Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA1104
2009-12-02 17:13:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

Tags:  KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0002
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #1104/01 3361713
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 021713Z DEC 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0484
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 5634
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 2811
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 1821
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 7028
S E C R E T GENEVA 001104 

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 TREATY STRUCTURE
AND PROVISIONAL APPLICATION, NOVEMBER 25, 2009

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 001104

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 TREATY STRUCTURE
AND PROVISIONAL APPLICATION, NOVEMBER 25, 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-053.


2. (U) Meeting Date: November 25, 2009
Time: 10:30 a.m. - 12:15 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 Mr.
Lobach and Ms. Kotkova to finalize protocol structure and to
discuss provisional application. The sides agreed, subject
to conforming the texts into the two languages, that the
first level would be called "part," followed by "section" and
then by numbered paragraphs. On provisional application,
Lobach argued that some of the provisions on inspections and
notifications would be impossible, in practice, to be
provisionally applied since the initial Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) data would not be provided until a period
of time after signature. End Summary.


4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Discussion of Protocol Structure;
and Discussion of Provisional Application.

--------------
DISCUSSION OF PROTOCOL STRUCTURE
--------------


5. (S) Brown and Dean discussed protocol structure with
Russian lawyers Lobach and Kotkova. Dean walked through the
U.S.-proposed protocol structure, providing examples of what
would fit into the different parts of the protocol. Lobach
and Kotkova continued to argue that, in Russian domestic
legislation, the word for "part" ("chast") was used to
indicate a subcomponent of a section, rather than the other

way around, as in the U.S.-proposed structure. Brown noted
that the word "part" was used in the INF Memorandum of
Agreement and in the Chemical Weapons Convention in the same
way as in the U.S.-proposed structure, and urged the Russian
lawyers to check the Russian-language texts of those
agreements, explaining that the precedents set within the
field of arms control agreement should be sufficient to allow
this hierarchy to be used in the protocol. Kotkova suggested
that perhaps the word "glava," literally "chapter," could be
used in the Russian text as a functional equivalent to "part"
in this context. The lawyers agreed that this might be a way
to resolve this issue, subject to conforming, and that the
U.S.-proposed "part" was acceptable for the English language
text.


6. (S) Kotkova asked whether, in the U.S.-proposed
structure, the Russian-proposed section on agreed statements,


joint statements, unilateral statements, and other associated
documents could be added as another part, as an integral part
of the protocol and subject to ratification. Brown noted
that agreed statements were considered to be integral parts
of the treaty under START, and that, while there had been no
agreed statements proposed yet for the new treaty, it would
be logical to have such a part in mind if such statements
were to be agreed. On the other hand, other statements, such
as unilateral statements, would be handled as they had been
handled in START, as associated documents transmitted to the
Senate for information. Dean explained the separation of
powers implications of transmitting to the Senate for
ratification those instruments that did not require advice
and consent to ratification, and Lobach indicated that he
understood that point and would continue to consider the U.S.
arguments. Brown and Dean assured the Russian lawyers that
such instruments would be provided as part of the transmittal
package in any event, showing Lobach the set of documents
that were part of the START package. Kotkova requested that
the U.S. lawyers refer to the CFE transmittal package that
she characterized as having dealt with such statements in a
different way; the U.S. lawyers indicated that they would do
so.

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


7. (S) Lobach stated that he had checked with some of his
experts and did not believe that it would be possible to
provisionally apply, as of signature, some of the provisions
dealing with inspections and notifications, explaining as an
example that it appeared that MOU data would not be provided
until at least 45 days after signature, thereby making it
impossible, in practice, to accomplish the purpose of the
inspection. Brown explained that some of the notifications
dealt with one-time events, like transits, that did not rely
exclusively on a completed MOU database, and thus did not
agree with Lobach's conclusion. Brown also noted that the
U.S. working group chairmen were being encouraged to identify
those portions of their respective documents that should be
provisionally applied, and he urged the Russian lawyers to do
the same. Lobach agreed that this was important to do.


8. (S) Lobach commented that he was still not clear what
could be provisionally applied under Russian law,
particularly given the fact that the United States had
already noted that it would not be able to provisionally
apply reductions and limitations, certain notifications
involving classified information, and privileges and
immunities. When pressed, Lobach said that provisional
application would have to be reciprocal, and would ultimately
be a political decision on the part of the Government.


9. (U) Documents exchanged: None.


10. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS