Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09GENEVA983
2009-11-06 09:39:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

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

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

DE RUEHGV #0983/01 3100939
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O 060939Z NOV 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0027
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 5295
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 2472
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY 1481
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6668
S E C R E T GENEVA 000983 

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: 11/06/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VI):
(U) INSPECTION PROTOCOL WORKING GROUP MEETING, OCTOBER 23,
2009

REF: GENEVA 0919 (SFO-GVA-VI-008)

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000983

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: 11/06/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VI):
(U) INSPECTION PROTOCOL WORKING GROUP MEETING, OCTOBER 23,
2009

REF: GENEVA 0919 (SFO-GVA-VI-008)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VI-020.


2. (U) Meeting Date: October 23, 2009
Time: 10:00 A.M. - 12:15 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

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


3. (S) The second meeting of the U.S. and Russian Inspection
Protocol Working Group (IPWG) was held at the U.S. Mission on
October 23, 2009. The Russian side presented its response to
the U.S. proposal on prioritizing the work on tier three
annexes, stating that the critical ones that should be
completed prior to treaty signature are those that involve
procedures for inspections of deployed strategic offensive
arms (SOA) and their nuclear warheads (number 6 in the U.S.
numbering system); procedures for inspections and exhibitions
of heavy bombers and their nuclear armaments (number 8); size
criteria for inspections (number 10); and, possibly,
procedures for technical characteristics exhibitions for new
types or variants of ICBMs and SLBMs (number 12). Following
this discussion, the sides proceeded to work through the
second part of Section IV (Activities Beginning Upon Arrival
at the Point of Entry) and the first part of Section V
(General Rules for the Conduct of Inspection Activities) of
the Inspection Protocol (IP). A typical pattern emerged in
which an initial sentence of a paragraph that established a
right was preserved in the so-called "tier two" IP, and most
of the detailed language was removed and "sent down" to the
tier three annexes.


4. (U) Subject Summary: Annex Priorities; Homework from the
First IPWG; IP Section IV Paragraph-by-Paragraph; IP Section

V Paragraph-by-Paragraph; and, Wrap Up.

--------------
ANNEX PRIORITIES
--------------


5. (S) Dr. Warner opened the second meeting of the IPWG by
stating that he had three items to address. First, the U.S.
side was interested in receiving the Russian response to the
U.S. chart provided during the first IPWG meeting that listed
and prioritized the 14 annexes to the IP. Second, the United
States was willing to discuss the classifications of
inspection activities, although Warner noted that this topic
had come up at the one-on-one between him and Col Ilin that
immediately preceded the IPWG meeting and that both sides had
more to do on this issue. Finally, Warner stated that the
United States wanted to move forward with the detailed
language in the IP, picking up from the middle of Section IV
(Activities Beginning Upon Arrival at the Point of Entry)
where the first meeting of the IPWG had stopped.


6. (S) Ilin responded by noting that the U.S. approach to
the annexes reduced the number of documents, taking into


account the Russian side's position. He stated that the
Russian side accepted the concept of a third tier and the
need to prioritize the work on the annexes. For the Russian
side, the most critical annexes that should be completed
prior to treaty signature are number 6 in the U.S. numbering
convention (Procedures for Inspections of Deployed Strategic
Offensive Arms and Their Nuclear Warheads); number 8
(Procedures for Inspections and Exhibitions of Heavy Bombers,
Nuclear Armaments for Heavy Bombers, Long-Range Non-Nuclear
ALCMs, and Heavy Bomber Facilities)' number 10 (Size Criteria
to be Used During Inspections and Continuous Monitoring);
and, possibly, number 12 (Procedures for Technical
Characteristics Exhibitions for New Types or Variants of
ICBMs and SLBMs). Those annexes related to Continuous
Monitoring were unacceptable to the Russian side and should
be put aside for the time being. (Begin comment: These are
annexes number 12, 13, and 14 in the U.S. numbering
convention. End comment.) Ilin then handed over an English
version of the Russian "Reaction to the U.S. Proposals on the
New Order of Inspection Annexes."


7. (S) Warner noted that the Russian side appeared to agree
with the U.S. approach to prioritizing our work on the
annexes, but that it had been much more selective about which
annexes had to be agreed upon before December 5, 2009. He
concurred that the ones designated by the Russian side as
critical were among the most important and needed to be
worked in detail, but added that the United States would have
to get back to the Russian side on this matter.

--------------
HOMEWORK FROM THE FIRST IPWG
--------------


8. (S) After Warner recommended that the issue of types of
inspections be set aside for later, Ilin stated that Russia
owed the United States a response on the question of how much
detailed language was necessary to provide for inspection
teams arriving at the San Francisco Point of Entry (POE)
(paragraphs 3 and 4 of U.S.-proposed Joint Draft Text (JDT),
dated October 19, 2009). The Russian side did not want to
delete these provisions, but thought that a better approach
would be to write general provisions that would apply to all
POEs, in Russia as well as in the United States. Ilin then
proposed that two new definitions of the terms "POE" and
"inspection aircraft" be added to the treaty's Terms and
Definitions as first tier language and passed over a paper
with Russian language versions of the definitions. Warner
replied that adding these terms to the Terms and Definitions
section may not be useful, since people reading Section IV of
the IP would not know where to look, but added that the
United States would study this idea.


9. (S) Ilin added that he had another Russian "effort" to
give the United States--language for IP Section V.4, which he
passed across the table, stating that he thought it belonged
in the "Protocol, level two." The U.S. side responded with
its homework from the previous IPWG meeting, and provided the
Russian side a U.S.-proposed text for Annex 1 (Transportation
Procedures),color coded to differentiate between language
that should be retained in Annex 1, language that had been
brought down from level two (the IP),and language that had
been moved to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).



--------------
IP SECTION IV
PARAGRAPH-BY-PARAGRAPH
--------------


10. (S) The discussion turned to a detailed
paragraph-by-paragraph march through Section IV of the IP
(Activities Beginning Upon Arrival at the Point of Entry).
Picking up where the sides left off in the first IPWG
(Reftel),decisions were made on the following paragraphs:

-- Storing equipment and supplies at the POE (paragraph
((7))1 ((5))2 (in the U.S.-proposed JDT): The United States
agreed to keep one sentence that establishes the right to
store equipment and supplies in a secure structure or room in
Section IV (tier two),and move the remaining details (e.g.,
locks, seals, etc.) to tier three, provided that no changes
are made to the details. Warner said he did not want to
revisit this language in the future.

-- Designation of the inspection site (paragraph ((8))1
((6))2 in the U.S.-proposed JDT): Warner noted that this
paragraph is crucial, as it contains the provision that
describes the process of designating a site for inspection
activities. Ilin noted that this is contained in the Russian
notification section, not the IP. Warner replied that the
United States could accept the first clause of the Russian
text ("At the point of entry the inspection team leader shall
..."),but that the United States would need to study and get
back to the Russians as to whether the Russian provision in
the notification section is sufficient.

-- Nuclear warhead inspection (NWI) site designation
(paragraph 9 in the U.S.-proposed JDT): Warner noted that
the United States had broadened the scope of this paragraph
to apply to all ICBMs and SLBMs, not just mobile ICBMs. Ilin
asked whether it would be possible to combine this paragraph
with similar ones for delivery vehicles. Warner replied that
paragraph 9, which applies to NWIs of ICBMs and SLBMs, and
paragraph 10, which covers NWIs for heavy bombers, have
significant differences, such as the "70 percent rule"
related to the number of bombers present at the inspection
site. Nonetheless, Warner agreed to see if the two
paragraphs could be merged.

-- Ilin stated that some of the language in paragraph 10
consists of details that could be relegated to tier three; in
addition, the Russian side has not agreed to the concept of
sequential inspections and they would therefore bracket
subparagraph 10(c). Warner, after noting that the low
inspection quota proposed by the Russian side was related to
the absence of sequential inspections in their position,
agreed to bracket subparagraph 10(c) for the time being.

-- Provision of meals, lodging, etc. (paragraph 18 in
the U.S.-proposed JDT): The sides agreed to move this
paragraph to the General Rules Section of the IP (Section V).

-- Cost settlement (paragraph 19 in the U.S.-proposed
JDT): The United States proposed moving paragraph 19 to
Annex 4 of the IP (Settlement of Accounts) and the Russians
agreed.



-- Goods and services (paragraph 20 in the U.S.-proposed
JDT): The sides agreed to move the first sentence to the
General Rules section of the IP, which is in tier two, and
the remainder of paragraph 20 to Annex 3 of the IP (General
Rules).

-- Media coverage (paragraph 11 in the U.S.-proposed
JDT): Ryzhkov stated that Russian military base commanders
wanted to propose allowing filming at a base during
inspections. However, the Russian side had no language to
provide during this IPWG meeting. Warner noted that the U.S.
version of paragraph 11 applied only to media rights at the
POE, not at the inspection site, and that the United States
would take the idea under consideration. Ilin proposed
moving this paragraph into tier three, and Warner countered,
stating that the United States would consider keeping a basic
sentence that provides the right to allow media coverage at
the POE as a "hook," with the remaining details sent down to
tier three.

-- Provision of meals, lodging, etc. for the escort crew
(paragraph 20 in the U.S.-proposed JDT): As this paragraph
is related to continuous monitoring, it was agreed to bracket
it.

--------------
IP SECTION V
PARAGRAPH-BY-PARAGRAPH
--------------


11. (S) The U.S. and the Russian sides continued to work the
language in Section V of the IP (General Rules for the
Conduct of Inspection Activities) paragraph-by-paragraph.
The results follow:

-- Basic obligation of Section V (paragraph 1 in the
U.S.-proposed JDT): The U.S. side argued that this paragraph
was needed as the legal basis for Section V; the Russian side
stated that it wished to keep the paragraph bracketed.

-- Provision of meals, lodging, work space, etc. for
inspectors (paragraph ((2))1 ((1))2 of the U.S.-proposed
JDT): This paragraph was moved from Section IV of the IP as
the "hook" to direct the reader to more detailed language in
Annex 3 (General Rules).

-- Provision of meals, lodging, work space, etc. for
monitors (paragraph 3 in the U.S.-proposed JDT): This
paragraph will remain bracketed as it applies to continuous
monitoring.

-- Non-disclosure of information (paragraph ((4))1
((2))2 of the U.S.-proposed JDT): Ilin noted that in the
Russian-proposed text, this paragraph had been put into the
treaty itself (tier one),based on the opinion of Russian
legal experts. The sides agreed to refer the language to
their respective legal advisors regarding where to locate
this provision.

-- Site diagram boundaries (paragraph 5 in the
U.S.-proposed JDT, paragraph 3 in the Russian-proposed text):
Warner noted that the U.S. side had prepared language that


combined the U.S. and Russian versions of this paragraph and
passed an initial draft to the Russian side. Ilin agreed to
consider the new language.

-- Sites with non-contiguous areas (paragraph 6 in the
U.S.-proposed JDT): The U.S. side stated that this paragraph
had been moved to the tier three General Rules Annex.

-- Communications via the in-country escort,
non-interference, and safety (paragraph ((6))1 ((4))2 of the
U.S.-proposed JDT): Warner stated that the United States had
sought to combine three separate paragraphs from the previous
version of the JDT into a single paragraph, since the
subjects of the paragraphs were closely related. The Russian
side agreed to include the new paragraph and accepted the
language.

-- Lighting (paragraph 7 of the U.S.-proposed JDT): The
sides agreed to move the provision on lighting to Annex 3
(General Rules) of the IP.

-- Inappropriate actions by inspectors and in-country
escorts (both paragraphs 7 of the U.S.-proposed JDT): The
sides agreed to move the provision on inspectors and
in-country escorts acting inappropriately to Annex 3 (General
Rules) of the IP.

-- Movement of inspectors, monitors, and in-country
escorts (paragraph 7 of the U.S.-proposed JDT): The sides
agreed to move this paragraph to Annex 1 (Transportation
Procedures) of the IP.

-- Representatives of the inspected facility as part of
the in-country escort (paragraph ((7))1 ((5))2 of the
U.S-proposed JDT): The Russian side suggested that the
paragraphs that address communications be combined in a
single paragraph; the U.S. side agreed to look at how to
merge this paragraph with the next paragraph on the ability
of inspectors to be in communication with their embassy
during the in-country period, as well as the ability of
inspector subgroups to communicate with each other.

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


12. (U) The second IPWG adjourned after working on the first
part of Section V of the IP and agreed to pick up where they
left off at the next meeting of the IPWG.


13. (S) Documents exchanged.

- U.S.:

-- Annex 1 (Transportation Procedures); and

-- Section V, paragraph 5 of the IP.

- Russia:

-- Reaction to the U.S. Proposals on the new Order of
Inspection Annexes (charts);


-- Definitions of POE and Inspection Aircraft; and

-- Draft language for IP Section V.4


14. (U) Participants:

U.S.:

Dr. Warner
Mr. Brown
Mr. Buttrick
Mr. Coussa
Mr. DeNinno
Maj Johnson
Mr. Rust
Mr. Sims
Mr. Smith
Mr. Tarrasch
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Shkeyrov (Int)

RUSSIA

Col Ilin
Ms. Fuzhenkova
Mr. Ivanov
Col Izrazov
Ms. Kotkova
Mr. Luchaninov
Ms. Melikbekian
Coll Novikov
Gen Poznihir
Mr. Shevchenko
Mr. Smirnov
Gen Venevtsev
Mr. Vorontsov
Ms. Zharkih
Mr. Gayduk (Int)


15. (U) Ries sends.
GRIFFITHS