Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08USOSCE313
2008-12-17 14:27:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Mission USOSCE
Cable title:  

CFE/JCG: DECEMBER 16 PLENARY - LACK OF RUSSIAN

Tags:  KCFE OSCE PARM PREL RS 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHVEN #0313/01 3521427
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 171427Z DEC 08
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6125
INFO RUCNCFE/CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 1693
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 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).

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
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