NATO/VCC: MARCH 7 VCC MEETING

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