START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001230 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) MEETING OF THE NOTIFICATIONS PROTOCOL WORKING GROUP, DECEMBER 14, 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-139. ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: December 14, 2009 Time: 10:00 A.M. to 11:30 A.M. and Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) During a meeting of the Notifications Working Group held at the U.S. Mission on December 14, 2009, the sides discussed concepts for using one notification (Begin comment: This was a Format 3 Notification under START. End comment.) that would cover all changes to the treaty's database. The sides also exchanged ideas on how heavy bomber movements would be notified. End Summary. ¶4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Concepts and Concerns -------------- CONCEPTS AND CONCERNS -------------- ¶5. (S) The sides discussed the Russian-proposed concept for using one notification that would cover all changes in the treaty's database; this notification would is found in Section II, Notifications Concerning the Database. Col Ryzhkov provided a written example of how the change in database notification could be used in the case of elimination procedures. He noted that the comments portion of the format would be very important; it would contain additional information about the elimination procedure and would reference the requirement for notification. Ryzhkov indicated such formats would include references to prior notifications regarding the same treaty-accountable item and that the notification would be used to indicate the opening of an inspection window during conversion or elimination. ¶6. (S) Ryzhkov stated the Russian side disagreed with having different time periods for the various notifications. Specific examples included prior notification of a flight test and notifying the movement of non-deployed strategic offensive arms. Mr. Siemon replied he would communicate those concerns to the U.S. delegation and would be prepared to discuss the issue at the next working group meeting. ¶7. (S) Ryzhkov and Siemon discussed Russia's proposal for providing notifications on nuclear and non-nuclear capable heavy bomber movements outside national territory. Ryzhkov stated it was extremely important for Russia to determine whether a heavy bomber deployed outside the national territory was or was not equipped for nuclear armaments. He stressed that a notification containing that information would be helpful. He also reinforced the need for full reporting and exhibitions on all B-1B aircraft until all conversions were complete. Siemon replied that the use of unique identifiers on heavy bombers would solve the problem of tracking heavy bomber movements, however, the Russian side had rejected this proposal weeks ago. ¶8. (U) Documents provided: - RUSSIA -- Russian Example of a Change in Database Information Format (Format 3). ¶9. (U) Participants: UNITED STATES Mr. Siemon Mr. Dwyer LT Sicks Mr. French (Int) RUSSIA Mr. Ryzhkov Mr. Smirnov Mr. Voloskov ¶10. (U) Gottemoeller sends. GRIFFITHS