Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA846
2009-10-07 15:40:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-V):

Tags:  KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0846/01 2801540
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 071540Z OCT 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9524
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 4916
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 2101
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 1103
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6299
S E C R E T GENEVA 000846 

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-V):
(U) MEETINGS ON VOTKINSK CLOSURE DOCUMENTS

REF: STATE 098566 (SFO-V-GUIDANCE-004 MOBILE MISSLE
MONITORING PROVISIONS)

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000846

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-V):
(U) MEETINGS ON VOTKINSK CLOSURE DOCUMENTS

REF: STATE 098566 (SFO-V-GUIDANCE-004 MOBILE MISSLE
MONITORING PROVISIONS)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-V-043.


2. (U) Meeting Date: September 30, 2009
Time: 11:00 A.M. - 12:30 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


3. (S) As instructed (Ref A),U.S. Representative to the
Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission (JCIC),Mr. Taylor
met with his Russian counterpart, Mr. Koshelev, to discuss
the JCIC Agreement on Principles and Procedures for
Completion of Continuous Monitoring Activities at the
monitored facility at Votkinsk, as well as the associated
letters on Ground Transportation and Settlement of Accounts.
Taylor confirmed that the Russian-proposed agreement on
Votkinsk, dated June 8, 2009, which was provided to the U.S.
delegation on September 21, 2009, in Geneva, was the same
document that had been provided to the United States in
January 2009 (e-mailed to Washington, no reporting cable).
Koshelev explained that the Russian delegation had been
prepared to table the document in June in the JCIC, but the
U.S. delegation had informed the Russian delegation it had
been instructed not to discuss the document. Koshelev and
Taylor discussed the notification timelines and agreed to
conform the document once both sides had exchanged the
revised official texts. Taylor also provided copies of the
associated letters (on ground transportation and on
settlement of accounts) and requested copies of Russia's
response to the letters soonest.

--------------
DELAY NECESSITATES CHANGE
IN NOTIFICATION TIMELINE
--------------



4. (S) Taylor pointed out that the Russian-proposed text
required notification by the United States NLT 60 days prior
to the requested moving date, with a subsequent reply by
Russia NLT 30 days prior to the requested date. Since the
Parties were proposing to sign the document later than had
been anticipated when the drafts were first presented, those
dates would be impossible to meet with the treaty expiring on
December 5, 2009. Koshelev agreed asking what the United
States proposed to do. Taylor told him that the United
States believed it would be reasonable to have a 10-day
notification, with a 5-day response. This was based on a
planned date of approximately November 15, 2009, for movement
from Votkinsk. This would permit an initial notification of
November 5, 2009.


5. (S) Koshelev stated that he had talked with the Votkinsk
plant manager who had informed him that the process would
take about 2 weeks, and he asked Taylor whether he could tell
his military colleagues that movement would begin on November

15. Mr. Smith noted that the United States had flexibility

on the precise date and that discussions would begin with
"Department 162" on detailed planning. The United States
would need to ensure that the monitors requested sufficient
services and that Russian officials in Votkinsk would help
dispose of equipment and supplies.

--------------
QUESTIONS ON WHO WILL SIGN THE DOCUMENT
--------------


6. (S) Koshelev asked whether there was enough time to put
this agreement into force, and noted that Ukraine may raise
the question of its participation in the signing of the
agreement. He noted that his lawyer (Ms. Kotkova) had told
him that if this was not an agreement within the framework of
the JCIC, it would be difficult for the Russian side to do it
as a stand-alone executive agreement, so it would have to be
within the JCIC.


7. (S) Koshelev then asked who would sign the document.
Taylor offered that perhaps the permanent representatives of
Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine to the Conference on
Disarmament, located in Geneva, could be given authority to
sign the document. Koshelev said that he did not believe
that would be workable, noting that the Kazakhstani
representative in particular was far too timid to do
something like this, and suggested that the United States and
Russia could invoke the JCIC silence procedures under the
provisions of Section V of the JCIC Protocol. This would be
an appropriate use of the provision as the business was of a
bilateral nature. Taylor noted that the silence procedures
provided for a 30-day window, after the Parties not signing
the agreement receive the documents, for the agreement to
enter into force. This time gives each Party not signing the
agreement an opportunity to object to the agreement. Taylor
explained that if the agreement is signed during the week of
October 12 under the silence procedures, the soonest possible
date for the agreement to enter-into-force would be
approximately November 13. This would be 2 days prior to a
notional planned notification date for the movement of
equipment and supplies.


8. (S) Kotkova raised the possibility of temporary
observation of the agreement in accordance with the last
unnumbered paragraph of Section V of the JCIC Protocol
(paragraph 7 of Annex 1 to the JCIC Protocol). Under the
provision, Parties that sign an agreement may, on a
case-by-case basis, agree to temporary observance of the
agreement, provided it does not alter the rights and
obligations under the treaty. Kotkova noted that during the
period of temporary observation, the provisions of the
agreement would be legally binding on Russia. Mr. Brown said
this was interesting and that he would look into the
approach. (Begin note: Brown later conferred with Taylor
and confirmed that the provision in the JCIC Protocol
appeared to provide for temporary observance of the
agreement, and that would be a legally available option. End
note.)

--------------
WHEN AND WHERE FOR SIGNING DOCUMENTS
--------------


9. (S) Taylor and Koshelev discussed the idea of the signing

of the JCIC agreement and exchange of letters during the
week of October 12 as he and Brown would both be in Moscow
for the START Follow-on discussions. Koshelev said that this
would be an excellent idea and he would be prepared to do so.
Taylor said that he would send the ad-ref text to Washington
with this idea and notify Koshelev as soon as possible of
Washington's response.


10. (S) The Parties exchanged official texts of the JCIC
agreement, the letter on ground transportation and the letter
on settlement of accounts. Koshelev said that he would
provide an answer as to Russia's acceptance of the 10-day
notification and 5-day response later that day. Koshelev
later confirmed Russia's agreement to the 10- and 5-day
proposals and a conforming session was set for Thursday,
October 1 at 2:00 pm.

--------------
LIKELY REACTION OF OTHER PARTIES
--------------


11. (S) Koshelev asked whether Taylor thought that Ukraine
might call for a JCIC session, and whether Taylor was
planning to meet with Ukrainian Ambassador Nikonenko when the
latter came to Geneva. Taylor responded that there may be a
need for another session and that he had no intention of
meeting with Nikonenko. Koshelev stated that the Ukrainians
continue to mention extended security guarantees and wants a
JCIC session to raise their issues. Concerning Belarus,
Koshelev commented that the Belarusians said they had no
problem with the letter on ground transportation. Taylor
noted that the United States had proposed a new paragraph
1(d) in Section I of the JCIC agreement but that the United
States would not insist on its inclusion: it had been
requested by the Russian and Belarusian sides, including COL
Ryzhkov. Koshelev responded that he would consult with
Ryzhkov and whether there was a need for discussion with the
Belarusians, but he did not believe it would be a problem.
Koshelev confirmed on Thursday, October 1, 2009, that there
was no need for the paragraph in the document.

--------------
JCIC AGREEMENT TEXT IS CONFORMED
--------------


12. (S) On Thursday, October 1, 2009, Brown and Mr. French
met with Kotkova and Ms. Evarovskaya to conform the text.
The following changes were made in the English language text
(or in the Russian language text to conform to proposed U.S.
text accepted by the Russian side):

- Section I, subparagraph 1(b): Add "continuous" in front of
"monitoring activity"

- Section I, subparagraph 1(c): "at the monitored facility"
replaced "within the perimeter continuous monitoring area,"
as the U.S.-proposed change had not been discussed in the
JCIC. The phrase, "as specified in Section III" was replaced
by "included on the list noted in Section III," and Russia
accepted the phrase "transferred or returned to the inspected
Party."

- Section II, subparagraph 1(a)(ii): The Russian proposed
sentence ("The procedure for providing these materials shall

be determined by agreement between the monitoring team leader
and the in-country escort.") was accepted.

- Section II, subparagraph 1(d): The Russian side agreed to
the U.S.-proposed text.

- Section II, subparagraph 1(f): Both U.S. ("at the
perimeter continuous monitoring area") and Russian ("in that
area") formulations were dropped.

- Chapeau of Section II, paragraph 2: The Russian-proposed
formulation was accepted ("Notifications provided in
connection with the activities provided for in this Annex")

- Section II, subparagraph 2(c): The phrase "to be
delivered" was replaced by "intended for delivery"

- Section II, paragraph 3: The word "may" was replaced by
"shall," in the final sentence

- Section II, chapeau of paragraph 4: The word "building"
was not included, nor was the U.S.-proposed phrase,
"remaining on the territory of the inspected Party," on the
grounds that this had not been discussed in the JCIC.

- Section II, subparagraph 4(a): "at the monitored facility"
was accepted in the first sentence. At the end of the second
sentence, the phrase "at the monitored facility at Votkinsk"
was added. In the final sentence, the U.S.-proposed
additional phrase, "for future disposition or," in front of
the phrase "and suitable for further use," was not accepted
as it had not been discussed in the JCIC.

- Section II, subparagraph 4(b): Conforming change made ("at
the monitored facility"). Also, U.S.-proposed text in the
penultimate sentence ("consistent with their ordinary use")
was not accepted as it had not been discussed in the JCIC.

- Section II, U.S.-proposed subparagraphs 4(c) and 4(d): Not
accepted because they had not been discussed in the JCIC.

- Section II, paragraph 5: The phrase "place taxes" was
replaced by "exact taxes" as being a better description of
the activity being proscribed and as a more accurate
translation of the Russian, and the other proposed U.S. texts
were deemed to be covered by this change and in any event had
not been discussed in the JCIC.

- Section II, paragraph 6: "monitored facility" accepted
vice "perimeter continuous monitoring area."

- Section II, subparagraph 7(c): The U.S.-proposed exception
was not accepted as it had not been discussed in the JCIC.

- Section II, U.S. proposed subparagraph 7(d): Not accepted
because not discussed in the JCIC.

- Section II, subparagraph 7(e): The settlement of accounts
reference as proposed by the Russian side was accepted ad
ref, but later (see below) the U.S. reference ("ground
transportation vehicle related services pursuant to
subparagraph 1(a)(iii)") was explained to the Russian side as
being the preferred option of Russian experts as well.

- Section II, subparagraph 7(g): The U.S.-proposed addition
in the middle of this subparagraph was not accepted because
it had not been discussed in the JCIC.

- Section III, paragraph 1: The phrase, "in coordination
with the in-country escort" was changed to "together with the
in-country escort." U.S.-proposed text that added the
concept of the list as specifying "the final disposition" of
the buildings etc., was not accepted because it had not been
discussed in the JCIC, and the phrase "at the monitored
facility" was made as a conforming change.

- Article Three: U.S.-proposed subparagraphs 19(d) and 19(e)
were not accepted as they had not been discussed in the JCIC.

- Article Four: The final provisions were changed to the
procedures contained in paragraphs 6 and 7 of Annex I to the
JCIC protocol.


13. (S) Brown noted that he was still working on the text of
the letter of acceptance to respond to the Russian proposal
on ground transportation and that he would convey the letter
to the Russian side as soon as possible. He also stated that
he was working on the text of the letter of acceptance on the
Russian proposal concerning the settlement of accounts.
(Begin comment: Both were conveyed later in the day to
Andrey Malyugin, to pass to Kotkova. End comment.)

--------------
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES FROM CONFORMING
--------------


14. (S) During the Russian reception the evening of October
1, 2009, Smirnov discussed the conformed Votkinsk closure
documents with Smith. Smirnov noted his concern that the
ground transportation costs associated with the closure of
Votkinsk had been included in normal START cost settlement
procedures, but the factory personnel at Votkinsk still
preferred the direct payment method, as had been the past
practice. Smirnov explained that although he had concerns
during the talks, he had remained silent so that the
documents could be signed. Smith told him that he would
investigate this issue. (Begin comment: Upon further
analysis of the closure documents, it was determined that a
reference had been changed (in Section II, subparagraph 7(e))
which did have the unintended consequence of shifting cost
settlement exactly as Smirnov described. The U.S. intent was
for ground transportation costs to be handled under the
normal payment contract currently in place. All other costs
for the closure of Votkinsk would be handled under START cost
settlement practices which entail paying the Russian
Federation through a government-to-government billing process
after the fact for services provided. End comment.)


15. (S) Taylor called Koshelev who met with Taylor on
Friday, October 2, 2009. Taylor explained that when the
document was reviewed by DTRA personnel an error was
identified, which had the unintended consequence of placing
the ground transportation payment under the normal cost
settlement procedures. The United States preferred to handle
the ground transportation payments under the direct payment
method, which had been the standard practice. Koshelev
thanked Taylor and said that he would be in touch with his
lawyer who was already on her way back to Moscow. Malyugin

would be in touch with the U.S. Mission early the next week
with their response. Later in the day, Taylor called the
Russian Mission and spoke to Malyugin, in Koshelev's absence,
about the differences that had been uncovered between the
U.S.-proposed letter of acceptance on the settlement of
accounts and the original Russian proposal--the former was
much broader. Taylor asked that the Russian side consider
the U.S. proposal as it addressed all the costs that might
remain unsettled at the termination of the START Treaty.
Malyugin said that he would pass this on to Kotkova.


16. (S) On October 5, 2009, Kotkova called the U.S. Mission
from Moscow and spoke with Brown. She requested that the two
letters of acceptance be sent to her as soon as possible,
since she had not understood from Malyugin what the issue
was. Brown agreed to provide them to the Russian Mission in
Geneva as soon as they were ready.


17. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
RICHTER