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