START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001032 SIPDIS DEPT FOR T, VC AND EUR/PRA DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24 CIA FOR WINPAC JCS FOR J5/DDGSA SECDEF FOR OSD(P)/STRATCAP NAVY FOR CNO-N5JA AND DIRSSP AIRFORCE FOR HQ USAF/ASX AND ASXP DTRA FOR OP-OS OP-OSA AND DIRECTOR NSC FOR LOOK DIA FOR LEA E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/17/2019 TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VII): (U) NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP, NOVEMBER 11, 2009 Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-014. ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: November 11, 2009 Time: 3:30 - 4:30 P.M. Place: Russian Mission, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) During a one-on-one chairmen's meeting held at the Russian Mission on November 11, 2009, U.S. Notifications Working Group (WG) Chair Mr. Siemon presented three documents for review and discussion to the Russian WG Chair Colonel Ryzhkov. Two of the documents were atop-level and side-by-side comparisons of the current U.S. and Russian Notifications text structure, while the third document was a spreadsheet highlighting all of the notifications used in START. ¶4. (S) Siemon provided his views on how the WG should structure its work, how the newly-agreed structure of the treaty would affect the WG, what specific notifications should be focused on initially and what notifications should be discussed later. Ryzhkov was receptive to the U.S. concept, thanked the U.S. team's diligent work in putting together the documents, promised to review the documents further, and agreed to provide substantive comments during the meeting scheduled for Friday, November 13. ¶5. (U) Subject Summary: Getting Focused, and, Our Concepts Should Align. -------------- GETTING FOCUSED -------------- ¶6. (S) Siemon began the meeting by providing and explaining a document showing a "side-by-side" comparison of the current sections of the respective U.S. and Russian proposals on Notifications. He stressed that when viewed in this manner, the documents were very similar and that, in his view, agreeing to a structure from the onset was critical so that the detailed work could follow. Siemon expressed his willingness to be flexible in the process with respect to Russian views on how the notifications document would be structured. ¶7. (S) Siemon and Ryzhkov both agreed that while there were many sections in the new Notifications document that lined-up, the document needed to contain a "catch-all" section that contained, in Siemon's opinion, the areas of current contention between the two sides, namely, mobile missiles, throw-weight, and telemetry. Ryzhkov agreed and added that, in his view, the catch-all would contain notifications that did not fit into specific sections of a new document. Ryzhkov thanked Siemon for his views and the hard work undertaken by the U.S. side in putting the documents together. -------------- OUR CONCEPTS SHOULD ALIGN -------------- ¶8. (S) Following the discussion on structuring the new notifications document, Siemon provided a spreadsheet outlining all of the notifications currently used in START. He pointed out that approximately 25 notifications in the new treaty would instantly disappear since concepts, such as rail-mobile missiles and operational dispersals, were either no longer valid or were never used in the 15 years that START was in force. Ryzhkov added that the Russian philosophy was to combine and simplify notifications in the new treaty. Siemon agreed and reiterated his earlier point that agreeing to an overall notifications structure from the onset would allow the two sides to populate the sections with the appropriate notifications. ¶9. (S) Siemon offered to explain the U.S. views of where in the new treaty notifications language would be located. (Begin comment: On Tuesday, November 10, A/S Gottemoeller and Russian Ambassador Antonov agreed to organize the new treaty into three tiers: Tier One would contain treaty language with approximately 17 sections, Tier Two would be a Protocol containing approximately seven sections, one of which was the Notification Section, while Tier Three would contain Technical Annexes to the Protocol. End Comment.) ¶10. (S) Siemon opined that descriptive notifications language would be found in both the Protocol (Tier Two) and the technical annex to the Protocol (Tier Three). The overview of each specific notification would be found in the treaty's protocol while the detailed technical data for each notification would be found in a technical annex to the protocol. Siemon's view was based on the fact that the complexity and time needed to negotiate notifications language would require the sides to accept a three-tiered scheme. Ryzhkov agreed and added that when the two sides eventually did negotiate the technical details of all the notifications (i.e., a Three-Tier document),experts from both sides and the Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers should be involved in the discussion. Siemon responded that the United States was ready to do whatever was necessary to conclude a tier one and tier two notifications document in a timely manner. ¶11. (S) Siemon and Ryzhkov agreed to meet Friday, November 13, in a larger WG setting and would use that meeting to discuss how the sides would proceed. Ryzhkov reiterated that his team would review the documents Siemon had provided and would present the Russian views on all three documents as well as a path forward. ¶12. (U) Documents exchanged. - U.S. -- White Paper: U.S. side-by-side View of Current Notifications of both the U.S. and the Russian Federation; -- White Paper: U.S. Proposal: Combining Current U.S. and Russian Federation Notifications; and -- White Paper: U.S. Spreadsheet Highlighting 153 START Notifications ¶13. (U) Participants: U.S. Mr. Siemon Mr. Dwyer Mr. Hopkins (Int) RUSSIA Col Ryzhkov Mr. Smirnov Ms. Komshilova (Int) ¶14. Gottemoeller sends. GRIFFITHS