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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000982

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR T, VC 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: 11/05/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VI):
(U) SECOND MEETING OF THE TREATY TEXT AND DEFINITIONS
WORKING GROUP DEFINITIONS SUBGROUP, OCTOBER 30, 2009

REF: GENEVA 0981 (SFO-GVA-VI-036)

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


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


2. (U) Meeting Date: October 30, 2009
Time: 10:00 A.M. - 12:00 P.M.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) The second meeting of the Treaty Text and Definitions
Working Group (TTDWG) Definitions Subgroup was held at the
Russian Mission on October 30, 2009. The Subgroup discussed
13 definitions from the Group II Terms and Definitions
(REFTEL). The sides agreed to accept two definitions and
delete two terms. Two underlying themes were: (1) the
continued use of nested terms to create certain definitions;
and (2) whether to include existing START or new terms that
the Russian side believed were superfluous. There was
significant disagreement on the use of the word "deployed" in
the definition of "existing type."


4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Overarching Themes; The List of
Terms Discussed; and, Follow-up from Previous Meeting.

--------------
OVERARCHING THEMES
--------------


5. (S) The subgroup discussed an additional 13 definitions
from the Group II Terms and Definitions (those terms the
delegations could discuss in the purview of the Definitions
Subgroup without awaiting resolution in other working
groups). The Russian side continued striving to reduce the
number of terms in the START Follow-on (SFO) Treaty. After
prolonged discussion, underlying issues were identified: the
Russian doubt about the need for including a series of nested
terms to achieve a complete and accurate definition for
certain terms, and whether to include existing START or new
terms that the Russian side believed were superfluous.
Although both sides disagree on certain definitions, there
are several definitions where both sides have agreed to defer
discussion until key decisions are made in other working
groups. For example, there was a significant disagreement
regarding the use of the word "deployed" in the definition of
"existing type."

--------------
THE LIST OF TERMS DISCUSSED
--------------


6. (S) Mr. Siemon began by committing to deliver two papers
to the Russian side when they returned to Geneva in a week:
(1) a proposal for the title and organization of the
second-tier document related to terms and definitions, to
resolve many of the structurally-based text brackets
throughout the set of documents; and (2) an approach for
dealing with the series of nested terms needed to achieve




complete definitions for certain terms. The following terms
were discussed in the English alphabetized order of the
remaining Group II terms:

-- "Aircrew Member." Both sides accepted the definition
as follows: "The term "aircrew member" means an individual
who performs duties related to the operation of an airplane
and which is included on the inspecting Party's list of
aircrew members." It was agreed that the U.S.-proposed
reference to the Inspection Protocol was covered by the Annex
chapeau. This term was moved to Group 1 (agreed terms).

-- "Airplane." Further discussion was deferred until
after resolution of the use of nested term in treaty
definitions.

-- "Distinguishable." Admiral Kuznetsov stressed the
need to find a unified term so that similar but different
terms do not introduce confusion when used in different parts
of the treaty and associated documents. Kuznetsov provided
different examples like "distinguishable features" in the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and "differences" in the
Inspection Protocol (IP). That said, it was agreed to move
this term to Group 1 with the caveat to revisit it during the
endgame, if required. The agreed understanding is: "The
term 'distinguishable' means 'different' on the basis of the
totality of function and external differences that are
observable by national technical means of verification, or,
when such observations may be inconclusive in the opinion of
the inspecting Party, that are visible during inspection."

-- "Existing type." Ms. Kotkova disagreed with including
this term based on the premise that existing types would be
listed in Article III of the treaty (and therefore agreed
upon signature). Mr. Dean stressed the term's importance and
value as a formally defined term whether or not it is
included in Article III. When the U.S. side did not relent,
an emotional Kuznetsov directed his disagreement to the use
of the word "deployed" in the definition rather than the
words "in possession." (Begin comment: The U.S.-proposed
definition is: "The term existing type" means for ICBMs,
SLBMs, or heavy bombers, a type of ICBM, SLBM, or heavy
bomber of that type was deployed on the date of signature of
this Treaty.") Kuznetsov threatened that "while he is on the
delegation, there will never be the term 'existing type'."

-- "Heavy Bomber." Siemon introduced the term,
acknowledging that the final definition would be influenced
by future decisions on the use of nested-term definitions.
Kuznetsov outlined the Russian position regarding the
additional language proposed by the United States citing
that, historically, there had been no question as to the
definition of a heavy bomber. He accepted the need for the
definition to include the range and equipment, but proposed
using "unless otherwise agreed" in place of the four
paragraphs proposed by the U.S. side for further
clarification. The U.S. Delegation agreed that the working
group would revisit this question.

-- "Heavy bomber equipped for non-nuclear armament."
The sides agreed that this was a useful term and that the
working group would come back to it after the MOU Working
Group had completed its work.



-- "Heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments."
Siemon introduced this term, acknowledging that the final
definition would be influenced by future decisions on the use
of nested-term definitions. Kuznetsov and Kotkova questioned
the need for this new U.S.-proposed term, citing the circular
logic when linked to the term nuclear armaments for heavy
bombers. The United States stressed the importance of
defining this term, since nuclear armaments will be used as a
counting limit in this treaty. This term would be revisited
as the treaty progresses to completion.

-- "Inspection Team." The sides agree that possible use
of "inspection activity" rather than "inspection, visit, and
exhibition" might be a creative solution to listing the
different types of inspections in this definition. The sides
agreed that the final definition of this START term must
reflect the outcome of the Inspection Protocol Working
Group's negotiations.

-- "Inspector." The second emotional discussion of the
meeting occurred when considering the Russian proposal to
allow the sides to "agree" (or more importantly disagree)
with the list of inspectors. Kuznetsov, followed by Mr.
Luchaninov stressed that a more formal clearance procedure
was preferable and would not be an issue, based on past
experience. The U.S. Delegation made clear that, under START
rules, inspectors on the list could only be rejected for two
reasons: (1) if they had been convicted of a crime, or (2)
had been previously expelled from the United States or the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the Russian
Federation. He noted the United States found these rules
sufficient and would like for them to be retained to avoid
potential tit-for-tat challenges to inspection lists. The
sides agreed that this term would be revisited.

-- "Launch Canister." The Russian side considered
accepting this U.S.-suggested term if the term "loading tube"
would also be added. It was decided that the sides would
wait until other working groups completed their work.

--------------
FOLLOW-UP FROM PREVIOUS MEETING
--------------


7. (S) The U.S. side was able to indicate its provisional
agreement to remove the term "category" from the list,
pending the outcome of the MOU Working Group negotiations.
In addition, the U.S. Delegation accepted the removal of the
terms "inspected Party" and "inspecting Party" as they were
well-accepted and self-explanatory terms.


8. (U) Documents exchanged.

- Russia:

-- Russian-proposed Joint Draft Text of Article IX (in
Russian and unofficial English),dated October 30, 2009


9. (U) Participants:

U.S.:


Mr. Siemon
Lt Col Comeau
Mr. Connell
Mr. Dean
Dr. Dreicer
Mr. Taylor
Mrs. Zdravecky
Dr. Hopkins (Int)

RUSSIA

ADM Kuznetsov
Ms. Fuzhenkova
Col Kamenskiy
Ms. Kotkova
Mr. Luchaninov
Mr. Gayduk (Int)


10. (U) Ries sends.
GRIFFITHS