Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA1206
2009-12-20 15:35:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

Tags:  KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #1206/01 3541535
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 201535Z DEC 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0861
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 5927
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 3106
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 2116
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 7323
S E C R E T GENEVA 001206 

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: 09/21/2019
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 1201 (SFO-GVA-VII-121)

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 001206

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: 09/21/2019
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 1201 (SFO-GVA-VII-121)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-128.


2. (U) Meeting Date: December 12, 2009
Time: 3:00 P.M. - 5:30 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 12, the sides discussed
five of seven sections of the U.S.-proposed joint draft text
(JDT) of Part Four of the Protocol to the treaty,
(Notifications). The Russian side provided new language for
incorporation into the JDT, and Mr. Smirnov and Mr. Siemon
agreed to text in numerous sections. End Summary.


4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Section I - General Provisions;
Sections II, III and IV.

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


5. (S) Smirnov opened the meeting by noting both sides
agreed to paragraphs 1 and 2 in Section I--General Provisions
(Reftel). He stated that paragraph 3 contained redundant
language, and he questioned the use of "Part Two data."
After further discussion, the two sides agreed to use the
same text in paragraph 3 that was contained in the section
titles. Smirnov also raised a concern with the title of
Section III, Flight Tests of ICBMs or SLBMs and Telemetric
Information, specifically the U.S.-proposed "telemetric
information." Siemon replied that the brackets should
remain, and the two sides should await the results of the
Presidents' evening telephone call.


6. (S) Smirnov asked why the U.S. text included "of items
and facilities and removal from accountability of items and

facilities" when referencing the conversion or elimination
language. He stated the term "strategic offensive arms"
should be used instead. Siemon replied that some items, such
as fixed structures and launch canisters, were not actually
strategic offensive arms; they were facilities or items
associated with strategic offensive arms. Smirnov stated
that he understood.

--------------
SECTION II, III, and IV
--------------


7. (S) For Section II, Notifications Concerning Data
According to Categories of Data, the two sides continued
discussing the all-encompassing Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) data update notification or Format 3. Smirnov again
raised his concern about inclusion of sub-paragraphs under
the "Notification of Change of Data in Part Two of the


Protocol to the Treaty." His argument remained that
inclusion of sub-paragraphs implied that additional
notifications would be required. He then applied the same
logic to the final three paragraphs of the text which called
for notifications in other cases such as new facilities and
the location of production facilities. Siemon again repeated
the U.S. position that the text must provide clarity for both
the U.S. ratifiers as well as the treaty implementers which
was why the U.S.-proposed text stated the instances in which
a MOU data update notification would be sent.


8. (S) For Section III, Notifications Concerning Movement of
Strategic Offensive Arms, Smirnov said it would be a
challenge to provide movement notifications within a 48-hour
period, and he immediately noted he was unwilling to discuss
time periods at this time. His preference was for a 5-day
time period in which to provide the respective notifications.
He also noted text regarding launch canisters should be
removed per agreement between Col Ryzhkov and Mr. Elliott in
the Conversion or Elimination Working Group. Siemon
requested that the text remain in brackets. Smirnov also
noted that non-deployed mobile launchers and mobile training
launchers were included in the term "mobile launchers of
ICBMs." Therefore, there was no need to list them
separately.


9. (S) Smirnov again pressed for notifications regarding
heavy bombers (Begin comment: The Russian side had also
asked for non-nuclear heavy bomber notifications. End
comment.) visiting outside the continental United States.
Siemon replied that the two sides had fundamentally different
views on treatment of deployed and non-deployed heavy
bombers. He noted each side's definitions were different and
reflected divergent approaches.


10. (S) Mr. Dwyer emphasized that Ryzhkov had previously
agreed to include a basic notification description in the
Tier Two document with all amplifying information to be
included in the Tier Three Annex document. Smirnov replied
that approach was acceptable as long as it was applied
consistently throughout the text.


11. (S) For Section IV, Smirnov noted only two differences,
telemetry and the time period for the notification of a
flight test. He requested that "Telemetric Information"
remain bracketed, and Siemon agreed. Smirnov also noted that
the 1988 Agreement on Flight Tests provided for a 24-hour
notification window while the U.S.-proposed text proposed a
no later than 5-day advanced notice. Siemon noted that the
START Treaty provided a no later than 5-day notification on
flight tests; the 1988 Agreement was used as a reference.
Siemon ultimately agreed to discuss the time period issue
with the rest of the U.S. delegation.


12. (S) For Section V, Notifications Concerning Conversion
or Elimination of Strategic Offensive Arms, Smirnov stated
the Russian-proposed text addressed the U.S. concern for a
separate notification once an item was ready for inspection.
(Begin comment: This notification would be sent once
conversion or elimination procedures were completed and the
inspection or national technical means (NTM) window began.
End comment.) Siemon responded that the U.S. side was also
concerned with the elimination inspection quota. Smirnov


replied that notifications of elimination activities would be
sent for each eliminated item and that "batching" of
eliminated items would not occur. He also said the
eliminated item would be removed immediately upon closure of
the inspection window or NTM window regardless of the
occurrence of an inspection. He said that this was due to
scheduling and financial issues.


13. (S) Lt Col Goodman attempted to address Smirnov's
statements by asking about the Russian side's annual schedule
for conversion and elimination. Smirnov side-stepped the
question and declared he accepted the U.S.-proposed text for
Section V. He then asked the U.S. side to prepare a new JDT
for Section VI, Notifications Concerning Inspections and
Exhibitions, and Section VII, Notifications Concerning
Additional Messages and the Bilateral Consultative
Commission. Siemon stated the U.S. side would provide those
documents to the Russian side either Sunday or Monday with
the next meeting scheduled for late Monday. He stressed that
the question regarding the annual plan for conversion or
elimination would also be readdressed.


14. (U) Documents provided:

- UNITED STATES:

-- Russian-proposed Joint Draft Text, Part Four of the
Protocol to the Treaty, dated December 11, 2009


15. (U) Participants:

UNITED STATES

Mr. Siemon
Mr. Dwyer
Lt Col Goodman
LT Sicks
Ms. Gross (Int)

RUSSIA

Mr. Smirnov
Mr. Ivanov
Mr. Voloskov
Ms. Komshilova (Int)


16. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS