START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

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