RESULTS FROM 23 OCTOBER 2008 VCC AND EXPERTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000406 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/30/2018 TAGS: PARM PREL NATO SUBJECT: RESULTS FROM 23 OCTOBER 2008 VCC AND EXPERTS MEETINGS REF: STATE 112027 Classified By: A/DCM Kate Byrnes for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary. During the 23 October VCC and Experts Meetings, the IS requested that Allies resubmit their 2009 bids for Vienna Document (VD) 1999 evaluation visits and inspections by 28 October in accordance with newly agreed procedures in the revised draft Implementation Coordination working paper. The Chair confirmed that the IS Aide Memoir on VD 99 Zone of Application for Confidence and Security Building Measures (CSBM) is intended to spur debate on whether there is a need for a common definition of the Zone of Application (see request for guidance, paragraph 8.) Experts also discussed and revised working papers on "Size of Inspection and Evaluation Teams" and "Use of Digital Cameras." The paper on "Duration of Evaluation Visits" was dropped from consideration for the AIAM. In the VCC, Allies agreed not to hold a VCC Seminar in March. ¶2. (C) The next meeting of Experts is scheduled for the entire day on 17 November. Experts will deconflict 2009 evaluation and inspection bids in the morning and examine the remaining AIAM papers in the afternoon. Experts will also begin to consider how agreed NATO positions should be employed at the AIAM. The next VCC, scheduled for 18 December, will include a discussion on the future of a Heads of Verification (HOV) meeting in connection with the 2009 AIAM. End Summary. Allies to resubmit 2009 Evaluation and Inspection Bids - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¶3. (C) In AC/319-N(2008)0038, the IS requested that Allies submit their annual bids for VD 99 evaluations visits and inspections by October 15 in order to facilitate the distribution of a consolidated list of bids before 1 November. This request followed an agreement by Experts at the September meeting to implement para 1 of the draft paper on Implementation Coordination. Twenty two Allies submitted bids before the deadline, however the Chair noted a number of inconsistencies in the way Allies had prepared their bids. A number of Allies forwarded bids per instructions in the draft Implementation Coordination working paper dated 16 September, while others submitted bids per historical practice. Some Allies included alternate targets, others did not, and still others listed multiple primary targets for both inspections and evaluations. The Chair asked all Allies to resubmit their bids by 28 October in accordance with the newly agreed, revised procedures in the draft Implementation Coordination working pape r (described below.) (Note: USDel coordinated with USNATO to resubmit U.S. bids per the new instructions. U.S. 2009 primary/alternate bids for evaluation visits remain unchanged. U.S. primary/alternate bids for inspections are as follows: Azerbaijan/Armenia and Belarus/Ukraine. USNATO confirmed resubmission on October 27. End note.) Implementation Coordination Working Paper - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¶4. (C) Experts agreed that Allies would submit bids for one primary target and one alternate target for an evaluation visit, and two primary targets for inspections with an alternate target selected for each. Experts agreed further that Allies could bid for a single country for both an evaluation visit and an inspection, but would not be allocated an evaluation visit and an inspection for the same country. Paragraph five was revised, therefore, to read, "That they should initially bid for no more than one primary and one alternate evaluation visit and two primary inspections with one alternate each, with no more than one evaluation visit or one inspection in the same country;". ¶5. (C) Per REF guidance, USDel requested that paragraph nine be modified to clearly provide Allies with flexibility to coordinate the inspection schedule, bilaterally as needed between VCC meetings, in the event Allies receive indications of military activity. Paragraph nine was therefore edited to read, "In the case Allies receive indications of military activities Allies can revise the deconflicted schedule through the VCC. The consensus on this formulation seemed to be that while Allies are free to coordinate bilaterally and that Allies would notify the VCC of any changes to the deconflicted schedule either through the IS or at the next VCC meeting. ¶6. (C) Allies remain divided, however, on how they would respond to indications of military activity. Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands, among others, support a strict use of VD 99 inspections (i.e. Inspections are intended to monitor military activity, and should not be used as "mini evaluations.") In their opinion, if an Ally received indications of military activities in country X for which it did not hold a quota, that Ally would have the right to disregard the deconflicted schedule and inspect country X during the suspected military activity if Allies holding quotas for country X decline to use their quota/s during the suspected military activities. The IS will redistribute this revision and the paper will remain on the agenda for the next meeting of Experts. AIAM Discussion Papers - - - - - - - - - - - ¶7. (C) Experts spent the remainder of the morning considering three AIAM discussion papers, while consideration of Russia's proposal on Size of a Specified area, Evaluation Visit Quotas, Definition of Military Installations, and the IS Aide Memoir on the Zone of Application was postponed until the next Experts meeting on 17 November. It became apparent during the exchanges that Allies hold various opinions on how to use agreed positions at the AIAM. Norway and Denmark also inquired as to whether Allies would be discouraged from introducing discussion topics that failed to find consensus in the VCC. At USDel's suggestion, the Chair agreed to add the topic of how to employ NATO agreed positions at the AIAM to the agenda for 17 November. ¶8. (C) The Chair confirmed that the IS had drafted its Aide Memoir on the VD 99 Zone of Application as a result of Norway's inspection of Russia. The IS intent is for Experts to consider whether there is a need for a definition of the VD 99 Zone of Application for CSBMs. (Note. On September 17 Norway notified Russia it intended to conduct an inspection of a specified area in which filed exercises were under way. Russia responded that the specified area, notified in Norway's F33, extended outside the Zone of Applications for CSBMs, and requested that Norway modify its specified area to bring it into compliance with the provisions of VD 99. End Note.) The Chair surmised that on the basis of Russia's F34, it appeared that Russia had enforced a "CFE" definition of the VD 99 Zone of Application. Mission requests guidance on the U.S. position on the definition of a VD 99 Zone of Application for CSBMs for use at the next VCC Experts Meeting. ¶9. (C) Duration of Evaluation Visits (Stop the Clock.) The Chair agreed to drop this issue from the list of discussion papers following strong interventions from Norway and Denmark, supported by the UK, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary and Belgium. ¶10. (C) The following working papers will be redistributed and will remain on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting of Experts: --Size of Inspection and Evaluation Teams. Experts agreed that para 2.4 does not contribute to the description of the problem and should be deleted from the paper. --Use of Digital Cameras. The U.S. (Meyer) noted U.S. continued opposition to the proposed NATO point of view, which, in the current and previous drafts, has included a call for a specific product--a Chairperson's Statement. Experts agreed with the U.S. view that para 2.1 and 3.2 should be reformulated to state an agreed NATO position, not an agreed solution. There was also some debate over whether para 3.1 on digital cameras was necessary. Most Allies agreed that the language in VD 99, together with an existing Chairperson's statement, were sufficient and that Allies should simply change their practice of requesting permission. Reports on VD 99 Evaluation Visits and Inspection - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¶11. (C) At the VCC meeting, Allies reported on recent VD 99 implementation activity: --Luxemburg announced that its evaluation in Uzbekistan scheduled for week 48 has been cancelled. --Lithuania reported on its observation of Belarus' exercise "AUTUMN 08" ("OSEN' 08"). On a voluntary basis, Belarus invited bordering countries to observe this below-threshold exercise. Lithuania noted that while their Belarusian escorts where very hospitable and received the observation team warmly, the escorts were very restrictive on what they allowed the Lithuanian team to see during the exercise. --Norway reported on its inspection of the a specified area in Russia and confirmed that, after the September VCC, it had decided not to test Russia's self-declared specified area limitation of 18000 square kilometers, opting instead to notify a specified area of approximately 15,500 square kilometers. As noted in para 8 above, Russia objected to Norway's inspection request, claiming Norway's specified area extended beyond the Zone of Application for CSBMs. Norway's original specified area, based on VD 99 paragraph 80, included the Donguz training area located just east of the Ural River, in which field activity was under way at the time of Norway's notification. Norway considered proceeding under its original notification, but decided that it did not want to appear to be setting a precedent. Consequently, Norway modified the south eastern boundary of its specified area to follow the Ural River. --Norway suggested that the issue of the Zone of Application be reviewed at an experts meeting and stated that Norway felt that a specified area should not be defined beyond what is stated in para 80 in the VD 99. --Norway noted little activity in the specified area except within the training area at Totskoye. In addition, the Norwegian team reported observing a tactical air traffic control radar and surmised that this radar could imply that the exercise included the use of tactical aircraft, although Russia had not notified the participation of tactical aircraft. --Finally, Norway opined that while the armaments and equipment storage base (AESB) did not require notification, according to para 80 of the VD 99, the Units mobilized from that base likely should have been notified in accordance with paragraph 10.3.1 since the exercise lasted 18 days, and the units, which must have exceeded 2000 troops, had also likely been activated for more than 21 days. ¶12. (C) Open Skies: Denmark announced that it has revised its national policy guidance on not conducting open skies observation flights, and now plans on conducting a mission over Russia in 2009. ¶13. (C) Allies agreed that there was no practical benefit of holding a VCC Seminar the week following the AIAIM in March. The Chair announced that during the March VCC meeting it would return to the question of if and when to hold the next VCC Seminar. CFE Reports and Inspections Changes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¶14. (C) Allies reported on the following CFE implementation activity since the last VCC meeting: --Canada's paid bilateral inspection in Ukraine scheduled for Time Block (TB) 34 was moved to TB 39. --The UK's Flank inspection in Ukraine scheduled for TB 35 was conducted in TB 31. It's paid inspection in Ukraine scheduled for TB 31 has been moved to TB 35. --Canada announced a new paid inspection of Belarus in TB 37. --Hungary will conduct a bilateral inspection of Ukraine in TB 36. --Denmark announced that it cancelled its inspection of Russia scheduled for TB 31 and turned its quota back in to the Chair. Denmark explained its action was based on Denmark's policy of only conducting one CFE quota inspection per year. --Norway announced it will re-notify its inspection in Russia for TB 52. Norway also announced that its inspection of Azerbaijan has been postponed until TB 50. Norway explained that following its notification, Norway received an F00 from Azerbaijan through diplomatic channels in which Azerbaijan requested that SP refrain from conducting inspections between 26 October and 3 November as its Verification Division would "be busy with training events." An informal survey of Allies indicated that no one else had seen this F00. Norway complained that there has been an increase in the number of SP that have requested relief from inspections for frivolous reasons. The Chair agreed that such requests are not consistent with the provisions of the Treaty and that this would be an appropriate topic to discuss in Vienna at the JCG. ¶15. (C) USDel noted that as the VCC and Experts continued to address discussion papers for the AIAM, it would also be appropriate for Allies to discuss their views on whether to hold a Heads of Verification (HOV) Meeting concurrently with the AIAM. The Chair agreed to add this topic to the next VCC agenda, scheduled for 18 December. VOLKER