NATO: MAY 29 MEETING OF VCC EXPERTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USNATO 000196

NOFORN
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/03/2018
TAGS: KCFE PARM PREL NATO
SUBJECT: NATO: MAY 29 MEETING OF VCC EXPERTS

REF: A. A) AC/319-N(2008)0021

B. B)AC/319-N(2008)0017

C. C)AC/319-N(2008)0023

D. D)STATE 056524

Classified By: Acting Deputy Chief of Mission W. Scott Reid, III, reaso
ns 1.4 (b and d)


1. (C) SUMMARY: Experts made initial discussions of six
of the seven agenda topics (Ref A) as well as the eighth
agenda topic on preparation of remaining issues. Virtually
no decisions were reached and all of the topics discussed at
the meeting will be further addressed at the Experts,
Meeting on 9 June. A Dutch paper (Ref C) on agenda item 2a
(counting weapons and systems),which reached the opposite
conclusion from the French paper previously distributed as
part of Reference A, was also discussed. Discussion papers
on Briefing by Military Commanders (Germany),Common
Understanding of Force Majeure (Canada),
Inspection/Evaluation Quota Calculation System (Denmark &
Norway),and Size of Inspection and Evaluation Teams (Denmark
& Norway) were issued and briefly discussed at the meeting.
In looking ahead to future Experts, discussions, the chair
noted that item 8 in the list of implementation issues to be
addressed (Ref B) was a duplicate of item 16 and will be
deleted. The Chair announced that at the next Experts,
meeting on 9 June, in addition to continuing the discussions
of issues addressed at this meeting, the internal review of
the trial de-confliction of Vienna Document (VD) activities
will begin. END SUMMARY


2. (C) U.S. Representative led off the discussions of
specific topics by reminding all that the U.S. opposes
changing any of the Vienna Document (VD99) text, but wanted
to hear Allies, views and could support NATO interpretive
statements about ambiguous text in VD99, and - in general -
was open to regional and voluntary measures.


3. (C) The discussion on Counting Weapons and Systems
during VD99 Evaluations was lengthy and initially quite
confused. Many Allies appeared to define "counting" as the
right to demand to see all items briefed and to be able to
demand explanations for discrepancies. Some Allies also
indicated that they do not count what they observe, but
rather report only the numbers in the annual data and those
briefed during evaluations. After much discussion, all
appeared to agree that their evaluation reports do or should
reflect reasons why all elements of evaluated units or
formations were not observed (e.g., not at the same location)
and any efforts made to question escorts about discrepancies.
There was also general agreement that "counting" as many
Allies define it was not specifically authorized by VD99 text
- although Canada made a lengthy intervention arguing that
the dictionary definition of "evaluating" implicitly involved
a systematic effort to confirm data presented, and hence did
involve or imply "counting". It was also noted that Russia,
when conducting or hosting evaluations, appears to consider
"counting" to be a part of the evaluation.


4. (SBU) The discussion of the Duration of an Evaluation
Visit was shorter, but also inconclusive. Per guidance (Ref
D),U.S. Representative noted that this proposal had been
tabled in Vienna and, although we believe it has merit, we
prefer to continue the discussion of the topic in Vienna.
This was met by an almost universal response that it was
fully appropriate for the Experts in Brussels to pass
recommendations to the NATO delegations in Vienna, some of
which seek those recommendations. Most Allies generally
liked the Spanish ideas, but, as they did in several cases,
questioned their utility if put forth as a voluntary measure
or a Chairman,s Statement, since experience has shown that
Russia only agrees to voluntary measures or Chairman,s
Statements when they want to do so. It was also noted that
Russia has tabled a similar proposal for a decision paper in
Vienna.


4. (C) The new German paper on briefings by commanders was
discussed without any true decisions. Generally, all agreed
that the briefing elements proposed by Germany were desirable.


5. (SBU) There was no discussion of the topic of Minimal
Standards/Modalities for Contacts since there was no
discussion paper. It was noted that the UK expected to
produce a discussion paper on this, but, although they have
done this within NATO at Vienna, they would not be doing this

USNATO 00000196 002 OF 002


in Brussels for the Experts.


6. (C) Canada circulated and discussed a paper arguing for
agreed text, based on international law and other practices
that limit the use of force majeure to things truly beyond
the control of the declaring state. There was very little
discussion of the Canadian paper beyond asking for more
examples of improper use of the term, but it seems obvious
that the Canadian approach -- even though ostensibly
desirable -- would require a formal decision that, in effect,
added new text to VD99.


7. (C) The Norwegians and Danes briefed their combined
papers on the Inspection/Evaluation Quota Calculation System
and on the Size of Inspection and Evaluation Teams. Again,
discussion was limited, but in both cases, the Danes and
Dutch are proposing changes to VD99 text. No answers were
made by Allies to the U.S. question of how these might be
made voluntary measures. It was noted that the question of
interpreters being auxiliary personnel not members of
inspection or evaluation teams was closely related to the
proposals on the size of teams, and in this regard, it was
noted that the Russians simply ignore a Chairman,s Statement
making them auxiliary personnel. In pushing their ideas, the
Danes and Norwegians again referred to the "quota race," and
the U.S. responded according to guidance, but the idea keeps
coming up here.


8. (SBU) Looking to the future, these discussions on these
same topics will continue at the June 9 Experts, meeting,
along with a first look at the results of the one year trial
de-confliction of Vienna Document inspections. The Chair
also again requested nations to volunteer to write discussion
papers on the remaining topics and, if possible, to circulate
them at the next meeting. Turkey will submit a paper on the
use of GPS, France will prepare one on the Report (item 5 in
Ref B),and Hungary will prepare a paper on concrete
parameters for area of inspections, and possibly on the
common understanding of articles 81 (sensitive points),
article 82 (third party),and article 98 (briefings).
NULAND