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