Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08USOSCE118
2008-04-30 18:47:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Mission USOSCE
Cable title:  

CFE: APRIL 29 JCG PLENARY, ALLIES REFUTE RUSSIAN

Tags:  KCFE OSCE PARM PREL RS 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0015
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHVEN #0118/01 1211847
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 301847Z APR 08
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5693
INFO RUCNCFE/CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 1655
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5-DDPMA-IN/CAC/DDPMA-E// PRIORITY
RUEAHQA/HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC//XONP// PRIORITY
RUEADWD/DA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAE PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L USOSCE 000118 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM
NSC FOR DOWLEY
JCS FOR J5/COL NORWOOD
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI)

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/17/2016
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL RS
SUBJECT: CFE: APRIL 29 JCG PLENARY, ALLIES REFUTE RUSSIAN
PROPOSAL ON ELEMENTS OF PARALLEL ACTION PACKAGE


Classified By: Chief Arms Control Delegate Hugh Neighbour,
for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).

C O N F I D E N T I A L USOSCE 000118

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM
NSC FOR DOWLEY
JCS FOR J5/COL NORWOOD
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI)

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/17/2016
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL RS
SUBJECT: CFE: APRIL 29 JCG PLENARY, ALLIES REFUTE RUSSIAN
PROPOSAL ON ELEMENTS OF PARALLEL ACTION PACKAGE


Classified By: Chief Arms Control Delegate Hugh Neighbour,
for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (SBU) Summary: At the April 29 Joint Consultative Group
(JCG),Dr. Szabolcs Osvat of the Hungarian MOD provided an
academic-style briefing to the JCG on the topic of
"Stationing and Temporary Deployment During CFE Adaptation
and Beyond, 1996-1999." Inter alia, the brief noted how the
CFE Final Act commitments were an integral part of
adaptation. Although the brief was intended to be an
academic exercise, Dr. Osvat's mention of unaccounted for and
uncontrolled Treaty Limited Equipment (UTLE) initiated heated
exchanges between Armenia and Azerbaijan.


2. (C) Following Hungary's presentation, Russian Chief Arms
Control Delegate (Ulyanov) proposed that the JCG begin work
on the details of three elements of the parallel actions
package: definition of substantial combat forces; accession
terms for the Baltic countries and Slovenia; and lowering
NATO's collective ceiling. In response, Germany, the U.S.,
and the UK flatly rejected Russia's view. The Allies told
Ulyanov that Russia must agree to the parallel actions
package before detailed negotiations on specific elements of
the package can take place. The three also refuted Russia,s
contention that the package was "Russian actions for Allied
promises." End Summary.

- - - - - - - - - -
The Hungarian Brief
- - - - - - - - - -


3. (SBU) As part of the "focused dialogue" series of
presentations by NATO members of the JCG, Dr. Szabolcs Osvat
of the Hungarian Ministry of Defense provided an
academic-style briefing to the JCG on the topic of
"Stationing and Temporary Deployment During CFE Adaptation
and Beyond, 1996-1999." In his eighty-minute presentation
(JCG.DEL/18/08),Dr. Osvat explained the various "notions"
(he noted that they were not "definitions") of stationing,
and deployment. He focused on the problem in the flank area,

some of the solutions considered during the negotiation, and
the diplomatic resolution to the issue.


4. (C) Dr. Osvat spent the largest portion of his brief on
Central Europe, where stationing and deployment was a concern
due to NATO enlargement and was the region of greatest
interest to his country. He highlighted the adaptation
requirements, Russian concerns and the negotiated solution
that lead to the 1999 Adaptation of Agreement. The content
of the brief drew little response from the forum. (Comment:
Hungary's presentation reinforced a lot of contentions Allies
regularly make in relation to the CFE Final Act commitments,
e.g., that it was all a package agreed upon by all States
Parties at that time. Nothing in Osvat's presentation can be
used to undercut our arguments. End Comment).


5. (SBU) Germany, the U.S., the UK, and Greece thanked Dr.
Osvat for his presentation. Germany (Richter) reminded all
that States Parties still have to give consent for force
deployment in its territory. He opined that the strategic
compromises by all States Parties resulted in a positive
solution to the adaptation negotiations. While referring to
the parallel actions package, Richter stated that there is
currently a compromise on the table and appealed to Russia to
give a "positive signal" on agreeing to the compromise. The
U.S. (Neighbour) observed that Osvat's presentation again
showed how the CFE Final Act commitments were an integral
part of the adaptation package. This included express
consent of host States Parties, an element that was
understood and agreed by all.


6. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) deployed his standard complaint
stating that A/CFE no longer takes into account the current
security situation and therefore more work needed to be done
to keep the Treaty viable. In a remark aimed at what Russia
perceived to be the lack of substantive work in the JCG,

Ulyanov commented that he was envious of the productivity of
the JCG during 1997 and 1999 when details of stationing and
deployment were worked out. Russia will review the Hungarian
brief and plan to address it at a later date.


7. (SBU) Although Turkey agreed with the majority of Dr.
Osvat's briefing, Turkish representative (Guc) noted the
speaker's portrayal of the 1996 Flank Agreement. Guc
reminded everyone that there should be no question on the
validity of the Flank Agreement as being an equal part of the
CFE Treaty. He stressed to all that the Flank Agreement is
an integral and legally-binding part of the Treaty.


8. (SBU) Azerbaijan (Jafarova) found the presenter's
analysis of unaccounted for and uncontrolled Treaty Limited
Equipment (UTLE) to be incomplete. Jafarova pointed out to
the JCG that UTLE in Nagorno-Karabakh were actually under the
control of Armenia. This initiated a 30 minutes of heated
verbal exchanges between the Armenian and Azerbaijan
representatives with each side accusing the other of past
wrongdoings.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russia: Let's Work The Details Now
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


9. (SBU) Following Dr. Osvat's briefing and at the urging
of the Russian delegation, Belarus representative (Pavlov)
delivered a prepared statement in which Belarus welcomed
previous statement by the Baltic countries and Slovenia that
they would accede to A/CFE. Belarus wanted more information
on specific steps that States Parties would take to ratify
A/CFE and wondered if a special JCG meeting would be useful
in this regard. Additionally, Pavlov also calls for work by
the JCG on the details of the parallel actions package
regardless of the status of play of the package agreement.


10. (SBU) Russian Arms Control Chief Delegate (Ulyanov)
asked when it would be appropriate for the JCG to take on
three elements of the parallel actions package: definition of
substantial combat forces; accession terms for the Baltic
countries and Slovenia; and lowering NATO's collective
ceiling. Ulyanov stated that the North Atlantic Council
(NAC) statement of 28 March had acknowledged that the three
elements needed discussion. He said that NATO had suggested
that the discussion would take place after the parallel
actions package is agreed upon. However, there is no
guarantee that discussion would occur, but just promises that
the elements would be considered. Ulyanov complained that,
according to the plan, Russia is required to take immediate
actions on Moldova and Georgia while NATO would only have to
start the ratification process. He thought the parallel
actions package is really a "plan for Russian actions and
NATO promises" and that it was an imbalance plan that Russia
will not agree upon.


11. (SBU) Ulyanov said he did not want to break up the
package. He wanted to work the details on the elements now
in order to "infuse" the package in order to make it
"stronger and more viable." He proposed that the JCG begin
detailed work on the definition of substantial combat forces
now so when the package is signed, the JCG would be able to
come to an agreement on this element. Ulyanov couldn't
understand why Allies are opposed to his work proposal. He
wondered if Allies wanted the package agreement without the
details in order to gain an advantage on Russia in future
negotiation of the three elements.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Allies Just Say "NO" (Again)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


12. (SBU) In response to Ulyanov's intervention, Germany
(Richter) reminded the forum of the various topics of the
ongoing focused dialogue discussion that addresses some of
Russia's concerns. He reiterated German openness for


substantive dialogue in the JCG, but reminded Russia that the
parallel actions package must be agreed upon conceptually
first before detail work can be initiated. He pointed out
that the package, as indicated in the NAC statement, would
required all parties to take action in parallel and at the
same time. He asked Russia for a positive signal on their
willingness to agree to the parallel actions package.


13. (SBU) Using cleared language from previous guidance and
the NAC statement of 28 March (JCG.JOUR/660, Annex 3),the
U.S. (Neighbour) rejected Russia's proposal for piecemeal
discussion of the package. Neighbour reminded Russia that
discussion on the three elements could only take place after
the parallel actions package is signed. Neighbour also
refuted Ulyanov's claim that the package is "Russian actions
for NATO promises." Neighbour called for Russia to agree to
the parallel actions package.


14. (SBU) U.K. representative (Gare) supported the
interventions made by Germany and the U.S. Gare suggested
that Russia,s characterization of the package as "actions
for promises" was incorrect and that parallel actions package
is really "promises for promises" by all States Parties.
Gare questioned the wisdom of disaggregating any portion of
package. She retorted that if Russia is concerned about the
sequence of events, why wasn't it brought up in the
Fried/Antonov discussion?


15. (SBU) In response to Gare's comments, Ulyanov said he
was referring to language in the NAC statement of 28 March
and not the U.S. ) Russia bilateral discussion. Ulyanov
thought the NAC language was problematic. He concluded that
the text "Allies will move forward" was a weak and ambiguous
formulation and does not equate to ratification of A/CFE.
Ulyanov called for a reformulation that would make clear that
ratification would begin immediately. Germany (Richter)
reassured Ulyanov that if the parallel actions package is
signed, all States Parties will comply with the agreement and
its commitments. He again called upon Russia to agree to the
package currently on the table.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JCG-T Confirms Allies' Approach
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


16. (SBU) In response to a question from a previous JCG
meeting Azerbaijan provided information on its A/CFE Treaty
ratification process. In short, the National Assembly would
have to ratify the Treaty. The timing required is difficult
to determine since there are "loop-holes" in the Treaty and
political concerns that may be problematic for Azerbaijan to
ratify.


17. (SBU) The May 6 JCG was canceled due to conflict with
the HLFT meeting in Brussels. The next JCG will be on May

13. Germany will provide a briefing on CFE force limitations
and trends.


18. (C) The JCG-T was held an hour prior to the JCG under
Portuguese leadership. Dr. Osvat provided a quick overview
of his presentation to the group. Germany, the U.S., and the
UK discussed ways to deal with anticipated Russian request to
take on tactical issue of the parallel actions package.
Allies confirms that we would need Russia to agree to the
package, that there would be no "disconnection" of the
elements in the package, and that we would remain open for
dialogue but no negotiation of the parallel actions package
or parts of the package in the JCG.
FINLEY