C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USNATO 000102

SIPDIS

SIPDIS
NOFORN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/17/2018
TAGS: KCFE PARM PREL NATO
SUBJECT: NATO/VCC: MARCH 7 VCC MEETING

REF: (A) STATE 023551

Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Richard G. Olson, reasons 1.4 (b
and d)


1. (C) Summary. In addition to the usual exchange of
information on VDOC and CFE activities conducted and planned,
the VCC meeting was generally successful. No Ally
volunteered to notify a CFE inspection in Russia in March, so
the U.S. did so. However, the IS Chair urged Allies to
reconsider and if one was prepared to do so, it should notify
the Staff and the U.S. It was agreed that NATO will no
longer send letters inviting partners to pair inspections.
The NATO papers on the definition of an inspected site
(without footnotes) and on the interpretation of the rules
about supplementary flank inspections were agreed and will be
sent to the JCG-T. The U.S. and Germany resolved differences
on the Outstanding Implementation Issues off-line and a
revised paper will be issued by the staff under a two-week
silence procedure. Discussion of the AIAM, Heads of
Verification (HOV) meetings in Vienna, and of the German
paper on VDOC inspection scheduling tabled in the FSC led to
agreement for the VCC and Experts to seek to identify and
prepare agreed positions on VDOC implementation issues, and
possibly best practices guides, before the next AIAM and HOV
meetings. This process will start with an experts, meeting
the morning of April 15.


2. (C) VDOC Evaluations and Inspections. The U.S. reported
on its evaluation in Austria between February 11 and 13 per
guidance. The U.S. also informed Allies that its VDOC
inspection in Russia planned for the week of March 16 to 22
will be rescheduled.

-- The Chair noted that so far in 2008, of 12 VDOC
evaluations conducted by partners, ten have been by Russia;
and of 15 VDOC inspections so far by partners, seven have
been by Russia. Since ten VDOC inspections by partners have
been in non-NATO States Parties, these represent
opportunities lost by NATO.

-- Allies reported on a number of VDOC evaluations and

inspections that they have conducted in 2008. None of these
featured significant problems, and all either have been or
will be reported in detail to all.

-- Allies announced upcoming VDOC evaluations and
inspections, both quota and in accord with bilateral
agreements. Changes from existing plans included: a
Belgian VDOC inspection to Montenegro in week 16 to replace
an inspection lost in Serbia for the same week; a Slovenian
VDOC inspection in Bosnia in week 20 to replace an inspection
lost in Cyprus for week 16; and a Hungarian VDOC inspection
in Albania in week 14 to replace an inspection lost in
Croatia for week 12. In addition a planned Danish VDOC
inspection in Azerbaijan has been lost. Finally, because
there is also a planned evaluation by Norway in Tajikistan in
week 15 and the Tajik verification agency is very small,
Bulgaria will conduct its planned VDOC inspection in
Tajikistan in week 14, vice week 15.


3. (C) AIAM. The chair reported and several Allies commented
on the conduct of the AIAM and the HOV meetings in Vienna.
There was discussion by the Chair and several Allies on the
German paper on VDOC inspection planning that was tabled in
Vienna. Per guidance, the U.S. Representative noted that we
have some concerns with it and believe that is should
probably be further discussed among Allies in Vienna. When
the discussion of the German paper continued, the U.S.
Representative (supported by Denmark) noted that the VCC and
VCC Experts had addressed VDOC scheduling and coordination at
length, but had not been able to reach full agreement on
proposals, and it had always been the clear U.S. position to
oppose any coordination at 56 or outside of Brussels. When
the German Representative replied that their paper tabled in
the FSC did not contain the words "to coordinate" and was
solely aimed at dividing up the year to reduce the quota rush
in the early months. U.S. Representative noted that there was
no intent to attack Germany, but the U.S. had some concerns
on the German paper and believed that it implied a wider
coordination. On the margins, the German Representative
(Eichorn) stated that General Maertens, comments at the HOV
on coordination in Vienna were his personal extemporaneously
voiced views and had not been cleared by their MFA, which
does not agree with them.

USNATO 00000102 002 OF 002



-- The Chair noted that in Vienna, Russia had proposed that
VDOC notifications made outside of the timeframes in VD99
should be considered as invalid. Russia also proposed that
because demonstrations of new equipment were expensive, they
should be required within a five-year period, vice a one year
period, so that they could coincide with airbase visits.

-- Norway noted that it had not produced the Nordic paper on
changing VDOC evaluation quotas because of opposition in the
HLTF.

-- The Chair, vocally supported by several allies, suggested
that the VCC and Experts should develop NATO positions on
VDOC implementation issues and proposals, and possibly for
"best practices" papers before the next AIAM and HOV
meetings. As a beginning, an experts meeting will be
scheduled the morning of the April VCC to identify VDOC
implementation issues that should be so addressed, as well as
taskings for food for thought papers on them for future
discussions.


4. (C) CFE Inspection Planning and Reports. There were no
reports on CFE inspections conducted. When no Ally
volunteered to notify a CFE inspection in Russia during
March, the U.S. announced that it would notify the inspection
currently scheduled in Russia in time block 24 in time block
3, but that if the inspection was rejected as expected, it
would revert back to time block 24. The Chair expressed
disappointment that no Ally had stepped up to do this, and
stressed that it would more clearly demonstrate Allied unity
if this were to be done by someone else other than the U.S.
or Germany (who had already had inspections rejected by
Russia in January and February). He then urged Allies to
reconsider, and if one could change its plan in order to make
the March notification, that Ally should notify the Staff and
the U.S.


5. (C) Paired Inspections. Since silence was not broken the
VCC decision not to send partners a letter about pairing
inspections stands, and this will not be done.


6. (SBU) Problems Related to Flank Inspections. Now that the
NATO paper on this has been fully agreed in Brussels it will
be forwarded to the JCG-T.


7. (SBU) Outstanding CFE Implementation Issues. Off-line,
the U.S. and Germany agreed on acceptable changes to this
paper to resolve the problems raised when Germany broke
silence. These were passed to the Staff, and a revised text
on Russian CFE Implementation Issues (Derived Holdings of CFE
Treaty-limited Equipment as of 1 January 2008) will be
circulated under a two-week silence period.


8. (SBU) Definition of a Declared Site. It was agreed that
this paper should be forwarded to the JCG-T without any
footnotes.


9. (C) Under Any Other Business it was suggested that NATO
states consider inviting other partners to be more active in
inspecting NATO states and encourage them by offering to help
by paying airfare. Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands
noted that they do that for bilateral inspection agreements,
and that some of those become quota inspections if a quota is
available at the time. In addition, in response to a
question, the Chair noted that the Staff is seeking a time
for the next VCC seminar in early 2009.


10. (SBU) The next VCC meeting will be April 15th with a
morning Experts, meeting on VDOC implementation issues. The
Staff hopes to propose the VCC meeting schedule for the
second half of 2008 at that time.
NULAND