START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001228 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) MEETING OF THE INSPECTION PROTOCOL WORKING GROUP, DECEMBER 11, 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-124. ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: December 11, 2009 Time: 10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. and 3:30 P.M. to 6:00 P.M. Place: U.S. and Russian Missions, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) The Inspection Protocol Working Group (IPWG),chaired by Secretary of Defense Representative Dr. Warner and Russian Ministry of Defense Representative Col Ilin, met to review Part Five of the Protocol, Inspection Activities, in its entirety and to clear brackets wherever possible. ¶4. (S) In conjunction with this meeting, there was a short combined IPWG and Treaty Text and Definitions Working Group (TTDWG) meeting to discuss the U.S.-proposed draft of Article XI. After significant discussion, the U.S. side agreed to provide a new written proposal incorporating key discussion points. ¶5. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Where are we Going?; Brackets, Brackets, Brackets; Article XI; Significant Differences Discussed Today. -------------- WHERE ARE WE GOING? -------------- ¶6. (S) Ilin opened the meeting by asking for the initial U.S. reaction to the new Russian proposal related to inspection activities received by the U.S. Head of Delegation the previous day. Warner responded that the Russian proposal was a step in the right direction but that two major issues still existed: 1) the offer of 18 total inspections versus the U.S. side's desire for 20 inspections, and 2) inspection activities for Conversion or Elimination and the U.S. side's desire for those inspections to be separate from the 18 or 20 Type One and Type Two inspections. ¶7. (S) Warner recommended the two sides conduct a paragraph by paragraph review of all brackets throughout all ten sections of Part Five to the Protocol. He also noted that at least two annexes regarding detailed inspection procedures specified in Sections VI and VII needed to be reviewed and agreed prior to signature of the treaty. Ilin responded that the order of priority for review should be: 1) Protocol, 2) Article XI, 3) Agreed Statements, and finally 4) the annexes. Warner said that was fine noting the United States would provide a response to the Russian proposal on the agreed statements that night or the next day. -------------- BRACKETS, BRACKETS, BRACKETS -------------- ¶8. (S) The two sides reviewed all sections, with the exception of Section VI,on Type One Inspections. Initially, only bracketed text was discussed but the Russian side raised new concerns in a number of paragraphs that were already considered to be agreed text. Specific highlights from the review of each section are as follows: - Section I - The Russian side proposed removing the brackets that would allow only a single inspection at any given time. Warner replied the brackets should remain but that the U.S. side would review the text. - Section II - The issue regarding excluding a person from the inspector list was agreed to by the U.S. side based on a new formulation worked out by the lawyers, but the Russian side had yet to provide concurrence. - Section III - There was no movement by either side regarding the issue of having the inspecting Party pay the costs associated with parking and security for the military transport aircraft that brought them to and from the Point of Entry (POE). - Section IV - Warner and Ilin discussed mandatory rest period and travel time needed following designation of the inspection site at the POE. The Russian side included the 10-hour rest period and the 14 hours of travel time from the POE to the inspection site into its proposed 24-hour period between inspection site designation and arrival at the site, while the U.S. side had the two items separated. No agreement was reached. The Russian side agreed to continue reviewing the rule on the percent of inspectable items present at an inspection site, and the text regarding sequential inspections remained bracketed. - Section V - The two sides agreed to text regarding size criteria specification and the time period for travel to the inspection site. The sides disagreed on the maximum time period allowed for Type 1 inspections at heavy bomber bases with the U.S. side proposing 24 hours, and the Russian side proposing no time limit. - Section VI - This section was not discussed during the meeting. - Section VII - The Russian side agreed to a maximum of two inspections per site per year for Type Two inspections, and the U.S. side provided specific text for inspection of launch canisters at test ranges. - Section VIII - The Russian side raised concerns in a number of cases regarding exhibitions for heavy bombers; primarily, it did not see the B-1B issue addressed. Ilin proposed new language for the previously agreed paragraph on exhibitions for conversion procedures. The United States provided a new version of the paragraph to address the Russian side's issues, but in the end, it remained in brackets. - Section IX - There was nothing significant to report for this section. - Section X - The two sides again discussed the use of "strategic offensive arms" versus "items" with a modified phrase including "items" eventually being agreed upon. -------------- ARTICLE XI -------------- ¶9. (S) Warner opened a combined IPWG and TTDWG discussion of Article XI begining with paragraph 4 since the first three paragraphs had already been agreed for the most part. Ilin indicated the Russian side preferred using "strategic offensive arms" in lieu of a list (ICBMs, SLBMs, ICBM Launchers, etc.). Mr. Dean replied that listing the items was preferred since "strategic offensive arms" was not a defined term. Ilin responded that "Strategic Offensive Arms" is used elsewhere in the U.S. text and noted the lack of consistency. He also asked what would be considered "existing." Warner replied the United States would remove "existing" and reiterated that the two sides differed on what was considered a "strategic offensive arm." ¶10. (S) Warner noted paragraph 4 contained three different types of exhibitions: l) technical characteristics; 2) exhibition of the first item converted or eliminated;and 3) exhibition to confirm the results of the conversion or elimination of subsequent items, and that was one reason why complete lists were provided. Ilin said it was not sensible to have special lists since all items were covered in Article III. Dean proposed a new version of paragraph 4, and Ilin stated the Russian side would review it. He also said the Russian side would rework paragraphs 2 and 3 based on the U.S. formulation for paragraph 4. -------------- SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES DISCUSSED TODAY -------------- ¶11. (S) Ilin indicated the Russian side would not agree to paragraph 8 of Section VII, which provided the right to read unique identifiers (UIDs) on non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs during Type Two inspections. When asked what the Russian concerns were, Ilin stated Russia did not want to provide UIDs on any system. Warner asked for clarification regarding the Russian change in position, and Ilin replied Moscow had removed that option. He clarified that the offer made in the December 3 Russian package proposal was withdrawn due to serious differences on other issues, including telemetry and the inspection quotas. ¶12. (S) Ilin seemed confused regarding the process for elimination using "wildcard procedures." Warner attempted to explain the process, and Ilin made reference to the requirement for such procedures to be agreed by both sides prior to usage. Warner responded that agreement by the other Party was not required; only a briefing and possible demonstration, if requested by the other Party, were required. Ilin also pressed to include text in Section VIII that would provide a right for that demonstration. Warner replied that such a demonstration would fall under the framework of the Bilateral Consultative Commission as agreed by the Conversion or Elimination Working Group. Col Zaitsev recommended waiting to discuss these issues further until Col Ryzhkov and Mr. Elliott returned. Ilin and Warner agreed. ¶13. (U) Documents provided: - UNITED STATES: -- Section V. Conduct of Inspection Activities, dated December 10,2009; -- Section VI. Type One Inspections, dated December 11,2009; -- Section VII. Type Two Inspections, dated December 9,2009; and -- Section VIII. Exhibitions, dated December 10,2009. - RUSSIA: -- Russian Disagreement List, dated December 11, 2009. ¶14. (S) Participants: UNITED STATES Dr. Warner Amb Ries Mr. Brown Mr. Buttrick Mr. Connell Mr. Dean Dr. Dreicer LTC Leyde Mr. McConnell Ms. Pura Ms. Purcell Mr. Rust LT Sicks Mr. Sims Mr. Smith Mr. Taylor Ms. Zdravecky Ms. Gesse (Int) Ms. Gross (Int) RUSSIA Col Ilin Mr. Izrazov Mr. Koshelev Col Petrov Ms. Vodopolova Col Zaitsev Mr. Pogodin (Int) ¶15. (U) Gottemoeller sends. GRIFFITHS