be provided to the other Parties as required by the Treaty. -- The United States does not agree with the assertion made in the October 20, 2008, Russian aide memoire that any missile system that incorporates the first stage motor of an ICBM or SLBM cannot be classified as an ICBM or SLBM of the corresponding type. -- The United States emphasizes that, in accordance with Paragraph 3(a),Article III, of the Treaty, all Trident I SLBM first-stage motors that have been assembled into first stages remain accountable as a Trident I SLBM and, therefore, continue to be subject to all the relevant provisions of the START Treaty as a Trident I SLBM. ¶13. (S) After quoting Paragraph 3(a) of Article III of the Treaty, Taylor noted that it was commonly understood that the Trident I was an SLBM that was maintained, stored and transported in stages. He assured the Russian Federation and the other Treaty Parties that the declaration of the SLBM production facility at Courtland was in full compliance with the START Treaty. ¶14. (S) Ryzhkov inquired as to what the Courtland Facility produced, SLBMs or something else. He continued to ask for additional information concerning the differences between a target vehicle and other Trident I first stages. Stating that since only Trident I launchers declared by the U.S. side were on submarines, Ryzhkov inquired whether the target vehicle would be launched from those vessels. He explored the possibility of making a Joint Statement similar to Joint Statements 21 and 31 to capture these target vehicles. Lastly, he asked if the target vehicle system was an SLBM or something else. ¶15. (S) Taylor stated again that the Courtland Facility was a production facility for the Trident I SLBM. He assured all Parties for a third time that additional data would be provided as specified in Joint Statements 21 and 31 and that all required notifications would be made in accordance with the Treaty. ¶16. (S) Koshelev thanked Taylor for his comments and promised to provide the Russian Delegation's additional questions in writing. ¶17. (U) Documents exchanged: -- Ukraine: Non-Paper on Changing the Category of Eliminated ICBMs to Former Types, November 18, 2008. ¶18. (U) Participants: U.S. Mr. Taylor Ms. Bosco Mr. Brown Lt Col Comeau Mr. DeNinno Mr. Dunn Maj Edinger Mr. Fortier Mr. Hanchett Mr. Johnston Mr. Kuehne Mr. Miller Mrs. Nash CDR Rust Mr. Smith Mr. Vogel Mr. Yaguchi Ms. Gross (Int) BELARUS Mr. Ugorich Mr. Ponomarev Kazakhstan Col Akhmetalin RUSSIA Mr. Koshelev Mr. Kashirin Ms. Kotkova Col Ryzhkov Capt(1st Rank) Kuz'min Col Novikov Mr. Serov Ms. Sorokina Col Zaytsev Mr. Gusev (Int) UKRAINE Dr. Shevtsov Mr. Bondarenko MGen Fedotov Mr. Makhonin ¶19. (U) Taylor sends. TICHENOR NNNN End Cable Text