Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA1103
2009-12-02 17:03:00
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 #1103/01 3361703
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 021703Z DEC 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0481
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 5631
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 2808
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 1818
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 7025
S E C R E T GENEVA 001103 

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) LAWYERS' MEETING ON RUSSIAN VIEWS
CONCERNING PROVISIONAL APPLICATION, NOVEMBER 23, 2009

REF: STATE 115348

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 001103

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) LAWYERS' MEETING ON RUSSIAN VIEWS
CONCERNING PROVISIONAL APPLICATION, NOVEMBER 23, 2009

REF: STATE 115348

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-046.


2. (U) Meeting Date: November 23, 2009
Time: 4:30 p.m. - 5:30 p.m.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

Participants:

U.S.: Russia

Mr. Brown Mr. Lobach
Mr. Dean Ms. Kotkova

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


3. (S) Mr. Brown and Mr. Dean met with Russian lawyers
Lobach and Kotkova to elicit Russian views on provisional
application of portions of the START Follow-on treaty.
Lobach indicated that it was not yet clear to him whether the
annexes would be considered to be integral parts of the
treaty/protocol, but acknowledged that, whatever decision was
reached, it would have to be the same for both sides. The
lawyers also discussed methods to provisionally apply annexes
that would not be signed and that would not even be concluded
until after signature of the treaty and protocol. Lobach
stated that the portions to be provisionally applied in the
treaty or the protocol could be specified in the treaty
itself or in its protocol, as a separate article or section.
With respect to whether interim provisions (that would not
enter into force along with the rest of the treaty) could be
included as part of a provisional application section, Lobach
indicated that it was possible from a legal point of view but
he cautioned that such provisions must have sufficient detail
to allow them to be carried out effectively.


4. (S) Lobach stated that he believed that the official

Russian response to the U.S.-proposed bridging agreement
(Reftel) would be provided through diplomatic channels.
However, he said that, in discussions with his experts, what
the United States had proposed "would not work," citing lack
of specific procedures and less than full privileges and
immunities for inspectors. End Summary.


5. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Discussion of Provisional
Application.

--------------
DISCUSSION OF PROVISIONAL APPLICATION
--------------


6. (S) Brown and Dean met with Russian lawyers Lobach and
Kotkova to elicit Russian views on provisional application
and whether certain portions of the START Follow-on Treaty
could be provisionally applied. The lawyers began the
meeting by exchanging views on the likely structure of the
treaty documents, ultimately agreeing that it would be a


treaty, a protocol, and a number of annexes. Kotkova asked
whether the annexes would be signed and how agreement on the
annexes would be recorded if not signed. Dean noted that an
appropriate method could be an exchange of notes, as
signature of the annexes did not appear to be envisioned at
this time. Lobach asked whether the annexes would be
considered to be integral parts of the treaty/protocol. Dean
responded that the U.S. Senate would expect to receive the
annexes along with the treaty and protocol for advice and
consent to ratification, and that the U.S. view was that they
would be integral parts. Lobach acknowledged that it would
have to be the same for both sides since there would have to
be a reference to what was considered to be integral parts.


7. (S) The lawyers also discussed methods to provisionally
apply the annexes, which would not be concluded until after
signature of the treaty and protocol, ultimately agreeing
that provisional application could be achieved through an
exchange of notes or be effected through a provision in the
body of the annexes themselves.


8. (S) Lobach stated that the portions of the treaty or the
protocol to be provisionally applied could be specified in
those documents, as a separate article or section. The U.S.
lawyers requested the Russian lawyers' reaction to the idea
that the provisional application section could also include
"interim" provisions that would not enter-into-force (EIF)
along with the rest of the treaty but could be used following
signature for a specified period but would not continue after
EIF. As an example, such interim provisions could include
the type of "visits" that were contained in the U.S. bridging
proposal (Reftel). After some clarification by the U.S.
lawyers, Lobach indicated that, while it was possible under
Russian law to have such interim provisions brought into
effect via provisional application, he cautioned that such
provisions must have sufficient detail to be carried out;
otherwise, they were unrealistic. He did not understand how
inspections could be conducted without the relevant annexes,
which would not be agreed until several months after
signature.


9. (S) The U.S. lawyers noted that it was important to
encourage the working group chairmen to start identifying
provisions that would be subject to provisional application
and to identify which could not, explaining that certain
types of provisions would not be possible to provisionally
apply under U.S. law. Lobach responded that he had also
started to think about what could not be provisionally
applied, but he agreed that it was necessary to get the
working group chairmen to identify those that were desired
for provisional application.


10. (S) Lobach stated that he believed that the official
Russian response to the U.S.-proposed bridging agreement
(Reftel) was going to be provided through diplomatic channels
and did not elaborate further, other than to say that in
discussions with his experts, what the United States had
proposed "would not work," citing lack of specific procedures
and less than full privileges and immunities for inspectors.


11. (U) Documents exchanged: None.


12. (U) Gottemoeller sends.


GRIFFITHS