Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA1179
2009-12-18 18:03:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

Tags:  KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0005
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #1179/01 3521803
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 181803Z DEC 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0739
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 5809
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 2988
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 1998
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 7205
S E C R E T GENEVA 001179 

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) NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP, DECEMBER
10, 2009

REF: GENEVA XXXXX (SFO-GVA-VII-097)

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 001179

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) NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP, DECEMBER
10, 2009

REF: GENEVA XXXXX (SFO-GVA-VII-097)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-121.


2. (U) Meeting Date: December 10, 2009
Time: 3:30 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) During a meeting of the Notifications Working Group,
held at the U.S. Mission on December 10, 2009, the sides
discussed notifications that could be removed or combined.
Mr. Siemon and Mr. Smirnov discussed the U.S.-proposed joint
draft text for Section I, General Provisions, and tentatively
agreed on that text. The sides also discussed Section V,
Conversion or Elimination Notifications, in detail. The
remaining substantive difference for Section V concerned
where information regarding notifications of a change in
database information would be placed in the text. The
meeting closed with a discussion of the remaining sections of
the document (Sections II, III, IV, VI and VII) in addition
to the agenda for a future meeting. End Summary.


4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Removing Formats; Sections I -
General Provisions; Section V - Conversion or Elimination;
The Future.

--------------
REMOVING FORMATS
--------------


5. (S) Siemon began the meeting by stating the U.S.
delegation had agreed to remove and combine additional
notifications from the U.S.-proposed Part Four to the
Protocol, Notifications. He stated START Format 10,
Notification of Planned Numbers of Nuclear Warheads on
Deployed Systems, START Format 11, Notification of Planned
Aggregate Numbers, START Format 12, Notification of Expected
Numbers of Deployed Arms in Excess of Planned Numbers, and

START Format 15, Notification of Transfer of Items to and
From a Third State, could be captured under a Format 3
(change in Database Information) in the case of 10, 11, and
12, and in the case of Format 15, could be captured under a
generic "additional messages" notification. Smirnov noted
that the Russian proposal was not to eliminate Format 15 but
to include that data transfer in a more common format.
Siemon stated the United States would review that proposal.


6. (S) Siemon addressed Russia's previous proposal to remove
Format 68 (Ref A),Notification of Annual Schedule for
Conversion and Elimination, by stating that the U.S. side was
not prepared to remove this notification at this time. He
stated it was important for proper planning of resources and
it could be very useful depending on the outcome of the
inspection quota discussion. Smirnov opined that information
received on an annual basis was not accurate and that a
Notification of Intent to Eliminate or Convert, transmitted


30 days prior to the start of elimination procedures, would
provide enough time for any necessary planning. Siemon
stated he would engage the U.S. delegation again regarding
this issue.

--------------
SECTION I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
--------------


7. (S) Siemon opened discussion on Section I by noting that
three of the four paragraphs in the new U.S.-proposed joint
draft text were based on Russian-proposed text.

Begin text:


1. The Parties hereby agree upon provisions that establish
the procedures for, and the content of, the notifications
provided for in Article VIII of the Treaty.


2. A data base pertaining to the obligations under thisQreaty is set forth in
Part Two of the Protocol to the
Treaty, in which data with respect to items subject to the
limitations provided for in this Treaty are listed according
to categories of data.


3. Each Party shall provide to the other party notifications
concerning: 1) data contained in Part Two of the Protocol to
the Treaty and other agreed categories of data; 2) movement
of items subject to the treaty; 3) flight tests and
telemetric information of ICBMs or SLBMs; 4) conversion or
elimination of items and facilities and removal from
accountability of items and facilities; 5) Inspections and
Exhibitions; and 6) additional messages relating to the
Treaty.


4. If a time is to be specified in a notification provided
pursuant to this Part, that time shall be expressed in
Greenwich Mean Time. If a date is to be specified in a
notification, that date shall be specified as the 24 hour
period that corresponds to the date in local time, expressed
in Greenwich Mean Time.

End text.

Smirnov immediately agreed with the paragraphs. Siemon
stated the fourth paragraph was a statement providing the
reader an understanding of what would be discussed in the
document and in what order. Smirnov asked whether the
intention was simply to list the sections in this paragraph,
and Siemon replied that was the intention with the added hope
of keeping consistency with other documents. Smirnov agreed
in principle and stated the Russian side would review the new
paragraph in detail.


8. (S) Siemon noted that the U.S. side would provide a joint
draft text, in both Russian and English, for Section II,
Notifications Concerning Data with Respect to Limitations
Provided for in the Treaty, prior to the next meeting. He
stressed that it was important to provide more clarity,
especially with the use of Format 3, Change in Database
Information. Added clarity would allow an easy transition
from this text to the specific formats in the Notifications
Annex to the Protocol. He provided a rough idea of what the


Russian side could expect to see in that document and added
he hoped to have joint draft text Qhe Russian side by
Friday afternoon.

--------------
SECTION V - CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION
--------------


9. (S) Siemon shifted the discussion to Section V,
Conversion or Elimination (CorE),of the new U.S.-proposed
joint draft text. Smirnov reviewed the text briefly and
stated the Russian side had no concerns with sub-paragraphs
1(a) and 1(b) related to Notifications of Intent and
Notifications of Initiation. He agreed those were both in
the Russian-proposed text and noted only minor differences in
the language. He stated that the Russian side was now
willing to accept the U.S. proposal in sub-paragraph 1(c),to
include a notification for "Readiness to Inspect." He noted
the previous Russian proposal was to include such data in a
Format 3, Change in Database Data.


10. (S) Smirnov questioned the use of a notification
following the completion of CorE activities in the
U.S.-proposed text. LT Sicks replied that the notification
would be a Format 3 as proposed by the Russian side. Smirnov
then stated that paragraph 2, which required a notification
of change in database information in the case of removal by
other means (i.e., accidental loss, disablement, etc.),was
already covered in Section II of the text. Sicks replied
that the Russian-proposed text provided only a note
referencing the requirement and that more specificity and
clarity was needed. Smirnov agreed but noted that the
Russian side wanted to minimize the number of required
notification formats used. He stated the notifications in
paragraph 2 should all use a Format 3 notification. Siemon
reiterated that Sicks' earlier point concerning clarity was
important and that both the U.S. Senate ratifiers and future
implementers on both sides needed to understand what specific
notifications were covered under Format 3. Siemon told
Smirnov that both sides were in agreement and that the real
issue was one of format, not substance.

--------------
THE FUTURE
--------------


11. (S) Siemon provided assurance of U.S. flexibility
regarding the format and location of items in the text, and
he reiterated that clarity was more important than format
location. Smirnov then proposed to focus on Section III,
Notifications Concerning Movement of Items, Section IV,
Notifications Concerning Flight Tests, and Section VII,
Notifications of "Additional Messages" in the next meeting.
(Begin comment: Section VII would include all notifications
not specifically covered under Sections II through VI. End
comment.) Both he and Col Petrov opined Section VI,
Notifications Concerning Inspections and Exhibitions, would
be extremely difficult and recommended addressing it after
the Inspection Protocol Working Group (IPWG) had finalized
more text. Siemon agreed.


12. (S) Siemon asked Smirnov to deliver the U.S.-proposed
definition of "Declared Data" to Amb Kunetsev, and he


recommended discussing it at the next Definitions Subgroup
meeting. On notifications, Siemon noted the United States
would be prepared to discuss Section II, Section III, and
Section IV during the next working group meeting. He stated
there was a significant amount of bracketed text in Section
VII and major issues would need to be solved before progress
could be made on that section. Siemon did, however, agree to
the need for a free text, "catch-all" format that would be
located in Section VII. Smirnov stated he understood and
would be ready to meet again Saturday.


13. (U) Documents provided:

- UNITED STATES

-- U.S.-Proposed Joint Draft Text, Sections I and V of
Part Four of the Protocol to the Treaty, dated December 10,
2009; and

-- U.S.-Proposed text for the Definition of "Declared
Data," dated December 10, 2009.


14. (U) Participants:

UNITED STATES

Mr. Siemon
Mr. Dwyer
LT Sicks
Mr. French (Int)

RUSSIA

Mr. Smirnov
Col Petrov
Mr. Voloskov
Ms. Komshilova (Int)


15. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS