NATO/VCC: JANUARY 22 VCC AND VCC EXPERTS, MEETINGS

C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000035

SIPDIS

NOFORN
SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/22/2018
TAGS: PREL PARM KCFE NATO RS OSCE
SUBJECT: NATO/VCC: JANUARY 22 VCC AND VCC EXPERTS, MEETINGS

REF: A. A. STATE 155906


B. B.AC/319-A(2007)0012 (CFE)

C. C.AC/319-A(2007)0011

D. D.USNATO 0005254

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


1. (C) SUMMARY: The Experts agreed and the VCC approved the
text for the common understanding of Annex A, Section V,
Paragraph 5 of the Final Document of the First CFE Review
Conference as suggested by the U.S. in Ref A. The
understanding will be forwarded to the JCG-T in Vienna. END
SUMMARY

--------------
VIENNA DOCUMENT ISSUES
--------------


2. (C) The Chair reported that Russia has been unusually
active this year in conducting Vienna Document (VD)
evaluations and inspections, causing the loss of several by
NATO states. This Russian activity included both and
evaluation and a VD inspection in Georgia that was notified
directly by FAX to Georgia and not distributed to all states
parties. In conjunction with this, the U.S. Representative
noted that the U.S. had lost an evaluation quota because of a
Russian evaluation in Croatia, and that the U.S. wanted to
replace this with an evaluation in Austria. Norway proposed
that NATO deconflict both VD evaluations and inspections
throughout the year by proposing time blocks as is done in
CFE. The U.S. Representative noted that this would be
technically not in keeping with the VCC-stated purpose of a
VD inspection, which, although in practice used differently,
is supposed to be to inspect for unnotified activities that
should have been reported. Germany reported that invitations
had been sent for attendees at seminars on the VD to be
conducted in Berlin on March 2-13. Norway reported that a
paper they were preparing for the Nordic and Baltic States
would focus on Chapter 9 of the VD, and would propose that
the Heads of Verification meeting at the AIAM consider
proposals to: (1) increase the quota for evaluations; (2)
increase the size of evaluation and inspection teams to allow
more multinational teams; and (3) decrease the number of VD
inspections. This way, especially with (1) and (2) above,
they hoped to alleviate the rush to conduct evaluations.
(COMMENT: This is the latest of several attempts by Norway

and others to have the Heads of Verification meeting address
policy matters and become more dynamic. This suggests that
the U.S. policy community may need carefully to craft
guidance for the DTRA representatives at this meeting.)

--------------
CFE ISSUES
--------------


3. (C) The IS Chair summarized recent HLTF discussions on
next steps and raised the possibility of someone notifying an
inspection in Russia early enough for the Russian response to
be received prior to the next HLTF (the U.S. is the next one
up according to the deconfliicted NATO schedule). This
would, of course, be a national decision. (COMMENT:
subsequent discussion with the U.S. delegation (VCI, DTRA,
and WINPAC) concluded that this could be done should VCI
instruct DTRA to do so.) The Chair also stated that it was
his understanding that Russia had indicated that if there was
no movement toward resolving the suspension issue by
mid-Summer, Russia would have to consider full withdrawal
from CFE. It was noted that after the December CFE data
exchange in which Russia did not participate, Russia sent a
one-page notification to other states parties providing
aggregate numbers of TLE by type for overall holdings in the
area of application and in a few other area covered by
"political agreements", such as the Pskov and Kaliningrad
oblast, but this was nowhere near to level of detail on
completeness required by the Treaty. It was agreed that a
meeting of experts to finalize deconfliction of CFE
inspection planning would take place on February 20 after
completion of the two day meeting of experts on outstanding
implementation issues. National preferences for time blocks
for CFE inspections for the 13th Residual Year are due to the
IS staff by the end of January (the U.S. has already passed
these) and if there are conflicts they will need to be
deconflicted; the VCC agreed that the staff would issue a
short paper proposing not to send partners invitations to
pair CFE inspections for the 13th Residual Year since past
experience has shown that the few who respond positively only
seem to want to follow up if the NATO state pays for any
paired inspections. This paper will have a short (one to two
week) silence period.

---
AOB
---


4. (SBU) The Chair reported that Paul In Den Bosh of the
NATO IS will be reassigned in September, leaving a VNC
opening on the staff. Letters to nations seeking volunteers
will be forthcoming. The next VCC meeting was changed to
Friday, March 7 (from March 11) in order to precede the
beginning of the 13th Residual Year.
NULAND