START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001128

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: 09/21/2019
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 28, 2009

REF: A. GENEVA 01127 (SFO-GVA-VII-062)

B. GENEVA 01028 (SFO-GVA-VII-020)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-066.


2. (U) Meeting Date: November 28, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) The Treaty Text and Definitions Working Group (TTDWG)
reviewed suggested conforming changes to Articles I, VII,
XII, XIV and XV, and sent these Articles back to the
Conforming Group. The first detailed discussion of Article
III, except for paragraph 8, and Article IV unearthed no
significant surprises. End Summary.


4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Articles VII, XII, XIV and XV Sent
Back to Conforming; Article I; Article III - Counting Rules;
and Article IV - Limitations;

--------------
ARTICLES VII, XII, XIV AND
XV SENT BACK TO CONFORMING
--------------


5. (S) Mr. Taylor presented articles that were agreed during
the previous TTDWG meeting (Ref A) and sent to conforming but
had been sent back to the TTDWG for further clarification.
Both sides discussed suggested changes in Articles VII, XIII,
XIV, and XV, and agreed to send the articles back to the
Conforming Group. The sides agreed that the only remaining
brackets in Articles XII and XIV will be resolved when all
treaty structural issues are decided.

--------------
ARTICLE I
--------------


6. (S) The Conforming Group had returned Article I to the
TTDWG with additional text formally linking the protocol to
the treaty. The Russian side deemed this important, while
the U.S. side considered it to be extraneous text. The sides
agreed that the compromise was to refer to "its Protocol" in
Article I but as "Protocol to the Treaty" in other Articles,
as appropriate.

--------------
ARTICLE III - COUNTING RULES
--------------


7. (S) The U.S. side accepted the Russian-proposed language
in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article III when Adm Kuznetsov
explained that the "...purpose of counting toward the
aggregate limit..." was START language. However the Russian
side was not willing to accept "...and its associated
launcher..." in paragraphs 1(a) and (b),consistent with the


Russian arguments to date. The proposal to collapse the
subparagraphs in paragraph 1 on counting of deployed ICBMs,
SLBMs and heavy bombers was deemed possible but final
resolution could not be achieved until the counting rules
were finalized.


8. (S) Similarly, as the sides considered paragraph 2
Article III positions on counting warheads, the sides agreed
that it would not be possible to finalize this text until
senior-level agreement was achieved. The Russian side
believed that clear definitions could replace paragraphs 3,
4, 8, and the Russian-proposed paragraph 4. The U.S. side
did not agree and the text remained bracketed.


9. (S) Taylor asked for clarification on the need to specify
when "the first stage of an ICBM or SLBM are maintained,
stored and transported in stages" first left a production
facility in paragraph 7 (a) and (e) for newly constructed
strategic offensive arms were subject to limitations of the
treaty. Kuznetsov agreed to consider this language further.


10. (S) Taylor asked for an explanation of the
Russian-Article IV proposed paragraph 3 ("In those cases not
provided for by the provisions of this Treaty, strategic
offensive arms shall begin to be the subject to the
limitations provided for in this Treaty in accordance with
procedures to be agreed by the Parties in the Bilateral
Consultative Commission."). Kuznetsov responded that this
paragraph allowed for the resolution of new configurations.
He used the example of the RSM-56 which is a canister
configured SLBM that had not existed when START was signed
and was introduced in the Joint Compliance and Inspection
Commission.


11. (S) The sides agreed on the importance of paragraph 8
setting out the issues of new/existing types and
distinguishability but deferred more detailed consideration.


12. (S) Kuznetsov objected, in paragraph 9, to the
"political incorrectness" of citing the U.S. names for
existing types of Russian ICBMS, SLBMs, heavy bombers and
nuclear armaments for heavy bombers. Taylor agreed to
consider this request and coordinate it with the U.S. working
group chairs. In response to Kuznetsov's insistence to
exclude ICBMs for mobile launchers of ICBMs, Taylor explained
the U.S. position that silos and mobile launchers were
different. When the Russian side questioned listing
air-launched cruise missiles in subparagraph (d),Taylor
outlined the importance of this information to inspectors,
though he noted that this would likely be resolved when heavy
bomber counting rules were agreed.

--------------
ARTICLE IV - LIMITATIONS
--------------


13. (S) Kuznetsov asked what the U.S. reaction was to the
Russian paper of November 24, Non-paper "Proposal on Locating
Non-Deployed Items" (Ref B). The U.S. side said it was not
prepared to respond. Kuznetsov inquired about the U.S.
reasoning behind its proposal to limit the number of test
heavy bombers to 10. Taylor and Lt Col Comeau explained the
U.S. rationale was based on a possible maintenance schedule


and an added reserve. Kuznetsov understood but insisted that
there be no numerical limit for non-deployed heavy bombers.


14. (S) Dr. Fraley raised the need for modification of the
Russian non-paper on Locating Non-Deployed Items to clearly
show that items are not allowed at other locations and that
"prototypes" should also be introduced. The United States
committed to formulate a proposal. The sides discussed the
differences between a "prototype" and a "test" item.


15. (S) Documents provided:

- Russia:

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


16. (U) Participants:

U.S.

Mr. Taylor
Lt Col Comeau
Mr. Connell
Dr. Dreicer
Dr. Fraley
LTC LaGraffe
Mrs. Zdravecky
Mr. Sobchenko (Int)

RUSSIA

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


17. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS