Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA1204
2009-12-20 14:08:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

Tags:  KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0003
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #1204/01 3541408
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 201408Z DEC 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0850
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 5916
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 3095
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 2105
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 7312
S E C R E T GENEVA 001204 

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) INSPECTION PROTOCOL WORKING GROUP
MORNING MEETING, DECEMBER 10, 2009

REF: GENEVA 01091 (SFO-GVA-VII-063)

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 001204

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) INSPECTION PROTOCOL WORKING GROUP
MORNING MEETING, DECEMBER 10, 2009

REF: GENEVA 01091 (SFO-GVA-VII-063)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-119.


2. (U) Meeting Date: December 10, 2009
Time: 10:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) This meeting of the Inspection Protocol Working Group
(IPWG),chaired by Secretary of Defense Representative Dr.
Warner and Russian Ministry of Defense Representative Col
Ilin, took place on December 10 and focused on issues
remaining in treaty Article XI, and Section VIII on
Exhibitions. For Article XI, the discussion dealt with
defining "declared data," and the differences in approach
over whether inspectors would look for additional items of
inspection beyond those in the declared data. For Section
VIII, the focus was on ensuring that the language would
require exhibition of the RS-24, and which Party would pay
for the costs of those exhibitions. End Summary.


4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Another Review of Treaty Article
XI; Agreed Statements Status; The RS-24 Must Be Exhibited and
More on Section VIII; and Who Pays for Exhibitions?

--------------
ANOTHER REVIEW OF TREATY ARTICLE XI
--------------


5. (S) The sides worked toward resolving an issue in treaty
Article XI concerning the meaning of the term "declared
data," which would also affect Part Five of the Protocol.
Warner presented a draft definition for the term.

Begin text:

The term "declared data," with respect to the data the
accuracy of which is confirmed during inspection activities,
means:

(a) data with respect to items subject to the Treaty, listed

according to categories of data in Part Two of this Protocol;

(b) data, provided through notifications pursuant to Part
Four of this Protocol, that update the categories of data in
Part Two of this Protocol;

(c) information on the technical characteristics of new
types of strategic offensive arms provided through
notifications, confirmed during exhibitions, and subsequently
listed in Part Two of this Protocol; and

(d) information that the inspected Party provides to the
inspection teams during pre-inspection procedures.

End text.



Ilin said the Russian side had also prepared a draft
definition, but was not ready to hand it over to the U.S.
side. Both Warner and Ilin agreed that the sides were close
to finalizing the definition.


6. (S) Warner noted that the basic difference between the
sides in treaty Article XI was that the U.S. side proposed to
conduct inspections "at bases," while the Russian side
proposed to conduct inspection "of items." This inferred
that the Russian side might somehow try to limit inspector
access on a base to only declared items, and that inspectors
might not be allowed to inspect the base beyond that. Ilin
did not directly reply.


7. (S) For paragraph 3 of Article XI, Warner noted that
issues remained concerning the Russian-proposal to continue
to include elimination inspections and periodic inspections
of converted strategic offensive arms (SOA) as Type Two
inspections.

--------------
AGREED STATEMENTS STATUS
--------------


8. (S) Warner and Ilin agreed to discuss draft Agreed
Statements on the B-1B and the SSGN in addition to treaty
Article XI later in the day. AMB Antonov had asked Ilin to
be the chair from the Russian side of the group that would
discuss the new agreed statements.

-------------- --------------
THE RS-24 MUST BE EXHIBITED AND MORE ON SECTION VIII
-------------- --------------


9. (S) Discussion moved to Exhibitions, Section VIII of Part
Five of the Protocol. Warner noted that the U.S.-proposed
text had added the words "variant" and "version" in paragraph
2 in order to require the RS-24 ICBM to be exhibited in a
technical characteristics exhibition even if the RS-24 was
declared as a new type during the interval between treaty
signature and its entry-into-force (EIF). Ms. Pura described
how a loophole could exist without the requirement to exhibit
a new "variant" if, for instance, a B52-I were deployed.
Warner explained how the SS-27 would not have had to be
exhibited if variants were not required to be exhibited.
Warner said there was a need to ensure that the RS-24 could
not fall into some sort of loophole if declared as a new type
during this "gap" period, and he would have to check with
legal advisors how provisional application of the treaty
would deal with exhibition of a new type of ICBM as the
treaty would not yet be ratified. Warner further noted that
declaration of the deployment of the RS-24 as a new type in
this "gap" interval would hurt the ratification process.
Ilin said that no exhibitions could take place until after
EIF, but that notifications would take place. Ilin
complained that this was a walkback on agreed text. After
consultation with Mr. Izrazov, Col Petrov and Col Zaitsev,
Ilin relented and accepted the U.S. text.


10. (S) The sides agreed to restructure paragraph 2 of
Section VIII to place the obligations and rights to perform
such exhibitions in the opening sentence of the paragraph.




11. (S) The sides agreed to delete a U.S. proposal that
initial exhibitions occur 15 days before the commencement of
inspection activities.


12. (S) The sides agreed to use the verb "demonstrate"
instead of "exhibit" in paragraph 3 of Section VIII, which
was about the exhibition of the results of the conversion of
the first item converted using new conversion procedures.


13. (S) Warner noted that paragraph 4 of Section VIII would
remain bracketed. The U.S. side wanted the confirmation of
conversions and eliminations to be an exhibition, while the
Russian side wanted to make them to be a Type Two inspection
and fall under the annual quota for Type Two inspections.
Warner also repeated the U.S. position that there would be no
exhibitions of missile defense interceptors as proposed by
the Russian side.

--------------
WHO PAYS FOR EXHIBITIONS?
--------------


14. (S) Ilin proposed that the participating Party pay for
its own costs associated with all exhibitions; financial
constraints are a significant concern for Russia. He
outlined three methods in which this could take place. The
participating Party could pay on the spot for travel within
the inspected country and for lodging, they could be billed
on a per person basis, or the host could send an invoice to
the inspecting country. Ilin suggested the details could be
in an annex and would not need to be resolved prior to treaty
signature. Warner mentioned the U.S. side was discussing a
proposal where the participating Party would pay its own way
for conversion and elimination confirmation exhibitions, and
noted the Russian proposal would apply such provisions for
all exhibitions. He questioned how equitable this proposal
would be, as the bulk of elimination exhibitions during the
10 years of START Follow-on would likely be conducted by
Russia.


15. (S) The discussions shifted to Section III of Part V of
the Protocol. Ilin insisted that the inspecting Party pay
for parking and security costs when travelling to and from
the point of entry via military aircraft. The issue remained
in brackets.


16. (S) The sides conclued the meeting with a review of the
sections to be discussed. Warner noted that Annexes 6 and 7
needed to be addressed soon. Ilin said they could be worked
out in the Bilteral Consultative Commission. Warner noted
thatA/S Gottemoeller and Antonov had already agreed tht
these two annexes should be completed prior totreaty
signature.


17. (U) Documents provided

- UNITED STATES:

- Draft Definition for Declared Data


18. (U) Participants:


UNITED STATES

Dr. Warner
Mr. Buttrick
Mr. Coussa
LTC Leyde
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Rust
Mr. Sims
Mr. Smith
Ms. Gesse (Int)

RUSSIA

Col Ilin
Mr. Izrazov
Col Petrov
Ms. Vodopolova
Col Zaitsev
Ms. Komshilova (Int)


19. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS