CFE/JCG: DECEMBER 16 PLENARY - LACK OF RUSSIAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L USOSCE 000313 SIPDIS STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM NSC FOR HAYES JCS FOR J5/COL NORWOOD OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI) E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/20/2018 TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL RS SUBJECT: CFE/JCG: DECEMBER 16 PLENARY - LACK OF RUSSIAN DATA HIGHLIGHTED Classified By: Chief Arms Control Delegate Hugh Neighbour, for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary: At the December 16 Joint Consultative Group (JCG) plenary, Poland, on behalf of the NATO states, strongly regretted Russia's lack of participation in the CFE Treaty's mandatory information exchange on December 15. The joint statement highlighted the willingness of NATO states to continue meeting their Treaty obligations in the face of Russia's decision not to provide the required data for the second year in a row. The statement also recalled NATO's interest in cooperation with Russia as presented in the December 3 NAC statement (paragraph 34). Russia asked "when and where" are Russia and NATO states supposed to further such cooperation? States are hopeful that the December 17 U.S.-Russia bilateral in Geneva will produce results to guide future work. Canada and the U.S. objected to Russia's refusal of two additional CFE inspection requests. The next JCG plenary will take place on January 20. End Summary. NATO statement on lack of Russian data -------------- ¶2. (SBU) At the December 16 JCG meeting, in a statement made by Poland, on behalf of the NATO states in the CFE Treaty, stated: "We regret that the Russian Federation has again failed this year to exchange with CFE Treaty partners the Annual Exchange of CFE information required on 15 December 2008 under the Treaty. We have, nonetheless, decided to continue submitting our data. We are taking this step not only to fulfill our Treaty obligations, but also because the submission of annual information demonstrates our commitment to co-operative security and our attachment to transparency and confidence building as core principles of the CFE regime which contribute to predictability and stability in Europe." The NATO statement also recalls the December 3 NAC statement, and quotes paragraph 34 in its entirety, calling upon Russia for further cooperation. See JCG Journal. ¶3. (C) Russia (Ulyanov) responded predictably, stating that our discussions have become a vicious circle. Russia wants to move forward, not just repeat old statements. In reference to NATO's call for further cooperation, he asked specifically "where and when do you want to get down to work �A;among all the States Parties?" He also claimed that our statement regarding Russia's lack of data does not fit with our position about agreement on the parallel action plan since the plan calls for Russia to resume inspections and data exchange after the plan is agreed. Comment: This was the first time that Russia specifically said that it could not resume the data exchange and rejoin the inspection regime because that would "break up the parallel actions package," a scenario that NATO states have been trying to avoid. Appears Russia is now attempting to use our "no cherry picking" argument against us. End Comment. ¶4. (C) Germany (Richter) noted that the NATO have made a high-level political statement in its March 28 offer and is still waiting for a reciprocal high level response. When received, we will be in a better position to discuss more details on "where and when." The high-level bilateral process will continue tomorrow between the U.S. and Russia. The multilateral process will also take place according to the invitation extended by German Foreign Minister Steinmeier. The NRC is also likely to resume next year. Germany requests that Russia provide more than the one page summary of information received on December 15. ¶5. (C) Russia (Ulyanov) is not satisfied with Germany's answer since it has been sending signals over the previous years without receiving any proper response from NATO. Russia's withdrawals from Georgia ahead of schedule were not recognized. Ulyanov drew once again on the Russian MFA's April 1 official response to the March 28 NAC statement. He said the NAC statement that the 1990 CFE Treaty remains a cornerstone as hardly consistent with reality. If so, why did we agree to adapt it in 1999? If the CFE partners had responded to Russia's multiple proposals, then its moratorium could have been avoided. The parallel plan does not take all of Russia's concerns into account, but only lists steps Russia should take in exchange for abstract promises by NATO in the future. To call the parallel plan constructive is at most naQve. It would be more helpful if NATO would respond to the proposals put forward by Russia at the extraordinary conference in June 2007. He continued that it is not Russia's fault that a break in dialogue occurred after events in Georgia in August. Arms control is not a means to impose solutions on such other issues. Eyes on December 17 Meeting -------------- ¶6. (C) Russia said it hopes for some productive ideas tomorrow (December 17) as related in its MFA December 8 comments on the December 3 NAC Communique. Providing the one-page summary of its CFE information on December 15 was a generous gesture. Providing all the information will only be possible when we reach agreement on mutually acceptable ways to restore the viability of the Treaty. Russia advocates accelerating the process - per several requests in the JCG last week (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia). However, Russia failed to hear a positive response from NATO states. Russia is prepared to work in any format, and hopes for a solution that satisfies all. Russia, in an attempt to spotlight the bilateral nature of the December meeting of A/S Freid and Russian Director Antanov, coyly questioned whether all NATO and other concerned states would be present in Geneva? ¶7. (C) The U.S. (Neighbour) confirmed that the U.S. would be speaking on behalf of NATO Allies, not only the U.S. Turkey (Begec) and Germany (Richter) reinforced this point. Russia appreciated the clarification as to the NATO states but continued to question how other interested states would be represented. Ulyanov re-emphasized that Russia is ready for dialog and asked others to reinvigorate the process. Part 2: More Inspection Refusals -------------- ¶8. (SBU) Canada (Gosal) made a statement regarding Russia's refusal of its recent notification for a Section VII Treaty inspection the week of December 15. The statement goes on to say that "Canada remains fully committed to the CFE Treaty and its full and unconstrained implementation. We share the view of several States Parties that the Russian Federation's unilateral suspension from its legally binding obligations undermines the confidence, security and stability afforded by the Treaty. Accordingly, the Russian Federation's ongoing rejections of notifications to inspect, along with its refusal to exchange military information, are not in compliance with the legally binding obligations and responsibilities established within the Treaty." (See JCG Journal). ¶9. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour) also made a statement regarding Russia's refusal of our inspection request for the week of 15-18 December. He emphasized that like Canada, we remain fully committed to the Treaty. The UK (Gare) urged all delegations to accept inspections under the Treaty. France, Romania, and Turkey also spoke in support of the importance of Treaty inspections. Turkey (Begec) noted that Russia's continued suspension of the Treaty does not bode well for the future. Spain said the lack of inspections continues to undermine the Treaty. (See JCG Journal) AOB -------------- ¶10. (C) On the margins of the JCG, the U.S. presented several questions to the Russian Delegation with respect to the one-page aggregate of CFE data and VDOC99 data received on December 15. The questions also include references to Russia's 2008 one-page data summary. Russia said it would provide any answers in January after the holidays. At the JCG-T on December 15, USDel provided Allies with a preliminary analysis of the Russian information, to the extent possible given the limited nature of the data. (Russian data emailed to State/VCI). ¶11. (SBU) Following the plenary, the JCG TOI Working Group Chair (Linteau, CA) held a small quad plus Russia meeting to determine if there is room to take forward the outstanding documents discussed earlier in the year. The Chair is prepared to call meetings early next session if it is possible to move ahead. Russia said he would provide an answer in January. Others are willing to proceed if the time is ripe. FINLEY