START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001072 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: 11/28/2019 TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VII): (U) TREATY TEXT WORKING GROUP MEETING, NOVEMBER 16, 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-026. ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: November 16, 2009 Time: 3:40 - 5:35 P.M. Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) The fourth meeting of the Treaty Text and Definitions Working Group (TTDWG) was held at the U.S. Mission on November 16, 2009. The TTDWG discussed sending treaty text to the Conforming Group. Both sides agreed that if there were a limited number of bracketed items remaining within the text, some articles could be sent to begin the conforming process. A long legal discussion ensued related to Article XV on the correctness of the word "termination" vice the term "withdraw" as it applies to getting out of the treaty. Discussion moved on to Article VII, but was stopped as the Russian Delegation argued that the text should be addressed by the Conversion or Elimination (CorE) Working Group first. Article VIII on the exchange of notifications and data was discussed to clarify the words "removal" versus "exclusion" and the Parties' public release authorities of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) data. Finally, there was a discussion on Article XIII and the interpretation of the word "kind" in reference to new kinds of strategic offensive arms (SOA). Both sides agreed to call the treaty implementation commission the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC). ¶4. (U) Subject Summary Treaty Text Conforming; Treaty Termination Legalities; Conversion or Elimination Article; MOU Article; and, Bilateral Consultative Commission. -------------- TREATY TEXT CONFORMING -------------- ¶5. (S) Amb Ries opened the meeting by suggesting the current negotiation timeline required the conforming process be run in parallel with continuing negotiations. She noted that conforming needed to be efficient, but also careful. Ries stated that, since the two sides had already agreed to a conforming process, some treaty articles could be sent to conforming once the TTDWG had removed those brackets it could. Then, when the remaining brackets on issues of principle were resolved, the final conforming steps would be simple and quick. Ries suggested starting from the end of the treaty and working forward because the last few articles had been fully discussed in the TTDWG and were largely agreed upon. The Parties agreed to send Articles XV, XVI and XVII to the Conforming Group and reiterated that official versions in English and Russian needed to be exchanged. -------------- TREATY TERMINATION LEGALITIES -------------- ¶6. (S) Following the conforming discussion on Article XV, Koshelev opened a discussion on the correct legal way to express a Party's ability to "withdraw" or "terminate" the treaty. This was a discussion continued from a previous meeting at which the U.S. side expressed that "withdraw" was the term used in similar arms control agreements. The Russian Delegation re-engaged the discussion with their newly-arrived legal advisor, Mr. Lobach, and referenced international law covering treaties as it applied to bilateral treaties. Lobach maintained that a bilateral treaty must be "terminated" since there were only two Parties and that "withdrawal" only applied to multilateral treaties, since the treaty would remain in force for the remaining Parties. Mr. Dean reiterated the U.S. position that the term "withdraw" was accepted terminology in arms control treaties. Both sides provided examples of treaties which represented their preferred terminology. After further discussion, the sides concurred that this may be a conforming issue in the language. However, the Russian Delegation agreed to provide a proposed alternative for the next meeting. Both sides concurred that the article, with brackets, should go to the Conforming Group. -------------- CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION ARTICLE -------------- ¶7. (S) The discussion moved to Article VII (CorE) of which the U.S. Delegation had provided a revised joint draft text in advance. Koshelev explained the new RussiaQformulation for Article VII, which was to reinsert the original Russian language that inspections should be conducted after the completion of conversion or elimination procedures. He noted that Colonel Ryzhkov insisted on including the language in paragraph 2(b) on inspections and that the CorE Working Group needed to resolve the brackets. Ries countered that, while the inspection provisions were covered in Article XI, the inspectors would need to confirm the procedures during the process and not merely once the process was complete. She maintained that the Russian-proposed language for paragraph 2(b) would preclude that possibility. In that, Koshelev agreed and again recommended the article be remanded to the CorE Working Group to resolve. Both sides decided the text of the Article was agreed upon in enough areas that it could be sent to conforming. -------------- NOTIFICATIONS ARTICLE -------------- ¶8. (S) The Parties discussed Article VIII on notifications. The U.S.-proposed text, "...or other removal from accountability" in paragraph 3(e) generated a language interpretation discussion. In Russian, the term would be translated as "exclusion" instead of "removal." The subtle differences in English were explained to the Russian Delegation. "Exclusion" meant that something was never a part of a set, while "removal" indicated that at some point, the item was part of the set and later was not. Using examples from the conformed START Treaty text found in Section VIII of the CorE Protocol, the Russian Delegation agreed that "removal" was the appropriate term. ¶9. (S) The Parties then had a long discussion on the public release authority captured in paragraphs 6 and 7. The U.S. side explained that the U.S. approach would provide for the public release of the same elements of data as had been agreed upon in START, while new additional text covered the data on aggregate nuclear warheads. Following the discussion, the Russian Delegation stated that it understood the U.S. position more clearly and would study it further. Admiral Kuznetsov asked whether non-nuclear warhead information would be released. Ries stated that the information to be released concerning warheads would be in line with the information on warheads in Article II, and decisions on the U.S.-proposed package could impact these paragraphs. -------------- BILATERAL CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION -------------- ¶10. (S) Ries moved to Article XIII which covered the BCC. She stated that, after further review and consultation with the U.S. Nuclear Risk Reduction Center, the U.S. Delegation believed there would be no confusion with other treaties if both sides settled on the name "Bilateral Consultative Commission" for the implementation commission. Koshelev was happy to agree. Koshelev then questioned the U.S.-proposed text in paragraph (c),"...application of relevant provisions of this Treaty to a new kind of strategic offensive arm." First, Koshelev maintained that "kind" and "type" were equivalent in Russian. He asked what was meant by a new kind of SOA. Ries explained that it would be a new system that was not an ICBM, SLBM, or heavy bomber, and with such a new system, not all the treaty provisions would necessarily apply to that new kind. Koshelev again noted that he could not envision what a new "kind" of SOA might be that was not another type and further argued it was wrong to state that not all provisions would apply. He asserted that all provisions of the treaty were always in force. Lastly, Koshelev made some remarks indicating that the Russian Delegation agreed that anything new should be brought to the BCC; however, he did not continue to elaborate and ended the discussion. ¶11. (U) Documents exchanged. - U.S.: -- U.S.-proposed Joint Draft Text of Article XIII (in official English),dated November 16, 2009. - Russia: -- New Russian-proposed Joint Draft Text of Article VII (in Russian and unofficial English),dated November 16, 2009. ¶12. (U) Participants: U.S. Amb Ries Lt Col Comeau Mr. Connell Mr. Dean Dr. Fraley LTC LaGraffe Ms. Pura Mr. Taylor Mrs. Zdravecky Mr. Sobchenko (Int) RUSSIA Mr. Koshelev Ms. Fuzhenkova Mr. Kamenskiy Asm Kuznetsov Mr. Lobach Mr. Luchaninov Ms. Melikbekian Mr. Trifonov Ms. Evarovskaya (Int) ¶13. (U) Gottemoeller sends. GRIFFITHS