START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001172

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: 12/17/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING
GROUP MEETING, DECEMBER 12, 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-130.


2. (U) Meeting Date: December 12, 2009
Time: 10:00 A.M. - 11:45 A.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) The Memorandum of Understanding Working Group (MOUWG)
chairs, Mr. Trout and Gen Orlov, met at the U.S. Mission on
December 12. Orlov brought two main topics for discussion,
the first regarding data exchange and the second regarding
START Annex J. Orlov presented the new Russian proposal
regarding data exchange. Trout and Orlov discussed a path
forward for working Annex J with Trout agreeing that he
needed to discuss the issue with the Inspection Protocol
Working Group (IPWG). End Summary.


4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: The Data Exchange; START Annex J;
Site Diagram Exchange; and Closing Comments.

--------------
THE DATA EXCHANGE
--------------


5. (S) Orlov began the meeting discussing the new Russian
proposal regarding data exchange. First, at the date of
signature, no actual numerical data would be included in the
database, only the categories would be listed. Second,
within 45 days after signature, the Parties would exchange
data current as of July 1, 2009, using the new counting rules
for the treaty. Data that was not releasable to the public
would not be exchanged. Finally, within 45 days (later
changed to 30 days) after entry-into-force (EIF) of the
treaty, the Parties would exchange all data current as of the
date of EIF.


6. (S) Trout reiterated the U.S. proposal regarding data
exchange. First, at the date of signature, numerical data
would be included in the database using data from the July 1,
2009, START MOU exchange. Data that was not releasable to
the public would not be exchanged. Second, within 45 days
after signature, the Parties would exchange data current as
of the date of signature. Again, data that was not
releasable to the public would not be exchanged. Finally,
within 30 days after EIF, the Parties would exchange all data
current as of that date.


7. (S) Orlov again asked what the purpose was for including
data at the date of signature. He argued that at the
Presidential level these numbers did not matter; only the
categories were important. Trout countered saying that the
Presidents needed this data to know the full scope of the
treaty they were signing.

--------------
START ANNEX J
--------------




8. (S) Orlov then continued to his other topic for
conversation, the former START Annex J. After thinking about
this last night, he commented, he believed that that the two
delegations should appoint one individual on each side to
work this document to a reasonable stage and then present it
to the working group. His candidate on the Russian side for
this task was Col Kamenskiy.


9. (S) Trout pointed out that the United States had broken
this Annex into smaller parts and moved these parts to
different sections related to inspection activities. While
both Orlov and Trout agreed the IPWG had a significant amount
of work to do, and that it would be beneficial for the MOUWG
to work Annex J, Trout pointed out that at this point there
was nothing left of the original document to work. Trout
added, however, that he needed to discuss this issue with Dr.
Warner and would provide a response soon on how to proceed.

--------------
SITE DIAGRAM EXCHANGE
--------------


10. (S) In response to one of the areas of data that would
not be exchanged within 45 days after signature, Trout
questioned Orlov as to why the Russian side did not want to
provide site diagrams prior to EIF, as was done in START.
Orlov said that Russia would provide new site diagrams for
all its facilities because no one would want 15-year old site
diagrams. Kamenskiy commented that the Russian side would
probably amend or change some site diagrams but others may
not change from those used in START. Trout responded to this
with two points. First, the Senate needed to have site
diagrams in the ratification process to help them understand
how the treaty would be verifiable. When Orlov countered
that the United States could use existing START diagrams to
give to the Senate, Trout followed up with his second point,
stating that if the purpose of exchanging site diagrams for
the ratification process was to help in showing how the
treaty was verifiable, it was not logical to give old site
diagrams because so many of them might change after EIF.


11. (S) Orlov commented that the Senate and Duma would not
care about this level of detail, and even if they did, he
continued, it is our job to argue our logic to them.
Kamenskiy pointed out that the Parties had site diagrams for
the duration of START and this history of what is the
inspectable area has not disappeared. Each Party, he argued,
has a "general vision" of what will be inspectable, and even
if the site diagrams changed a little it would not be
anything dramatic. Orlov reiterated that site diagrams were
not a strategic issue, commenting that nobody at the Senate
level will even look at these documents.


12. (S) Trout countered this argument, again stating that
these site diagrams were important documents, that they
needed to be current and accurate in relation to what will be
used in the new treaty, and that they needed to be part of
the ratification process.

--------------
CLOSING COMMENTS
--------------




13. (S) Trout closed the meeting stating that he would take
the Russian proposal regarding data exchange back to his
delegation, and to Washington, and would provide a response
the same day or the next morning. Trout also agreed that he
would discuss the Annex J issues with Dr. Warner to decide
what should happen.


14. (U) Documents provided: None.


15. (U) Participants:

UNITED STATES:

Mr. Trout
LT Lobner
Mr. French (Int)

RUSSIA:

Gen Orlov
Col Pischulov
Col Kamensky
Ms. Evarovskaya (Int)


16. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS