Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08USOSCE225
2008-09-24 16:23:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Mission USOSCE
Cable title:
CFE/JCG: 23 SEPTEMBER MEETING IS AN ALL-ALLIED
how-toVZCZCXYZ0000 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHVEN #0225 2681623 ZNY CCCCC ZZH O 241623Z SEP 08 FM USMISSION USOSCE TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5926 INFO RUCNCFE/CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE PRIORITY 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 RUEADWD/DA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY RUEAHQA/HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC//XONP// PRIORITY RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAE PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L USOSCE 000225
SIPDIS
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM,
NSC FOR HAYES, JCS FOR J5/NORWOOD/CAMPBELL,
OSD FOR ISA/PERENYI
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/17/2009
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/JCG: 23 SEPTEMBER MEETING IS AN ALL-ALLIED
PERFORMANCE
REF: USNATO 336
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 000225
SIPDIS
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM,
NSC FOR HAYES, JCS FOR J5/NORWOOD/CAMPBELL,
OSD FOR ISA/PERENYI
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/17/2009
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/JCG: 23 SEPTEMBER MEETING IS AN ALL-ALLIED
PERFORMANCE
REF: USNATO 336
Classified By: Chief Arms Control Delegate Hugh Neighbour,
for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).
1. (C) Summary. Interventions by Bulgaria, Spain and Italy
calling out Russia for refusing inspections were the
highlight the brief JCG held on September 23. Germany,
Turkey, the UK, Romania, Portugal, U.S., Czech Republic and
France intervened in support. Russia did not comment. The
JCG took the decision to cancel its next meeting scheduled
for 30 September in view of Germany's Arms Control Seminar in
Berlin. However, there was no support in the JCG-T on
further reducing the number of JCG meetings. End summary.
2. (SBU) As coordinated in the JCG-T, Bulgaria, Spain and
Italy called Russia out with strong national statements for
refusing their inspections. Spain noted that, while they had
not had high expectations, they had hoped Russia would accept
an inspection to demonstrate their commitment to overcoming
the current impasse. All reaffirmed their commitment to CFE
and called on Russia to return to full compliance.
3. (SBU) Germany, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Romania,
Portugal, the U.S., the Czech Republic and France (the Quad
plus Bulgaria, Spain and Italy's geographic neighbors) made
interventions in support of the three national statements.
Russia (Solomenko) did not reply to Allied interventions.
(Note. Ulyanov had told the U.S. (Neighbour) that he would
not be present at the meeting. End note.)
4. (SBU) Germany (Richter) restated its proposal from the
last meeting to cancel the JCG scheduled for September 30th.
Richter reminded States Parties that Germany's next Berlin
Seminar is scheduled for the same day and that several
delegations would be sending representatives. No one opposed
the proposal, so the next JCG will be held on October 7.
5. (SBU) In the JCG-T plus 4 the day before, Allies
expressed little support for the U.S. view that fewer JCGs
should be held. Uncharacteristically, opposition did not
coalesce around Germany. Rather, Spain, Italy, Greece,
Turkey and Luxembourg pushed back with Germany later adding
to the dissenting opinion. Arguments against a reduction of
meetings varied from angst at sending a political signal, to
doubt that the JCG would reach full consensus, to appeals for
keeping all lines of communication open. Not even Britain,
Canada or the Czech Republic argued in favor of reducing
JCGs.
6. (C) Comment. Allied apprehension to reducing the number
of JCG meetings before October 15 is not inconsistent with
the more vocal national positions in opposition, but is much
more dogged and pervasive among those Allies who seemed
supportive at the 11 September HLTF (Reftel.) Even the
Romania delegation privately told us we would not succeed and
should ease up noting the September 23 JCG lasted less than
twenty minutes. Absent multiple interventions on refused
inspections, future meetings are likely to be even shorter
and less substantive. Although pushing Allies harder for a
reduced schedule in the JCG-T will likely not gain traction,
working to reduce the number of meetings on a case by case
basis using "technical" justification as a criteria (e.g.,
when the JCG conflicts with other events such as the HLTF
meeting in Romania) may still resonate in Vienna.
FINLEY
SIPDIS
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM,
NSC FOR HAYES, JCS FOR J5/NORWOOD/CAMPBELL,
OSD FOR ISA/PERENYI
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/17/2009
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/JCG: 23 SEPTEMBER MEETING IS AN ALL-ALLIED
PERFORMANCE
REF: USNATO 336
Classified By: Chief Arms Control Delegate Hugh Neighbour,
for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).
1. (C) Summary. Interventions by Bulgaria, Spain and Italy
calling out Russia for refusing inspections were the
highlight the brief JCG held on September 23. Germany,
Turkey, the UK, Romania, Portugal, U.S., Czech Republic and
France intervened in support. Russia did not comment. The
JCG took the decision to cancel its next meeting scheduled
for 30 September in view of Germany's Arms Control Seminar in
Berlin. However, there was no support in the JCG-T on
further reducing the number of JCG meetings. End summary.
2. (SBU) As coordinated in the JCG-T, Bulgaria, Spain and
Italy called Russia out with strong national statements for
refusing their inspections. Spain noted that, while they had
not had high expectations, they had hoped Russia would accept
an inspection to demonstrate their commitment to overcoming
the current impasse. All reaffirmed their commitment to CFE
and called on Russia to return to full compliance.
3. (SBU) Germany, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Romania,
Portugal, the U.S., the Czech Republic and France (the Quad
plus Bulgaria, Spain and Italy's geographic neighbors) made
interventions in support of the three national statements.
Russia (Solomenko) did not reply to Allied interventions.
(Note. Ulyanov had told the U.S. (Neighbour) that he would
not be present at the meeting. End note.)
4. (SBU) Germany (Richter) restated its proposal from the
last meeting to cancel the JCG scheduled for September 30th.
Richter reminded States Parties that Germany's next Berlin
Seminar is scheduled for the same day and that several
delegations would be sending representatives. No one opposed
the proposal, so the next JCG will be held on October 7.
5. (SBU) In the JCG-T plus 4 the day before, Allies
expressed little support for the U.S. view that fewer JCGs
should be held. Uncharacteristically, opposition did not
coalesce around Germany. Rather, Spain, Italy, Greece,
Turkey and Luxembourg pushed back with Germany later adding
to the dissenting opinion. Arguments against a reduction of
meetings varied from angst at sending a political signal, to
doubt that the JCG would reach full consensus, to appeals for
keeping all lines of communication open. Not even Britain,
Canada or the Czech Republic argued in favor of reducing
JCGs.
6. (C) Comment. Allied apprehension to reducing the number
of JCG meetings before October 15 is not inconsistent with
the more vocal national positions in opposition, but is much
more dogged and pervasive among those Allies who seemed
supportive at the 11 September HLTF (Reftel.) Even the
Romania delegation privately told us we would not succeed and
should ease up noting the September 23 JCG lasted less than
twenty minutes. Absent multiple interventions on refused
inspections, future meetings are likely to be even shorter
and less substantive. Although pushing Allies harder for a
reduced schedule in the JCG-T will likely not gain traction,
working to reduce the number of meetings on a case by case
basis using "technical" justification as a criteria (e.g.,
when the JCG conflicts with other events such as the HLTF
meeting in Romania) may still resonate in Vienna.
FINLEY