Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA1058
2009-11-24 12:43:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

Tags:  KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #1058/01 3281243
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 241243Z NOV 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0271
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/VCJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHNSC/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 5441
RHMFISS/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE IMMEDIATE
RUENAAA/CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DIRSSP WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA PRIORITY 2618
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 1628
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6830
S E C R E T GENEVA 001058 

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: 11/23/2019

TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) MEETING OF THE TREATY TEXT AND
DEFINITIONS WORKING GROUP DEFINITIONS SUBGROUP, NOVEMBER
10, 2009

REF: A. GENEVA 0956 (SFO-GVA-V-026)

B. GENEVA 0981 (SFO-GVA-VI-036)

Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States
START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).

S E C R E T GENEVA 001058

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: 11/23/2019

TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) MEETING OF THE TREATY TEXT AND
DEFINITIONS WORKING GROUP DEFINITIONS SUBGROUP, NOVEMBER
10, 2009

REF: A. GENEVA 0956 (SFO-GVA-V-026)

B. GENEVA 0981 (SFO-GVA-VI-036)

Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States
START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-007.


2. (U) Meeting Date: November 10, 2009
Time: 3:30 - 6:00 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


3. (S) A meeting of the Treaty Text and Definitions Working
Group (TTDWG) Definitions Subgroup was held at the .U.S.
Mission on November 10, 2009. The meeting began with the
United States providing a short briefing on the agreed treaty
structure and a discussion on how many of the existing
structural brackets could be removed based on this common
approach. The group addressed 13 additional Group II
definitions (agreeing on two terms: "silo training launcher"
and "training launcher") and re-visited two definitions. The
Russian side raised the possibility of adding a new
definition for "item of strategic offensive arms."


4. (U) Subject Summary: Rollout of the Three-Tiered Treaty
Structure; Nested Terms; First Pass of All Group II Terms
Completed; Revisiting Two Terms; and, Defining Item of SOA.

--------------
ROLLOUT OF THE THREE-
TIERED TREATY STRUCTURE
--------------


5. (S) Mr. Siemon informed the Russian side that a common
approach to the treaty structure had been agreed between the
Heads of Delegation. Mr. Dean presented a brief outline of
the three-tiered, legally-binding structure, all of which
would be considered integral parts of the START Follow-on
(SFO) treaty. The tiers would be: 1) Treaty text comprised

of 17 or 18 Articles; 2) Protocol of the treaty comprised
into the 7 Sections; and, 3) a Technical Annex to the
Protocol which would contain the detailed procedures not
found in the Protocol. Dean stressed that achieving this
resolution would allow the sides to remove a number of the
existing structural brackets. The Russian side was very
interested in the briefing and asked about the anticipated
schedule for completion of the various tiers. The U.S.
Delegation explained that the first two would be ready at the
time of signature and the third would follow later; because
all three tiers needed to be submitted for ratification; the
legislative branch review could not begin until the entire
treaty package was done. Due to the duration of the
ratification process, entry into force of the treaty would
happen some time later.

--------------
NESTED TERMS
--------------





6. (S) Siemon noted that, at the last Subgroup meeting, the
U.S. side committed to assessing how to deal with nested
terms in an attempt to reduce the number of definitions
required. Siemon reported that the U.S. analysis showed that
it was more complicated than expected. Siemon said he first
searched for the use of the terms and definitions within the
Joint Draft Text (JDT) of the treaty. Additionally, he
surveyed the other U.S. working group chairs on the relative
importance of each of the terms and definitions used in their
respective Protocol sections. Admiral Kuznetsov asked
whether the results of the analysis could be shared. Siemon
noted that much more work was required before it would be
possible to share the assessment.

--------------
FIRST PASS OF ALL
GROUP II TERMS COMPLETED
--------------


7. (S) The sides reviewed the remaining Group II terms and
definitions (REF A),ultimately agreeing to two additional
terms and removing significant brackets on a third.
Discussion on the 13 terms were as follows:

-- "In-country escort." This term was affected by the
standing disagreement between the delegations about
continuous monitoring. The sides could not agree on the U.S.
bracketed language to include "monitors" among "inspectors"
and "aircrew" as the recipients of assistance by the
in-country escort. The remaining structural brackets would
be resolved later.

-- "Long-range non-nuclear ALCMS." The sides came to an
understanding that this term was most likely not needed,
however, before it was removed from the list, there would
have to be agreement on inspections of long-range non-nuclear
ALCMS in storage. This term was left in Group II to be
resolved later.

-- "Long-range nuclear ALCM." The bracketed text for
this term hinges on whether or not a long-range ALCM was
nuclear- "armed" (United States) or nuclear- "equipped"
(Russia). The sides came to no agreement. Dean explained
the U.S. position to maintain START definitions unless a
substantive change in meaning has been agreed. Mr. Taylor
stated that in English these terms have very different
meanings, and the U.S. side did not wish to change the agreed
START understanding. Therefore, unless the Russian side was
seeking to change the START meaning of the term, the United
States was not willing to accept "equipped." Kuznetsov
explained that Russia did not keep nuclear arms on cruise
missiles for its heavy bombers or submarines, so under
current Russian practice the correct term was "equipped" but
not "armed." In response to a question from Taylor, he
indicated that he did not know if current Russian practice
had changed since the START Treaty was signed.

-- "Nuclear armaments for heavy bombers" and "nuclear
armaments other than long-range nuclear ALCMS." These terms
were contingent on the finalization of the counting rules and
the sides decided discussion needed to wait until the



Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group completed
this work. (Begin comment: This definition would be key to
the U.S.-proposed method for counting nuclear warheads. End
comment.)

-- The Russian side wanted to add "and equipped with a
protective device" to the definition of "silo launcher of
ICBMs," in another example of attempting to change an
existing START concept. The sides agreed to refer back to
the Conversion and Elimination (CorE) Section of the Protocol
for discussion at a later time.

-- "Silo training launcher" was a term that the U.S. and
Russian sides used in the JDT text (Articles IV and V,
respectively). The sides noted that resolution was linked to
the current issue related to space launch facilities and
training facilities but the sides agreed on the definition as
follows: "The term "silo training launcher" means a
full-scale silo launcher specified for training purposes."

-- "Solid rocket motor" was a START term included in the
JDT by the United States. Kuznetsov explained that this term
was not used in the Protocol and that the CorE experts have
decided that they did not need this term. Siemon said he
would confer with the U.S. chair for the CorE Working Group
and the Subgroup would return to this term at the next
meeting.

-- The brackets in the "storage facility" definition were
linked to the outcome of MOU Working Group deliberations on
space launch facilities and former heavy bombers. This
definition could not be resolved until further progress was
made on those issues.

-- Kuznetsov proposed adding "silo launcher for ICBMs"
and "mobile launcher of ICBMs or SLBMs" into the definition
of the current U.S.-proposed term of "test launcher." The
United States took this proposal back for consideration; the
sides agreed to return to this definition at the next meeting.

-- "Training heavy bomber" was a START term included in
the U.S. draft text and considered important for establishing
various categories of heavy bombers to be reported in the
MOU. The Russian side questioned the need for the term.
Siemon said he would gather more background from the U.S.
chair of the MOU Working Group.

-- "Training launcher." With very little discussion, the
definition of this term was agreed as: "The term "training
launcher" means a silo training launcher or a mobile training
launcher."

-- "Weapon delivery vehicle" was a START term in the U.S.
draft treaty text that was a building block towards defining
a ballistic missile. The group agreed to return to this term
later.

-- "Transit." Kuznetsov agreed to a portion of this
bracketed definition, allowing for one-way movement from one
facility or location to another facility or another location
for non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs, but reserved agreement on
launch canisters and non-deployed mobile launchers until the



issues on mobile systems have been worked out in other
working groups.

--------------
REVISITING TWO TERMS
--------------


8. (S) After completing the Group II list of terms,
Kuznetsov requested to revisit the definitions for "air base"
and "each year" (REF B). In both cases, he reiterated the
Russian position with no changes by requesting the removal of
the U.S. brackets remaining in the "air base" definition, and
stressing the inconvenience of defining "each year" in any
way other than the Russian fiscal year. (Begin comment:
Russia's fiscal year is 12 months and begins on January 1 of
each year. End comment.) Siemon agreed to reconsider the
"air base" definition but stressed the need to define "each
year" relative to entry into force of the treaty.

--------------
DWFINING ITEM OF SOA
--------------


9. (S) Before closing, Kuznetzov asked the subgroup to
consider an issue that was raised in the CorE Working Group.
He proposed adding the term "item of strategic offensive arm"
because it would be useful in designating "new types" and
"new kinds," as well as assisting in resolving on-going
questions. The U.S. side responded that it could consider
this, if given a draft definition.


10. (U) Documents exchanged. None.


11. (U) Participants:

U.S.

Mr. Siemon
Lt Col Comeau
Mr. Connell
Mr. Dean
Dr. Dreicer
Mr. Taylor
Mrs. Zdravecky
Ms. Gross (Int)

RUSSIA

Adm Kuznetsov
Ms. Fuzhenkova
Col Kamenskiy
Mr. Luchaninov
Ms. Melikbekian
Mr. Pogodin (Int)


12. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS