START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001192

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: 12/19/2019
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, 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-087.


2. (U) Meeting Date: December 1, 2009
Time: 4:20 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) U.S. and Russian representatives to the Treaty Text
and Definitions Working Group (TTDWG) met for a shortened
session following a meeting of the Definitions Subgroup. Due
to the constrained time period for this meeting only Article
III was discussed. Both sides reviewed agreed text and
remaining bracketed text in light of developments in other
working groups. The sides agreed to use terminology of the
possessing Party for identifying strategic offensive arms
(SOA) and the U.S. delegation agreed to consider possible
Russian proposals to identify existing types of ICBMS for
mobile launchers of ICBMs in paragraph 7. End Summary.


4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Opening Gambits; Article III; Newly
Constructed SOA; When Items Cease to be in the Treaty;
Missiles in Non-Nuclear Configuration; How to List Existing
Types.

--------------
OPENING GAMBITS
--------------


5. (S) Ambassador Ries suggested that the meeting begin with
a discussion of Article III and as time allowed a discussion
of the U.S.-provided language for Article VIII (data
exchange),Article XII (Cooperative Measures),and Article IV
(Numerical and Locational Re strictions). Mr. Koshelev
replied that his team was ready to discuss Article III, but
that the author of Article VIII was not available and he
requested to delay that discussion until the next meeting.
He further stated that the Russian side had nothing to
discuss on Article XII at this point.

--------------
ARTICLE III
--------------


6. (S) ADM Kuznetsov stated that it was his understanding
that paragraph 1, with the exception of sub-paragraph (c),
had been agreed. Koshelev agreed with Kuznetsov and stated
that because the delegations would shortly have a definition
in the treaty for "deployed heavy bomber," paragraph 1 was
provisionally agreed. Mr. Taylor pointed out that it was
important to acknowledge that Article III dealt with counting
rules in coordination with Article II that identified treaty
limitations with both articles using the term "deployed heavy
bomber." He also agreed with Kuznetsov that the Definitions
Subgroup was close to finalizing a definition for "deployed
heavy bomber."


7. (S) Koshelev, turning to paragraph 2, stated that the


main paragraph and sub-paragraph (a) were agreed but the same
heavy bomber issue plagued sub-paragraph (b). Ries agreed
saying that until an agreement on counting rules was reached,
a number of treaty provisions could not be finally agreed.
Koshelev reviewed the U.S. proposal to conduct inspections
within the weapons storage areas (WSAs) which, he emphasized,
Russia considered to be classified and sensitive. Stating
that there was not enough time to fully study the proposal,
he argued it would be better to revert to attribution rules.
Kuznetsov took the opportunity to pontificate on Koshelev's
statement and suggestion. Ries replied that what she took
from the comments of both was that the idea had merit and was
worth pursuing. Koshelev remarked that he felt all U.S.
proposals had merit and deserved study but that the brackets
would have to remain on sub-paragraph (b) for now. Ries then
confirmed that all of paragraph 3 was agreed.

--------------
NEWLY CONSTRUCTED SOA
--------------


8. (S) Moving to paragraph 4 on when newly constructed
strategic offensive arms would be captured under the treaty's
provisions, Koshelev said that the paragraph chapeau,
sub-paragraphs (a),(b),(d) and (e) were agreed;
sub-paragraph (c) concerning when a silo launcher of ICBMs
became accountable under the treaty still had brackets.
Taylor read the new U.S.-proposed text: "...a silo launcher
of ICBMs, when the silo door is first installed and closed."
Kuznetsov stated the Russian delegation agreed with the
U.S.-proposed amendment to Russia's original text and turned
to sub-paragraph (f) saying that in principle the Russian
delegation believed the text was agreed pending the agreement
on a definition of heavy bomber. Koshelev reminded the U.S.
side that Russia still had a proposed paragraph 4bis.
Kuznetsov interrupted, stating that this paragraph was the
original Russian proposal and that with an agreement on heavy
bomber accountability, the entire Russian-proposed paragraph
4bis could be deleted.

--------------
WHEN ITEMS CEASE TO BE IN THE TREATY
--------------


9. (S) Ries moved to paragraph 5 on when strategic offensive
arms ceased to be subject to the treaty, suggesting that all
brackets could be removed by putting a period after treaty
and deleting the rest of the text that cited the parts of the
protocol that would be applied. Koshelev accepted her idea
and the paragraph was agreed.

--------------
MISSILES IN NON-NUCLEAR CONFIGURATION
--------------


10. (S) Kuznetsov began the discussion of paragraph 6 by
pointing out that the original Russian position was against
sub-paragraphs (b) and (c) on new types of non-nuclear ICBMs
and SLBMs, but after rethinking sup-paragraph (c) they had
decided to retain it if the word "nuclear" could be removed.
(Begin comment: "If a new type of ballistic missile has been
flight-tested or deployed for ((nuclear))1 ((as a))2 weapon
delivery ((vehicle))2, all ballistic missiles of that


type..." End comment.) He went on to say that if there were
no objections, the delegations could delete sub-paragraph (b)
and the word "nuclear" and move on. Ries voiced concern that
what Kuznetsov was suggesting changed the concept of the
paragraph and the U.S. delegation would like to study the
proposal.

--------------
HOW TO LIST EXISTING TYPES
--------------


11. (S) Kuznetsov began the discussion on paragraph 7 that
listed the existing types at time of signature by saying the
Russian delegation had an innovation for referring to
existing types of SOA, that both sides should use the
nomenclature of the possessing Party, e.g., both sides would
use Minuteman III to identify the Minuteman III and RS-18 to
identify the RS-18, instead of using NATO moniker. Taylor
readily agreed, saying that using the START language was
habit and a shortcut. Kuznetsov pointed out that the Russian
position was that existing types of ICBMs for mobile
launchers of ICBMs (sub-paragraph (c)) would be reported
under existing types of ICBMs (sub-paragraph (a)). When
questioned by Taylor, Kuznetsov embarked on an extensive
discussion about the U.S. fascination with segregating mobile
ICBMs and launchers throughout the treaty. After Kamenskiy
calmly pointed out that mobile missiles were covered as a
separate category within Part Two of the protocol (on the
database),it was agreed that the United States would
consider Russian proposals to identify existing types of
ICBMs for mobile launchers of ICBMs. Kuznetsov pointed out
that sub-paragraph (d) had the same problem with the
definition of deployed heavy bomber encountered elsewhere.


12. (U) Documents provided: None.


13. (U) Participants:

UNITED STATES

Amb Ries
Mr. Broshar
Lt Col Comeau
Mr. Highsmith
Mr. Taylor
Ms. Zdravecky
Mr. Shkeyrov (Int)

RUSSIA

Mr. Koshelev
Mr. Kamenskiy
ADM Kuznetsov
Ms. Fuzhenkova
Ms. Melikbekian
Mr. Trifinov
Ms. Evanovskaya (Int)


14. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS