APRIL 15 VCC AND VCC EXPERTS, MEETINGS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 USNATO 000141

SIPDIS

SIPDIS
NOFORN

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/18/2018
TAGS: KCFE PARM PREL NATO
SUBJECT: APRIL 15 VCC AND VCC EXPERTS, MEETINGS

REF: (A) STATE 38602

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


1. (C) Summary. At the Experts, Meeting, 17 topics for
discussion and exchange of views for implementation issues in
VD99 were identified and discussion papers will be prepared
for future meetings. The VCC itself was mostly routine,
although a conflict between the U.S. intent to conduct a VD99
inspection in Bosnia the week of 20-26 April led to the
cancellation of that inspection. Problems for some nations
also arose leading to uncertainties about the schedule of VCC
and Experts, Meetings for the rest of the year.


2. (C) The experts discussed a list of 16 potential VD99
implementation topics for future work. In the end, two of
the topics on the staff list were deleted, two others
combined, and four were added leaving a list of 17 topics for
future discussion by experts (see paragraph 3 below). Five
nations volunteered to draft discussion papers. The staff
indicated that it will circulate the full list on the 16th of
April and request nations to volunteer to draft discussion
papers for the remaining topics. The staff will also
identify priorities and the schedule for future discussions.
These discussions are intended to provide a full airing of
national views. Where possible, they will also identify NATO
agreed positions that can be used in the FSC.

-- U.S. representative led off the discussions by
summarizing paragraphs five through seven of REFTEL,
emphasizing current U.S. objection to new CSBMs or changes in
VD99 text while the Russian "suspension" of implementation of
CFE continues. U.S. Rep also underscored the importance of
the Alliance speaking with one voice by first discussing any
proposals at 26 and coming to some resolution--either in
Brussels or Vienna--before tabling them for the rest of the
OSCE. In response, no Ally expressed disagreement with these
points although not all spoke.

-- Further discussions focused on the staff list and a few
implementation issues proposed by Allies, virtually all of
which have been raised in one form or another over the years
at AIAMs. Although it remained in the background of some
issues, the "quota race" per se was not discussed. It was
agreed that discussion on the German proposal to spread
inspections throughout the year, which was already tabled at
the FSC, should remain in Vienna. However, there was no
indication that Allies intend to seek a common position among
NATO FSC delegations before addressing the paper at 56.


3. (C) The topics identified for future discussions, and
some of the points made by Allies, are identified below. It
was understood that these are to be circulated by the staff.

-- 1. Allowing inspecting and evaluating teams to bring an
interpreter (1 per sub team) as auxiliary personnel.
Currently in Vienna this has not progressed beyond a
Chairman's proposal.

-- 2. Concrete parameters for specified area inspections.
Rather than the current subjective VD text, some pS have
argued for establishing some suitable limit to the size of a
specified area, such as 10,000 or 20,000 square kilometers.
In spite of U.S., Canadian, and German opposition, this was
retained as a topic after Norway supported it.

-- 3. Briefings by military commanders. Among the issues
connected to briefings was whether the receiving state should
brief on installations, units in the specified area, or only
on military activities. Denmark will prepare a discussion
paper on this issue.

-- 4. Military and other defense installations. Several pS
have tried to define the term "other defense installations"
with little success. Should the inspecting state be allowed
access to all installations, training areas...etc.?

-- 5. Report (remarks of the receiving state, signed and
counter signed, submission of draft report before leaving the
country.

-- 6. Listing of POEs.

-- 7. Minimal standards/modalities for contacts (visits to

USNATO 00000141 002 OF 003


airbases, visits to military facilities, demonstrations).
The UK will circulate an aide memoir for discussions on this
issue.

-- 8. Increases in the number of inspectors/evaluators. The
U.S. representative noted that this could currently be
addressed only as a voluntary measure.

-- 9. Common understanding of Force Majeure. France noted
that too specific a common understanding could be a slippery
slope since the term "Force Majeure" is used differently in
many international agreements.

-- 10. Evaluation/ inspection time and stop-watch mechanism
during inspections and evaluations. Spain will prepare the
discussion paper.

-- 11. Counting weapons and systems. Although some argued
that counting weapons was a CFE function, others noted that
it was implicit in confirming whether an activity should have
been notified. The Netherlands and France will prepare
separate discussion papers.

-- 12. Use of digital cameras and GPS.

-- 13. Common understandings on articles 81 (sensitive
points),82 (third party),and 98 (briefings).

-- 14. Improving the quality of annual exchanges of military
information.

-- 15. Quota calculation system for inspections and
evaluations. Denmark and Norway noted that they had drafted
a food-for-thought paper for the HLTF.

-- 16. Size of inspecting/evaluation teams. Although the
Chair has this listed as a separate issue, it appears to be
much the same as issue 8, above and may be removed from the
final list.

-- 17. Sending notifications to states parties not connected
to the OSCE network. Recent experiences show that
notification and response to notification sometimes goes awry
with such states.


4. (C) At the VCC, various states reported on completed
VD99 evaluation visits, VD 99 inspections, and CFE
inspections, all of which are already or will be in the
verity data base. Of interest were:

-- Denial of VD99 evaluations by Kazakhstan and Tadzhikistan
on the basis of changes in unit status that had never been
reported or notified;

-- A statement by a Russian, during an evaluation in the
Czech Republic, that the Russian CFE data as of January 1,
2008 had been fully prepared before the suspension, and that
the MOD is compiling Russian flank data for Jully; and

-- Ireland accepted a French evaluation even though its quota
had been exhausted by Russia


5. (C) Various states, including the U.S., reported on
plans for upcoming VD99 evaluation visits, VD99 inspections,
and CFE inspections. Most of these did not reflect changes
from current quotas or schedules, several were part of
bilateral agreements, and all will be published soon by the
IS staff in meeting decision sheets. Among the changes were:

-- A Hungarian bilateral evaluation in Serbia scheduled for
week 17 will now be in week 23;

-- After losing a VD99 inspection in Tadzhikistan to Finland,
the UK may conduct a training inspection of Switzerland in
week 21;

-- the U.S. adjusted the dates for the VD99 inspection in
Russia for the week of 4-10 May to read, "tentative" because
of the Russian presidential inauguration activities; and

-- A Danish CFE inspection in Moldova scheduled for time
block 15 will now be in time block 29.


6. (C) A problem arose over the U.S. announcement of plans
to conduct a VD99 inspection in Bosnia during the week of 20

USNATO 00000141 003 OF 003


to 26 April. Prior to this announcement, the U.S. had
indicated that this inspection would take place at a time to
be announced. Russia recently used up one of Bosnia's
quotas, and Turkey, which had originally scheduled an
inspection to Bosnia later in the year, would lose its
inspection if the U.S. went forward with its inspection in
April. It was agreed between the U.S. and Turkey to request
the IS Staff to coordinate an above quota VD99 inspection
with Bosnia. Should Bosnia accept, both the U.S. and Turkey
would have the opportunity to conduct an inspection as
planned. Meanwhile, the U.S. agreed not to notify its VD99
inspection for the week of 20-26 April. If Bosnia does not
agree, the U.S. will forego its inspection entirely and seek
a guest inspector slot with the Turks.


7. (C) Canada raised the question of when NATO should stop
VD99 inspections and evaluations of the two new NATO invitees
-- an issue that also applies to Open Skies. The chairman
noted that this had yet to be decided but, based upon past
expansions, NATO would probably continue verification
activities in these states until they had fully and formally
joined NATO.


8. (SBU) Turkey announced that Russia had notified that no
Open Skies missions should be planned for the week preceding
its May 1 holiday. Everyone who responded indicated that
this Russian practice was unacceptable.


9. (U) Bulgaria received a hard copy of Tadzhikistan's VD
data which had not been provided on time in December 2007.
Copies were provided to all present.


10. (SBU) The Chair noted it would propose a time, within
the forthcoming VCC meetings, for Allies to review the
results of this years experimental coordination of VD99
inspections.


11. (SBU) Several Allies indicated problems with both
already "agreed" and proposed dates for VCC and VCC Experts'
Meetings. As a result, the May 29 scheduled meeting will
apparently be for experts only, and the staff is researching
possibilities for rooms, etc., for other dates for the July
scheduled VCC meeting and for virtually all proposed Fall VCC
and VCC Experts' Meetings.
NULAND