START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001100 SIPDIS DEPT FOR T, VCI 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: 12/01/2019 TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VII): (U) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING GROUP MEETING #3, NOVEMBER 18, 2009 REF: STATE 112533 (SFO-VI-GUIDANCE-003/JCIC-DIP-09-012) Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-041. ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: November 19, 2009 Time: 3:35 P.M. - 5:00 P.M. Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group met at the U.S. Mission for the third meeting of this session and the tenth meeting overall. The sides discussed potential dates of the data exchange for the treaty and also the U.S.-proposed JCIC Agreement to have a final exchange of START MOU data. It was also decided to send Annexes A and C of the draft MOU to the Conforming Group. The U.S.-proposed revised text for the opening title and chapeau, which was not accepted by the Russian side, and revised text for a paragraph in Annex D, which was accepted. The Russian delegation proposed changes to the facilities listed in Annex ¶D. End summary. ¶4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Database Data Exchange; Sections to Conforming; U.S.-Proposed Text Changes; and Proposed Changes to Facilities. -------------- DATABASE DATA EXCHANGE -------------- ¶5. (S) Gen Orlov opened the discussion with the comment that the Russian delegation had reviewed the previously submitted U.S. declared facilities list. He noted that there were facilities missing from the list compared to the last START data and wished for the U.S. side to explain the missing locations. Orlov stated that the group's effort should be directed towards the database structure and not the data itself. Orlov mentioned that Russia would provide the data within 45 days after treaty signature. Trout asked who had agreed to this time period. Col Ryzhkov responded that there had been no agreement yet. It was a discussion between Col Ilin and Dr. Warner in the Inspection Protocol Working Group. Trout then asked whether the Russian side still agreed to a preliminary "across the table" exchange of data before the treaty was signed. Orlov responded that they had the data but a small technical problem was preventing them from submitting anything, but that the problem should be resolved by early December. Trout sought clarification of the data exchange proposal, asking whether the Russian delegation proposal was for a first data exchange 45-60 days after signing and Orlov responded that there was no decision yet, but he had thought 45 days was adequate. ¶6. (S) Trout then brought up the U.S. JCIC proposal for a final exchange of START MOU data, as of December 1, 2009. Ryzhkov retorted that there was no required exchange of data under START for December 1, 2009 (Reftel). Trout countered that the United States had proposed this previously and the Russian delegation was supposedly considering it. Ryzhkov asked whether Trout meant the proposed JCIC Agreement on the subject. Trout confirmed that it was, and Ryzhkov responded that there had been no decision as yet, since it involved certain legal issues. -------------- SECTIONS TO CONFORMING -------------- ¶7. (S) Trout next suggested sending Annexes A and C to conforming. Orlov commented that the Russian Conforming Group preferred working entire texts at one time, as opposed to the U.S. Conforming Group which accepted sections of text. However, Orlov agreed to send the two Annexes to conforming. -------------- U.S.-PROPOSED TEXT CHANGES -------------- ¶8. (S) Trout moved on to the title and chapeau. He pointed out that the U.S.-proposed chapeau language "items subject to the limitations of the Treaty" was agreed language in Article VIII, paragraph 1. Therefore, the Russian delegation should accept the U.S.-proposed language in the chapeau. Both Orlov and Ryzhkov replied that there was no agreement on Article VIII. This was a mistake and it was only working text. Trout argued that "items" was correct because the database includes more than strategic offensive arms (SOA),such as fixed structures, support equipment, and ballistic missile submarines. Ryzhkov then argued at length that if fixed structures for mobile launchers were included in the treaty, a host of other support equipment, such as fueling systems for heavy bombers, must also be included. Trout responded that the road mobile launcher structures were surveyed launch points, much like a silo, and therefore were valid items for inclusion in the treaty. After a lengthy exchange on the topic between Trout and Ryzhkov, Trout said he noted the differences between the Russian and U.S. views, and we should move on to another topic. Orlov said there were no differences between our views on fixed structures. The technical data (measurements) in Annex A would not be included in the MOU but photographs would be provided of the fixed structures, and the number of fixed structures in each ICBM basing area would be provided. Trout then concurred that we had agreement. ¶9. (S) The U.S. delegation provided revised language for the database title, opening chapeau, and a new paragraph for Annex D. Trout said the new chapeau reflected structural changes in the treaty organization and agreement on some words in the title. Both sides agreed to let the lawyers sort out the correct nomenclature for the structure. The Russian delegation also agreed to accept the U.S.-proposed text in Annex D listing airports associated with each point of entry. -------------- PROPOSED CHANGES TO FACILITIES -------------- ¶10. (S) Ryzhkov then stated that "Repair Facility for Mobile Launchers" needed to be added to the database as Russia had a facility that needed to be declared. He also proposed deleting the following from Annex D paragraph 7: Repair Facilities for SLBMs, Production Facilities for Ballistic Missile Submarines, Conversion or Elimination Facilities for SLBM Launchers, Repair Facilities for Heavy Bombers, and Heavy Bomber Flight Test Centers. Trout immediately agreed to remove Heavy Bomber Flight Test Centers. Then, he followed up with a discussion on Russian plans for conversion or elimination of ballistic missile submarines and whether those facilities would be inspectable. Ryzhkov responded that the details were being worked out in the Conversion or Elimination Working Group and that there was no agreement at this time. He nonetheless proposed that Production Facilities for Ballistic Missile Submarines as well as Conversion or Elimination Facilities for SLBM Launchers should be deleted from paragraph 7. Trout asked whether we should instead move them to a new section that would list facilities not subject to inspection. Orlov agreed to consider the idea. ¶11. (U) Documents exchanged: - U.S.: -- U.S.-proposed text for Database Chapeau; -- U.S.-proposed text for paragraph 7bis of Annex D ¶12. (U) Participants: U.S. Mr. Trout LCDR Brons Mr. Broshar Mr. Coussa Mr. Colby LTC LaGraffe LT Lobner CTI1 Cherry (Int) RUSSIA Gen Orlov Col Kamenskiy Mr. Luchaninov Col Pischulov Col Ryzhkov Mr. Shevchenko Ms. Evarovskaya (Int) ¶13. (U) Gottemoeller sends. GRIFFITHS