Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA1127
2009-12-10 15:27:00
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 #1127/01 3441527
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 101527Z DEC 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0558
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 5697
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 2876
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 1886
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 7093
S E C R E T GENEVA 001127 

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: 12/09/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) TREATY TEXT AND DEFINITIONS WORKING
GROUP MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 2009

REF: GENEVA 01121 (SFO-GVA-VII-051)

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 001127

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: 12/09/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) TREATY TEXT AND DEFINITIONS WORKING
GROUP MEETING, NOVEMBER 27, 2009

REF: GENEVA 01121 (SFO-GVA-VII-051)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-062.


2. (U) Meeting Date: November 27, 2009
Time: 3:30 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) The Russian delegation tabled a revised version of
their non-paper on, "Location of Non-Deployed Items"
(Reftel). Several treaty Articles (I, VII, XIII, XIV and XV)
that were returned from the Conforming Group were discussed
to resolve language issues the Conforming Group could not
resolve. Next, the public release of database information
was discussed. The Russian delegation proposed a joint
statement outside the treaty text itself to address the
issue. Lastly, some initial work began on reviewing the
Joint Draft Text for Article III. End Summary.


4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Non-Paper on Non-Deployed Items;
Treaty Article XV (Ratification, EIF); Treaty Article VII (C
or E); Treaty Article XIII (BCC); Treaty Article I; Treaty
Article XIV; Treaty Article VIII (Database); and Treaty
Article III (Counting Rules).

--------------
NON-PAPER ON NON-DEPLOYED ITEMS
--------------


5. (S) The Russian delegation began the meeting by tabling a
revised edition of their non-paper, "Proposal on Locating
Non-Deployed Items" (Reftel). Admiral Kuznetsov stated that
the paper was revised to incorporate U.S. comments concerning
the inclusion of production facilities and to clarify
"basing" versus "location" of heavy bombers. Mr. Taylor
responded that the U.S. side was studying the paper with
great interest and would continue to do so. He further

stated that the United States was in general agreement with
the ICBM and SLBM concepts, but the United States had several
questions and considerations regarding heavy bombers.
Further discussion was deferred until the next meeting.

--------------
TREATY ARTICLE XV (RATIFICATION, EIF)
--------------


6. (S) Taylor next began a discussion of Article XV
suggesting some minor changes to the language in paragraph 1
reflecting the correct structure. Kuznetsov agreed. Taylor
reviewed the remaining brackets in paragraphs 2 and 3 and it
was agreed to remove all brackets except those around the
Russian-proposed text in paragraph 2 regarding the
quantitative and qualitative buildup in the capabilities of
strategic missile defense systems. It was then agreed to
send the article back to conforming.


--------------
TREATY ARTICLE VII (C OR E)
--------------


7. (S) Article VII was returned from conforming containing
additional brackets that addressed "removal from
accountability." Taylor explained that the English language
construct used was very logical and concise. Ms. Kotkova
responded that, unfortunately, this did not translate well
into Russian. Eventually, compromise language was reached:
"Conversion, elimination, or removal from accountability by
other means of Strategic Offensive Arms and facilities shall
be carried out by the procedures set forth in Part Three of
the Protocol." The discussion then turned to paragraph 3,
which had bracketed text regarding the inspections conducted
in accordance with Article XI. Taylor submitted that the
issue would be decided in Article XI or the Inspection
Protocol Working Group and that the current brackets could be
removed without prejudicing either side. Kuznetsov agreed
and asked the United States to provide a clean (un-bracketed)
copy with the changes. He stated he would give a final
review and if it looked acceptable would send it directly to
conforming.

--------------
TREATY ARTICLE XIII (BCC)
--------------


8. (S) Article XIII was the next topic of discussion. The
Conforming Group had raised a question on the correct treaty
structure as reflected in this Article. Kotkova suggested
that this had been through conforming before the structure
was finalized. Taylor suggested making the corrections
necessary and sending back to conforming. Kuznetsov agreed.

--------------
TREATY ARTICLE I
--------------


9. (S) Taylor next brought up Article I which was returned
from conforming to consider the language "its Protocol" and
"Protocol to this Treaty." The Russian delegation stated
that "its Protocol" does not translate in a proper legal
manner in Russian. After discussion, both sides agreed that
in Article I, "of the Protocol" would be used and "Protocol
to the Treaty" would be used everywhere else.

--------------
TREATY ARTICLE XIV
--------------


10. (S) The Russian delegation questioned the meaning of the
term "undertakings" as it applied to international
obligations and suggested alternatives in Article XIV.
Taylor explained that he did not object to different
language, but the meaning must remain the same. Dean also
explained that "undertakings" in English, did not necessarily
mean only international, or in concert with another party.
It was a general term and could mean unilateral or any other
action that could be contrary to the treaty. Both
delegations agreed to explain the considerations of the
wording carefully to their Conforming representatives and
return it to the Conforming Group.



--------------
TREATY ARTICLE VIII (Database)
--------------


11. (S) Taylor next asked Kuznetsov whether he had the
opportunity to study the U.S.-proposed text on public release
of database information. Kuznetsov replied that it looked
the same in Russian and to please explain the difference.
Taylor stated that paragraph 6 covered two ideas. The first
was the right to release to the public database data as of a
certain date with noted exceptions. The second concept is
that the Parties would meet in the BCC to decide which
additional data would be released. The United States
proposed that aggregate data only, not unique identifiers,
site diagrams, etc., would be released unless otherwise
agreed. Taylor noted that this was the same as in START.
Kuznetsov responded that while he was in general agreement,
he did not feel these matters warranted being in the treaty
proper. Kuznetsov felt that it belonged in the Protocol or
even the Annex. Taylor replied that this established a right
under the treaty and should belong in the treaty text proper.
No Party would sign the treaty without the data in the
database and it was important to establish the public release
of data. Taylor continued that the U.S. proposed text was
again in line with START but with the addition of new data
dealing with nuclear warheads. Kuznetsov responded that he
understood the U.S. position, but still felt the idea
overburdened the treaty. He then suggested the idea to
establish an exchange of diplomatic notes at the State
Department level covering the same ground. Taylor answered
that he would bring the idea up with the Head of Delegation.

--------------
TREATY ARTICLE III (COUNTING RULES)
--------------


12. (S) Taylor asked the Russian delegation for their
thoughts on the substance and placement of the language in
Article III, paragraph 4. Kuznetsov stated that it was too
much and questioned its purpose in the treaty. Taylor
responded that it was necessary to explain what ICBMs and
SLBMs were so that the rest of the treaty would be clear,
since the treaty often referred to ICBMs and SLBMs.
Kuznetsov again said it was unnecessary; however, he had no
objections, other than bracketed text to paragraphs 1, 2, 3,
5, 6, and 7.


13. (U) Documents provided:

- Russia:

- Revised Russian Non-paper, "Proposal on Locating
Non-Deployed Items," November 27, 2009, in Russian and
unofficial English.


14. (U) Participants:

U.S.

Mr. Taylor
Lt Col Comeau
Mr. Dean


Dr. Dreicer
Dr. Fraley
LTC LaGraffe
Mrs. Zdravecky
Mr. Sobchenko (Int)

RUSSIA

ADM Kuznetsov
Ms. Fuzhenkova
Mr. Kamenskiy
Ms. Kotkova
Ms. Evarovskaya (Int)


15. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS