START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001140

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: 12/12/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) INSPECTION PROTOCOL WORKING GROUP
MEETING, DECEMBER 1, 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-078.


2. (U) Meeting Date: December 1, 2009
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) The thirteenth meeting of the Inspection Protocol
Working Group was held at the Russian Mission on December 1,

2009. The working group agreed that Type 1 and Type 2
inspections would be formally identified as such in Article
XI of the treaty. The sides agreed that three sections
within the Inspection Activities Protocol (now designated as
Part Five of the Protocol) should be sent to the Conforming
Group. Also, following a productive discussion, the sides
reached near full agreement on Section V addressing general
rules for inspection activities. Though items addressing
some issues regarding heavy bombers, mobile ICBM recall and
the number of inspectors on the inspection teams were left
bracketed, the sides agreed that this section was ready for
conforming. One issue left unresolved was the Russian
position that none of the material in the third level
(technical annexes) would be reviewed and agreed to prior to
treaty signature. Dr. Warner urged the Russian delegation to
have their leadership reconsider this position. End Summary.


4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Article XI; Agreement on Part Five,
Sections I, IX and X; General Rules For Inspection
Activities; and Will Any Technical Annexes Be Agreed to by
Treaty Signature.

--------------
ARTICLE XI
--------------


5. (S) Dr. Warner opened the meeting with a brief discussion
on Article XI of the treaty, which described the types of
inspections to be conducted. Col Petrov stated that his
legal advisors had advocated that the article be written such
that the subject of the inspection activities be clearly
stated and include detailed descriptions of the items being
inspected. Warner replied that the U.S. legal team was
leaning in the opposite direction in that the article should
state only the inspection activities, their locations and
their purposes. Additional details on what items were to be
inspected would be provided in the protocol and annexes.
However, Warner noted that both sides had agreed that "Type
1" and "Type 2" inspections would be formally identified as
inspections of strategic offensive arms (SOA) at ICBM, SLBM
and heavy bomber bases and, inspections of SOA at other
facilities, respectively. Petrov provided a new
Russian-proposed JDT of Article XI. Warner stated that the
U.S. side would submit a revised JDT of Article XI to the
Russian side for consideration.

--------------
AGREEMENT ON PART FIVE, SECTIONS I, IX AND X


--------------


6. (S) Warner turned the discussion to the U.S.-proposed JDT
for Part Five, Section X, "Inspection Activity Reports." The
delegations agreed on paragraphs 1, 3 and 4. In paragraph 2,
the Russian side preferred that the language state that the
inspection report include the "SOA subject to the Treaty"
that was inspected. Warner replied that the United States
advocated listing the specific items inspected because "SOA"
was an undefined term. However, as Petrov had pointed out,
he recognized that such a list would make the paragraph
lengthy and cumbersome. Warner agreed to consult with the
U.S. lawyers regarding the term "SOA." Once this was
resolved, the section would be sent to the Conforming Group.


7. (S) Both sides agreed that Part Five, Section IX,
"Cancellation of Inspection Activities," was ready for the
Conforming Group. Minor changes were made in paragraphs 1
and 2; and the Russian side accepted U.S.-proposed paragraphs
3, 4 and 5.


8. (S) In Section I, "General Obligations," the sides agreed
on paragraphs 1, 2 and 4. Regarding paragraph 3, on the
non-disclosure of information gained at inspections, the
sides agreed that this topic would be addressed in the treaty
text itself and so could be deleted here. The sides agreed
to leave paragraph 5, the Russian proposal to allow only one
inspection at a time, bracketed. Lastly, the sides agreed
that the title of Section I should be "General Provisions"
rather than "General Obligations" and that this section would
also go to conforming.

--------------
GENERAL RULES FOR INSPECTION ACTIVITIES
--------------


9. (S) The discussion turned to Part 5, Section V, "General
Rules for the Conduct of Inspection Activities." The sides
agreed to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17 and 19.
The remaining paragraphs were addressed as discussed below.


10. (S) Paragraph 4 addressed the boundaries of the
inspected facility and stated it shall be per Annex J.
Warner stated that the U.S. proposal was that Annex J be
broken apart and the information on site diagrams be placed
into a separate annex, later identified as Section 4 of the
Inspection Activities Annex. The remaining text would be
placed into currently existing annexes. Ms. Kotkova noted
that, at this time, neither side knew the context nor the
organization of the annex the U.S. side was preparing.
Therefore, referring to it was not meaningful. Warner
replied that the U.S. side intended to have a few selected
annexes completed prior to treaty signature and was focusing
on those annexes. One of the annexes would address site
diagrams. Kotkova stated that because the organization and
sections of this proposed JDT were not yet agreed upon,
referencing specific sections or subsections was unwise.
Kotkova suggested this paragraph instead refer to the
"Inspection Activities Annex to this Protocol." Warner
agreed, subject to the concurrence of both sides' lawyers.


11. (S) In paragraph 6, Petrov requested adding a sentence
at the end to read, "The in-country escort shall provide to


the inspectors at the inspection site sufficient lighting
necessary to carry out the procedures provided for in this
Part." Warner noted that this text had previously been moved
down to the third tier but agreed to relocate it here.


12. (S) In paragraph 7, the sides agreed on the unbracketed
text. Warner noted that the bracketed text should remain so
because it addressed mobile ICBMs in relation to the 24-hour
recall provision. Petrov concurred. Paragraph 8 addressing
the inspectors' right to use specified equipment was fully
agreed upon after Petrov concurred with removing the brackets
around the phrase that allowed for cameras to be used by only
the inspected Party at the request of the inspecting Party.


13. (S) With the exception of one subparagraph, agreement
was reached on paragraph 10 (items of inspection) after the
U.S. side agreed to delete the reference to support
equipment. Warner stated that subparagraph 10(a)(ii)
addressed heavy bombers and consequently should be deferred
pending progress on some of the heavy bomber issues.


14. (S) Warner declared that the U.S. side had completely
revised paragraph 11. It stated that the size criteria for
inspections shall be an "imaginary cylinder" that was 97
percent of the diameter and length of the Party's smallest
first stage of an ICBM or SLBM listed in the database.
Petrov disagreed with this approach and proposed two
alternative options for size criteria: (1) 97 percent of the
diameter and length of the smallest of the ICBM or SLBM type
or mobile launcher declared at the facility; or (2) 97
percent of the diameter and length of the smallest first
stage of an ICBM or SLBM which was maintained, stored, or
transported in stages of the smallest ICBM or SLBM which is
maintained, stored and transported in launch canisters
declared for that facility. Warner requested the Russian
side submit this proposal in writing and Petrov agreed.
Likewise, subparagraph (b),addressing heavy bomber nuclear
weapon storage areas, remained bracketed for the reason
stated by Warner in paragraph 13 above.


15. (S) Paragraph 13 addressed the size of the inspection
teams. Warner stated that he appreciated that the Russian
side had agreed to no more that ten inspectors for Type 1
inspections and exhibitions. The U.S. side had seriously
considered the Russian explanation that the inspectable area
of Plesetsk would be reduced and had taken the anticipated
changes at that site into account for Type 2 inspections.
However, Warner pointed out another issue of concern.
Specifically, when a notification was sent regarding the
intention of a Party to conduct an inspection, the inspection
type was not given until the inspection team arrived at the
point of entry. If the notice stated a number of inspectors
less than 10, the Party essentially "telegraphed" the
inspection type that was to be declared several hours later.
Therefore, unless the Russian side agreed to 10 inspectors
for all types of inspection activities, the phrase would
remain bracketed. After some discussion within the Russian
delegation, Petrov stated that the proposed Russian maximum
of seven inspectors should remain in "soft" brackets
indicating that the Russian side was seriously considering
changing its position on this matter.


16. (S) The sides agreed to Paragraph 16 after "deployed


warheads on ICBMs and SLBMs" was changed to "warheads on
deployed ICBMs and SLBMs" and the last sentence of
subparagraph (a) was clarified to state that the inspection
of non-deployed items will be completed within 24 hours after
the completion of the associated warhead inspection. The
U.S.-proposed paragraph 18 on sequential inspections remained
bracketed.


17. (S) Warner concluded the discussion on Section V by
stating that it was ready for the Conforming Group. He noted
regarding paragraph 11, the U.S. side would provide revised
text stating that size criteria would be used but that the
specific technical information on these criteria would be
provided in the Inspection Activities Annex.

--------------
WILL ANY TECHNICAL ANNEXES BE
AGREED TO BY TREATY SIGNATURE
--------------


18. (S) For the next meeting, Warner suggested the sides
review Annex 7 which addressed the procedures for the
inspection of covered objects, containers and launch
canisters. Petrov stated that the Russian position was that
no technical annexes would be considered prior to treaty
signature. Warner replied that selected portions of the
third level needed to be completed prior to this event and
that Ambassador Antonov had agreed explicitly with Assistant
Secretary Gottemoeller to do so. He stated that the United
States proposed completing only a select few annexes which
were very important and must be agreed upon before treaty
signature. Warner pointed out that the sides had made
tremendous progress in the last few days and he believed that
the Inspection Activities Part of the Protocol may be
finished by the end of this week. That would still leave
time for the delegations to achieve agreement on those
important annexes. He stated that the policy of not
discussing any of the technical annexes before treaty
signature was unacceptable to the U.S. side. Warner
suggested that Petrov consult with Antonov and Petrov
indicated he would.


19. (U) Documents provided:

- Russia:

-- Russian-Proposed JDT of Article XI, dated December
1, 2009 (Russian and unofficial English).


20. (U) Participants:

U.S.

Dr. Warner
Mr. Buttrick
Maj Johnson
LTC Leyde
Mr. McConnell
Ms. Pura
Ms. Purcell
Mr. Sims
Mr. Smith
Mr. Shkeyrov (Int.)



RUSSIA

Col Petrov
Mr. Izrazov
Ms. Kotkova
Ms. Vodopolova
Ms. Evarovskaya (Int)


21. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS