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