Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA853
2009-10-08 13:15:00
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
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0853/01 2811315
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 081315Z OCT 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9563
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 4953
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 2138
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 1140
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6336
S E C R E T GENEVA 000853 

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) FIFTH MEETING OF THE INSPECTION PROTOCOL WORKING GROUP,
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

REF: A. GENEVA 0831 (SFO-GVA-V-039)

B. GENEVA 0774 (SFO-GVA-V-007)

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000853

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) FIFTH MEETING OF THE INSPECTION PROTOCOL WORKING GROUP,
SEPTEMBER 30, 2009

REF: A. GENEVA 0831 (SFO-GVA-V-039)

B. GENEVA 0774 (SFO-GVA-V-007)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-V-034.


2. (U) Meeting Date: September 30, 2009
Time: 3:00 - 6:10 P.M.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) The fifth meeting of the Inspection Protocol Working
Group (IPWG) focused on reviewing two sections of Joint Draft
Text (JDT): Section II, "Provisions Concerning the Legal
Status of Inspectors and Aircrew Members," and Section IV,
"Arrangements for Transportation." (Section II of the
Inspection Protocol, "Notifications," will be streamlined and
moved into the Notifications Protocol.) The approach used by
the delegations in addressing these initial two sections has
established the basis for the three-tier document desired by
the U.S. delegation and now agreed to by the Russian
delegation. While key issues remain to be resolved, such as
the numbers and types of inspection activities to be
conducted, the number of inspectors involved in the various
inspection activities and on the overall inspector list, and
whether continuous monitoring of mobile ICBM production
facilities is to be included in the treaty, it appears the
foundation has been laid to make real progress in future
meetings of the IPWG.


4. (S) The Russian delegation introduced a new concept
related to payments for the cost for military aircraft
transporting inspectors to and from the points of entry
(POEs) when services are provided at those POEs.
Specifically, the inspecting Party would pay the cost of

parking and security, in addition to START's traditional
payments for the costs of fuel, air navigation, and other
airport services. Additionally, the Russian delegation
proposed that these services would be paid with a credit card
at the time they were provided, rather than after the fact
via billed reimbursement in accordance with current START
practices.


5. (S) As this was the final working group meeting during
this round of negotiations, the U.S. and Russian delegations
agreed they had a better understanding of each other's views
regarding inspection activities, and looked forward to
completing the remaining effort.

--------------
LITTLE SMALL TALK AFTER THE LAWYERS
--------------


6. (S) Col Ilin opened the meeting by stating that the
Russian delegation had prepared language addressing the
provisions for Air Transportation (see Paragraph 13). Dr.
Warner stated the U.S. delegation had tabled a draft text on
September 24, 2009 (Ref A),and proposed reviewing the few


remaining issues in Section II, "Provisions Concerning the
Legal Status of Inspectors, Monitors, and Aircrew Members."
He began by saying he was surprised to find that, after the
spirited discussions during the previous session of the IPWG
concerning one of the key privileges and immunities issues in
the previous meeting, he had discovered that these provisions
were contained in Article XI of the Russian-proposed START
Follow-on Treaty (Ref B). Warner said he believed that the
text on this issue would be better placed in the Inspection
Protocol and noted that there was no disagreement regarding
the content. Ilin said he would take a look at the relevant
part of Russian-proposed treaty and his delegation would
consider the U.S. proposal.

--------------
DOUBLE DOUBLE - NO TROUBLE
--------------


7. (S) Warner addressed the text related to monitors and
continuous monitoring activities in the ground transportation
section by stating that such text would essentially be
double-bracketed and all text beyond the first paragraph
moved to the third level until resolution on the possible
inclusion of continuous monitoring of mobile ICBM production
into the treaty was reached. Ilin agreed he did not want to
spend time on editing text associated with supporting
continuous monitoring.


8. (S) Warner continued to walk through the paragraphs of
Section II of the Inspection Protocol, noting that Brown had
provided additional input shown in brackets, concerning
waiver of immunity from jurisdiction. Ilin said the document
would need to be reviewed by the Russian delegation's lawyer,
Ms. Kotkova. Ilin proposed that in paragraph 10(f),
inspectors, monitors, and aircrew members would not have to
pay taxes in addition to customs duties or other related
charges, on their personal use items. The delegations then
moved to a discussion of Section IV of the JDT.

--------------
COME FLY WITH ME
--------------


9. (S) The discussion on Section V, "Arrangements for
Transportation," began with POEs and the related
notifications. Ilin agreed with provisions to establish two
POEs and proposed to delete the provision requiring an
immediate notification of changes to the POE. He stated that
neither Russia nor the United States had used this provision
to change a POE and believed a 6-month notice of such a
change in the form of an update to the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) would be sufficient. Ilin also proposed
moving the list of Types of Inspection Airplanes from
U.S.-proposed Annex 10 of the Inspection Protocol into the
MOU. The Russian Federation would enter "TBD," if such
information were to be included in the MOU, since Russian
inspection teams are routinely transported to and from the
POE by commercial airlines. He also stated that the
U.S.-proposed text regarding the filing of flight plans was
excessive and, since Russian inspection teams used commercial
air, no special flight plan would be required. Warner stated
that the U.S. delegation would consider moving the list of
military air transport aircraft to the MOU, as well as the


recommendations regarding notifications.


10. (S) Ilin had referenced the use of Open Skies aircraft
in Section II and suggested deleting it from this section.
Warner explained that, in principle, the U.S. delegation did
not object to this proposal but expressed concerns with the
synchronization of flights between the two types of
activities, i.e., Open Skies missions and transporting START
inspectors. He stated that it would be easy for an Open
Skies aircraft to deliver an inspection team in a timely
manner. However, since the missions often had differing
timelines, the requirement for the two inspection teams to
depart from the POE within 24 hours of arriving at that point
would be difficult to meet. He explained that the proposed
treaty texts of both the U.S. and Russian sides retained the
requirement that inspection teams for START Follow-on depart
the POE within 24 hours of completing an inspection. He also
noted that the Open Skies Treaty contained the same
requirement and wanted to ensure that the Russian delegation
was aware of the challenges associated with fulfilling this
requirement, since there would be a significant possibility
that one of the two teams would be forced to depart before
the other had returned to the POE.

--------------
ADDITION S'IL VOUS PLAIT
--------------


11. (S) Ilin introduced a new concept related to payment for
services for inspection airplanes while at the POE. He
proposed that charges for services rendered to inspection
airplanes be paid for at the time the service is provided
through the use of a credit card. Ryzhkov stated that it was
a practical matter in that the Russian Federation paid for
the services up front and then provided a bill to the United
States for payment at a later date. A second and more
important aspect of the Russian proposal was that parking and
security protection costs formerly paid for by the inspected
Party under START would be shifted to the inspecting Party.
Warner noted that it appeared the Russian Federation was
asking the United States to take on an additional cost
obligation. He explained that U.S. inspection teams were
obligated to use military aircraft to travel to the Ulan Ude
POE because there were no reliable commercial airline service
options available into Ulan Ude. As such, the United States
would have to pay these additional costs while the Russian
Federation, which relies almost solely on taking commercial
flights to the U.S. POEs would not. Warner asked for the
Russian proposal in writing in order to better understand it.

--------------
WRAP-UP
--------------


12. (S) Warner wrapped up the meeting by complimenting both
parties for the progress made during the initial meetings of
the IPWG. Since it was the last meeting of this session, he
wanted to review and identify the key issues remaining to be
addressed in future rounds of the negotiations. These
included how to characterize the type of inspection
activities, resolve the differences on the number of
inspection activities conducted per year, and the size of the
overall inspector list and individual inspection teams. He


went on to state that the most formidable challenge ahead
appears to lie in the area of verifying heavy bomber
armaments. Neither the United States nor the Russian
Federation currently keeps nuclear warheads deployed on
bombers on a day-to-day basis so counting rules that only
addressed uploaded armaments would result in a zero count for
the numbers of strategic nuclear warheads "deployed" on heavy
bombers. The issues around possible accounting for and
verification of armaments in the heavy bmber weapon storage
areas constitute a challenge that would need to be discussed
in the IPWG when the delegations reconvened.


13. Documents exchanged:

Begin text of Russian-proposed language on air transportation:

Official Translation

To be Handed over on
October 1, 2009

Proposals of the Russian Side for the Wording of the
Section "Arrangements for Air Transportation"

Paragraph 5. "Each Party may use Open Skies airplanes
conducting observation flights over the territory of the
inspected Party for transportation of inspectors to and/or
from points of entry, subject to compliance by the inspecting
Party with the provisions provided for in paragraph 12 of
subparagraph (sic) V of Section V of the Annex to the Treaty."

Paragraph 12. The inspected Party shall provide parking,
security protection, fueling, and air navigation, airport
facility, ground technical and commercial services, as well
as additional services as requested, for inspection airplanes
of the inspecting Party at the point of entry or the airport
associated with the facility subject to continuous monitoring
or monitored facility. The cost of fueling, air navigation,
airport facility, ground technical services and parking and
security protection for each such airplane, as well as
additional services as requested shall be borne by the
inspecting Party.

End Text.


14. (U) Participants:

U.S.:

Dr. Warner
Mr. Blevins
Ms. Bosco
Mr. Buttrick
Mr. DeNinno
Maj Johnson
Mr. McConnell
Ms. Pura
Mr. Smith
Ms. Gesse (Int)

RUSSIA

Col Ilin


Mr. Izrazov
Mr. Kostuchenko
Mr. Leontiev
Col Novikov
Mr. Pischulov
Col Ryzhkov
Mr. Shevchenko
Mr. Vorontsov
Mr. Zaitsev
Ms. Komshilova (Int)


15. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
RICHTER