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