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