Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08USOSCE70
2008-03-18 09:59:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Mission USOSCE
Cable title:  

VIENNA DOCUMENT 1999: CFE SUSPENSION CASTS LONG

Tags:  PARM PREL OSCE KCFE XG 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO7796
PP RUEHAST RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0070/01 0780959
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 180959Z MAR 08
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5606
INFO RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0476
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 1036
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0976
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RHMFIUU/HQ USAFE RAMSTEIN AB GE//POLAD/XPXC//
RHMFISS/CDRUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE//ECJ5-T/ECPLAD/ECCS//
RHMFISS/CDR USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAE
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5-DDPMA-E/DDPMA-IN/CAC//
RUEADWD/DA WASHINGTON DC
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 USOSCE 000070 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, SCA/CEN,
SCA/RA, PM/WRA
JCS FOR J5
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI)
NSC FOR DOWLEY
USUN FOR LEGAL, POL
CENTCOM FOR CCJ5-C, POLAD
UNVIE FOR AC
GENEVA FOR CD

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL OSCE KCFE XG
SUBJECT: VIENNA DOCUMENT 1999: CFE SUSPENSION CASTS LONG
SHADOW AT GERMAN FOREIGN OFFICE SEMINAR

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 USOSCE 000070

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, SCA/CEN,
SCA/RA, PM/WRA
JCS FOR J5
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI)
NSC FOR DOWLEY
USUN FOR LEGAL, POL
CENTCOM FOR CCJ5-C, POLAD
UNVIE FOR AC
GENEVA FOR CD

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL OSCE KCFE XG
SUBJECT: VIENNA DOCUMENT 1999: CFE SUSPENSION CASTS LONG
SHADOW AT GERMAN FOREIGN OFFICE SEMINAR


1. (SBU) Summary: Discussion of future challenges and
opportunities in the implementation of the Vienna Document
1999 was overshadowed at times by concern over the impasse
created by Russia's suspension of its CFE commitments.
Although most national representatives and several of the
speakers called for continued work on confidence- and
security-building measures (CSBMs) in the FSC, there was also
recognition that Vienna Document inspections and evaluations
could not replace the CFE verification regime. Much
attention was given to the Vienna Document "quota race" but
many of the remedies discussed relied on voluntary measures
and use of multi-national inspection teams rather than
reordering the inspection calendar along the lines of a
recent German proposal in the FSC. There was little
enthusiasm for broadening the scope of the Vienna Document to
somehow address new threats such as terrorism and
proliferation. Many of the representatives urged a renewed
emphasis on "classical" arms control and there was much
informal speculation that a new U.S. administration might be
more engaged with arms control. End summary.


2. (SBU) The German Foreign Office sponsored a seminar on the
Vienna Document 1999 in Berlin March 11-13. The seminar was
one of a series organized by Germany on conventional arms
control. Over 60 representatives of OSCE participating
States attended, including Russia, France, Canada, the UK,
Georgia, and Moldova. The Central Asia pS were absent,
although a diplomat from the Kazakhstan embassy in Berlin was
on the participant list.

Groening: Time to Adapt Vienna Document
--------------


3. (SBU) Ambassador Friedrich Groening, German Federal
Commissioner for Arms Control, declared in his welcoming
remarks that some arms control measures are "out of synch"
with current reality and need to be revised. Groening cited
the "quota race" as an example and said it "needed to be

fixed." It was, he concluded, time to adapt the Vienna
Document to the current security situation in the
Euro-Atlantic area.

Limits of Arms Control
--------------


4. (SBU) Pal Dunay of the Geneva Center for Security Policy,
addressed the role of the Vienna Document and the
expectations of participating States. Dunay noted that
"classical" arms control was predicated on the assumption
that more familiarity leads to better relations. But there
were times when the opposite resulted: for example, when
discussing an Open Skies type inspection regime with South
Asian air force commanders, one remarked of his neighbor to
Dunay, "We know them, that's why we hate them."
Expectations, Dunay concluded, had to be based on the
capacities of the arms control instrument.


5. (SBU) Dunay also cited a recent Stockholm International
Peace Research Institute criticism that the Vienna Document
aims "to prevent the now most unlikely conflict between the
now most unlikely antagonists." Nonetheless, he saw three
possible approaches to reinvigorate the Vienna Document: (1)
stricter observance and implementation; (2) an "escape
forward" through new measures; or (3) some combination of the
first two approaches.

USOSCE 00000070 002.2 OF 004



U.S. Arms Control Skepticism
--------------


6. (SBU) Dunay said although current U.S. skepticism of arms
control was based on its global threat assessments, rather
than an exclusive European focus, communication on arms
control and CSBMs at the OSCE might become increasingly
important as the CFE suspension impasse was likely to be
protracted. (Note: Many of the seminar participants
informally discussed the U.S. presidential campaign in great
detail. Most concluded that the next U.S. administration,
regardless of party, would be more active in arms control.
End note.)

Russia Misses "Old" Arms Control
--------------


7. (SBU) At the same time, Dunay assessed that Russia feels
betrayed by the current arms control arrangement, a feeling
that, in Dunay's opinion, was not entirely without merit. He
offered that Russia misses "old arms control" and would like
to return to a more traditional approach, if for no more than
symbolic reasons.


8. (SBU) Dunay speculated, in response to the question
whether the Vienna Document would had a future after the
entry into force of the adapted CFE Treaty (A/CFE),it was
unlikely A/CFE would enter into force soon, citing Russian
foreign minister Lavrov's concern over the size of
"potential" NATO forces even though NATO was currently well
below CFE limits. Dunay wondered whether NATO could "meet
Russia half-way over Istanbul" commitments. He recalled then
Secretary of State Albright promised "to leave no state

SIPDIS
behind" at Istanbul, adding he believed this "might be
overdoing it."

A Russian Replies
--------------


9. (SBU) Disagreeing with Dunay's comments regarding Russian
nostalgia for "old arms control," Sergey Federyakov,
counselor in the Russian MFA Department of Security Affairs
and Disarmament, argued that a new generation of officers and
diplomats are leading the MoD and MFA in this area.
Federyakov asserted that European security should be
indivisible, and that if one country felt insecure, then
there was no security. It should be, he said, no surprise
then that Russia had suspended implementation of CFE. Russia
had warned of its discontent for long time but the U.S. and
Europe had ignored Russian concerns and were focused only on
their own security. Although NATO was expanding up to
Russia's borders, Europe must realize that European security
is indivisible. Despite suspension of CFE, Russia remained
interested in arms control that was based on treaties. Dunay
replied that there was also a need to address Russia's
attempts to inhibit its neighbors' security arrangements.

CPC Works with "Reluctant" Participating States
-------------- -


10. (SBU) Anton Martyniuk of the OSCE Conflict Prevention
Center (CPC),said that his organization had shifted its
focus from documenting non-compliance to enhancing
transparency and contacts with participating States with less

USOSCE 00000070 003 OF 004


experience and capacity in arms control and CSBMs. He
described CPC outreach to Tajikistan that reversed
unfavorable reporting and compliance trends there, and
ongoing efforts to encourage Uzbekistan to return to more
active participation in the Vienna Document and other CSBMs.


11. (SBU) Martyniuk noted the "tremendous" increase in the
number of inspections under the Vienna Document in early 2008
in the wake of Russia's suspension of its CFE obligations.
For the future, Martyniuk said there was no political
consensus to develop new CSBMs, or even refine existing ones.
He noted that arms control tools to address ongoing crises
do not yet exist at the OSCE.

New Challenges for Vienna Document
--------------


12. (SBU) Jeffrey McCausland, former NSC director for arms
control, discussed the possibilities and limitations of the
Vienna Document. He recommended several areas for future
development: (1) renewed efforts on regional CSBMs (Chapter
X) with a focus of perhaps the Balkans or the Caucasus; (2)
greater efforts to enhance transparency in SALW and
conventional ammunition transfers; (3) expanded export
controls for MANPADS; and (4) export of the OSCE program in
arms control and CSBMs to other regions outside Europe.

Russo-Chinese CSBMs
--------------


13. (SBU) Vladislav Verchenko, deputy director in the First
Asian Department at the Russian MFA, described progress begun
during the Soviet period at developing CSBMs with China along
the common border. These have since been expanded under the
"Five Power CSBM Border Agreement" to include Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. The agreement includes exchanges
of data, limits on forces according to geographic zones, and
reciprocal inspections.

Quota Race Dominates Implementation Discussion
-------------- -


14. (SBU) Three working groups were held to discuss: (1)
current implementation issues; (2) regional agreements under
Chapter X, Vienna Document; and (3) the future of the Vienna
Document. Group one's focus on current implementation issues
quickly evolved into a debate over the quota race.
Discussions proceeded along familiar themes: the importance
of eliminating the race, the preservation of pS rights, and
an emphasis on restraint. Many participants weighed in with
possible solutions, including: emphasizing bilateral
arrangements and multi-national teams, increasing the number
of team members, increasing the number of quotas, lowering
the threshold for assessing evaluation visits, and creating
an entirely new CSBM to allow for additional confidence
building visits. While discussion proved lively, no proposal
gained wide support. Pierre von Arx, military adviser in the
Swiss delegation at the OSCE, capped the discussion by
predicting that under the current political atmosphere in
Vienna, none of the proposed solutions would be adopted.

CFE Suspension Clouds Future of Vienna Document
-------------- --


15. (SBU) Discussion in group three on the future of the

USOSCE 00000070 004 OF 004


Vienna Document ranged widely over current issues such as the
CFE suspension and the quota race. There was broad agreement
that ongoing CFE issues would continue to hamper work on
CSBMs in the FSC. The group also largely agreed that the
quota race needed to be addressed in the near future,
although there was no preferred solution, although voluntary
measures and multi-national inspection teams received the
most attention. While no one disputed that there were new
and emerging issues like proliferation of WMD and MANPADS
that required attention, there was no suggestion that the
Vienna Document was the right instrument to address these
issues. To use the Vienna Document to counter MANPADS
proliferation, said one participant, was "like pouring water
into a bottle of good wine."
SCOTT