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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000981 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: 11/06/2019 TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VI): (U) MEETING OF THE TREATY TEXT AND DEFINITIONS WORKING GROUP DEFINITIONS SUBGROUP, OCTOBER 28, 2009 REF: GENEVA 0956 (SFO-GVA-VI-026) Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d). ¶1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VI-036. ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: October 28, 2009 Time: 3:00 - 6:00 P.M. Place: Russian Mission, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) A meeting of the Treaty Text and Definitions Working Group (TTDWG) Definitions Subgroup was held at the Russian Mission on October 28, 2009. The Definitions Subgroup discussed 13 definitions from Group II (terms common to both sides, but containing minor, non-substantive differences). The Russian Delegation explained that this was a new treaty for a new relationship, and there was no need to define one term that would in turn define another term that would actually appear in treaty text. In several instances, the Russians appeared to be walking back from their initial starting positions, adding to their list of superfluous definitions those terms that they had originally proposed in their own version of the treaty. ¶4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: In Reviewing the Terms - Less is More; and, The List of Terms Discussed. -------------- IN REVIWING THE TERMS - LESS IS MORE -------------- ¶5. (S) The Russian Delegation opened the meeting by explaining that their goal for the meeting was to reduce the number of terms that required a definition in the new treaty. They made repeated arguments that centered on contrasting the new relationship between the United States and Russia verus the relationship in effect at the time of the sgning of the START Treaty. They felt two decade of practice using these terms had elevated them to the point where all persons involved knew or uderstood their meaning. With both sides having uch vast experience, what was the need for so many terms and definitions? On more than one occasio, they walked back from their initial position an recommended a term (such as "inspected Party," inspecting Party," and "inspection site") that tey had originally proposed for the treaty be scrpped as superfluous. -------------- THE LIST OF TERMS DISCUSSEE -------------- ¶6. (S) Prior to commencing discussion of Group II terms (terms common to both sides, but containing minor, non-substantive differences),Admiral Kuznetsov interrpted the opening remarks to say he wanted to disuss the term Training Facility. (Begin comment: This term was agreed in the previous meeting of the working group (REFRWL). End comment.) He reported that the work of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group was developing along the path where it might be necessary to have a new term for a heavy bomber used as a ground trainer. With that in mind, he said it would be necessary to add additional language to the training facility term, including a facility where ground trainers of heavy bombers are based. Having said his piece, Kuznetsov allowed the sides to continue the review of Group II terms. ¶7. (S) Following are the list of terms that were discussed during this meeting . (Begin comment: For this meeting, both groups worked off the Russian version of the Joint Draft Text, which was alphabetized in the Russian language. End comment.) -- "Air Base." Kuznetsov proposed to exclude references to categories of facilities (i.e., production facilities, flight test center, and training facility). Mr. Siemon noted that the additional categories helped to sharpen the focus toward the heavy bombers that needed to be counted and precluding establishment of additional categories of facilities in the MOU that might be needed if not further defined in a term. Kuznetsov observed that the requisite categories were already in the MOU, thus obviating the need for further definition. -- "Deployed Heavy Bomber." Kuznetsov was unswerving in his opinion that all heavy bombers could be attributed to one air base or another, hence the desire to add the words "and attributed to relevant air bases." He opined this added language would align with the direction that the MOU Working Group was headed. Mr. Dean pointed out that the goal of the Definitions Subgroup should be to distill any term to its most basic form to ensure it would be applicable throughout the treaty text. In response to his question on when such language would be necessary, Kuznetsov immediately responded, with bombers awaiting conversion and elimination at Davis-Montham Air Force Base. It became clear that there was a difference in how deployed heavy bombers would be counted, and both sides agreed to do more homework on the term. -- "Each Year." Kuznetsov said the Russian Delegation felt this term to be superfluous, but if it was necessary, it should be based on the calendar year for simplicity and to align with the Russian fiscal year. Siemon pointed out that the term were necessary to determine when to provide data and to conduct inspections. Dean added a caution that if the entry into force was other than January 1 and the treaty year based on January 1, problems would ensue from a scenario based on compressed obligations. In one interpretation, an entire quota of inspections might have to be executed in the span of a few months. Kuznetsov suggested asking Dr. Warner and Colonel Ilin to review and comment. -- "Range." Kuznetsov noted both sides were in virtual agreement with exception of the use of aircraft versus heavy bomber in subparagraph c. Siemon noted it was a nested term from the START Treaty that was used as a building block for defining what would constitute a heavy bomber. Ms. Kotkova opined terms used solely for defining other terms was unnecessary and should be avoided. Dean responded that these were precise terms used to spell out the exact obligations to be incurred by the Parties. Mr. Connell observed that both sides had already agreed to nested terms in subparagraphs a and b of this very definition. An ALCM's range needed to be determined before it could be considered to be a long-range ALCM, and a ballistic missile's range needed to be determined before it could be declared to be an ICBM or SLBM. Kuznetsov determined to assume the problem away, proclaiming both sides already knew what constituted a heavy bomber or ICBM, and there was no need for further terms. -- "Inspected Party" and "Inspecting Party." Siemon noted both sides were in virtual agreement, and this term could be agreed as soon as the Inspection Protocol Working Group had determined the kinds of inspections to be included in this treaty. This elicited an unexpected response from Kotkova, who observed that this term was completely unnecessary--even though the Russian side had also proposed the term--and wondered out loud if anyone had any doubts as to who had which role (i.e., Inspected Party or Inspecting Party) during an inspection. Kuznetsov also chimed in to ask what would happen if such a term was not included in the new treaty. Siemon replied he would consider Kuznetsov's comments and discuss this with the other members of the delegation. -- "Category." Kuznetsov also thought this term could be dropped, as the MOU and Notifications have to update all "categories" of SOA, yet there was a term that defined only the categories of heavy bombers. Siemon argued that the term would allow for a logical presentation of the data as it appeared in the MOU. Kuznetsov retorted there were no categories for ICBM, SLBM, mobile missiles and yet this material could be logically arrayed in the MOU. He then suggested maybe the term, if it really was needed, could be broadened to include other forms of SOA. -- "Air-Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM)." Kuznetsov reiterated the Russian position to drop the U.S.-proposed language listing the start date when ALCMs would be counted and the requirement that they be test flown from an aircraft. Siemon noted this language had been agreed in START and was designed to ensure sea-launched cruise missiles (SLCMs) that had been tested from an aircraft prior to December 31, 1986, were not considered to be ALCMs. Kuznetsov was again quick to assume the problem away, stating the MOU would only carry ALCM data anyway, and nobody would remember or recall any tests that were done more than 25 years ago. -- "Aircraft." Kuznetsov remarked how he had made his point clear about terms that simply defined other terms. Mr. Luchaninov observed how nested terms could be taken ad infinitum, and you could find yourself defining lift, atmosphere, and even the earth's surface. Dean pointed out how the term was also important in shaping the prohibitions listed in Article V, to which Kuznetsov retorted, "that's your prohibitions." Digressing to address Article V, Kuznetsov felt the prohibitions listed in SALT, INF, and START I were based on crazy notions by people possessing rich imaginations. (Begin comment: Kuznetsov was referring to bans on "exotic" weapons in Article V. End comment.) -- "Flight Test." Kuznetsov explained that the Russian side wanted to improve the wording of this term from how it was written in the START Treaty. He wanted to tighten the wording to indicate what he thought everyone already knew, which was that the term was about ICBMs and SLBMs, and nobody cared about applying it to ALCMs. Siemon replied the United States wanted a general term and preferred the language taken from START. He pointed out a flight test of a ballistic missile or prototype would lead to the determination if it was to be termed an ICBM or SLBM. Kuznetsov appeared unmoved, remarking "we've already identified our logic." Siemon also inquired whether the Russian side would continue notifications of ballistic missile launches conducted under existing agreements, to which Kuznetsov responded that prototypes would be considered by the Russian side in the framework of the definitions of ICBM and SLBM. -- "Inspection Site." Kotkova asked whether both sides really felt such an obvious term still needed a definition. Siemon reminded her the term would find its relevance in how sites were specified and how they would be handled in the subsequent tier two documents. -- "Repair Facility." Kuznetsov observed both sides could readily agree to this term if subparagraph c could be modified to add the term "Former Heavy Bomber" to the definition text. Col Novikov provided the explanation, stating the Russian Federation possessed a number of aircraft that either were once heavy bombers or had a similar airframe. As a result, they needed a term to permit such an aircraft to be serviced and maintained at a bomber facility. -- "Former Heavy Bomber." Kuznetsov took advantage of the discussion on repair facilities to then raise the issue of Former Heavy Bombers. He reminded everyone that the term was in the list of proposed Russian definitions and would be included in the final list. Siemon noted that it was not in the U.S. version, and pointed out that the decision on whether it stayed or not would depend in large part on the definition of a heavy bomber and the related heavy bomber counting rules. He also related that discussion of such would be held in the Ad Hoc Group meetings. ¶8. (U) Documents exchanged. None. ¶9. (U) Participants: U.S. Mr. Siemon Lt Col Comeau Mr. Connell Dr. Dreicer Mr. Dean Mrs. Zdravecky Dr. Hopkins (Int) RUSSIA Adm Kuznetsov Ms. Fuzhenkova Col Kamenskiy Ms. Kotkova Mr. Luchaninov Ms. Melikbekian Col Novikov Mr. Gayduk (Int) ¶10. (U) Ries sends. GRIFFITHS