Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09STATE90239
2009-08-28 22:38:00
SECRET
Secretary of State
Cable title:
GUIDANCE FOR U.S. DELEGATION TO U.S./RUSSIA
how-toVZCZCXYZ0006 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHC #0239 2402257 ZNY SSSSS ZZH O P 282238Z AUG 09 FM SECSTATE WASHDC TO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA IMMEDIATE 0000 INFO RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 0000
S E C R E T STATE 090239
SIPDIS
GENEVA FOR JCIC
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/31/2019
TAGS: PARM PREL KACT KTIA START JCIC US RS
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE FOR U.S. DELEGATION TO U.S./RUSSIA
NEGOTIATIONS ON START FOLLOW-ON TREATY, GENEVA,
SWITZERLAND, AUGUST 31-SEPTEMBER 3, 2009
REFS: A. STATE 078776 (SFO-GVA-III-003)
B. STATE 088262 (U.S.-PROPOSED TREATY TEXT PART
S E C R E T STATE 090239
SIPDIS
GENEVA FOR JCIC
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/31/2019
TAGS: PARM PREL KACT KTIA START JCIC US RS
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE FOR U.S. DELEGATION TO U.S./RUSSIA
NEGOTIATIONS ON START FOLLOW-ON TREATY, GENEVA,
SWITZERLAND, AUGUST 31-SEPTEMBER 3, 2009
REFS: A. STATE 078776 (SFO-GVA-III-003)
B. STATE 088262 (U.S.-PROPOSED TREATY TEXT PART 1)
C. STATE 088263 (U.S.-PROPOSED TREATY TEXT PART 2)
D. STATE 088259 (U.S.-PROPOSED DEFINITIONS ANNEX
PART 1)
E. STATE 088260 (U.S.-PROPOSED DEFINITIONS ANNEX
PART 2)
F. STATE 041125 (GUIDANCE FOR APRIL 2009 ROME
MEETING)
G. STATE 050911 (GUIDANCE FOR MAY 2009 MOSCOW
MEETING)
H. STATE 050910 (U.S. NON-PAPER ON ELEMENTS OF SFO
TREATY)
I. STATE 060343 (U.S. NON-PAPER ON SNDVS AND ODSNWS)
J. STATE 060487 (U.S.-PROPOSED JOINT UNDERSTANDING)
K. STATE 061832 (GUIDANCE FOR JUNE 2009 MOSCOW
MEETING)
L. STATE 064643 (GUIDANCE FOR JUNE 2009 SFO-GVA-II)
M. STATE 075614 (GUIDANCE FOR JULY 2009 SFO-GVA-III)
N. MOSCOW 01347 (20 MAY 2009 SECOND SESSION)
O. GENEVA 00616 (SFO-GVA-III-001)
P. GENEVA 00617 (SFO-GVA-III-002)
Q. GENEVA 00662 (2009 CD)
Classified By: Rose Gottemoeller, VCI. Reason: 1.4(b) and (d).
1. (U) Assistant Secretary for Verification, Compliance,
and Implementation, Rose Gottemoeller, will head the U.S.
delegation in continuing negotiations regarding a START
Follow-on treaty with Russian MFA Director of Security and
Disarmament Affairs Anatoliy Antonov, in Geneva,
Switzerland, August 31-September 3, 2009.
--------------
SCHEDULE AND ORGANIZATION
--------------
2. (S) BACKGROUND: The U.S. and Russian delegations have
agreed to meet in Geneva from August 31-September 3 and
from September 21-November 20 to complete work on a START
Follow-on treaty. The U.S. delegation has proposed to
establish working groups modeled on those used during the
START negotiations (Ref A). The Russian delegation
indicated agreement in principle, but also indicated
concern about how soon such groups would be able to begin
meeting.
3. (S) The U.S. also proposed a stocktaking at the
mid-way point on October 20 with a view, in particular, to
determining which issues may need to be referred for
higher-level review and decision (Ref A). (FYI:
Delegation should be aware that it is possible Presidents
Obama and Medvedev will meet on the margins on the UNGA in
late September; in addition, Secretary of State Clinton
and Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov will be meeting in
Moscow on October 13-14. Thus, even in advance of October
20, appropriate issues may need to be prepared for
discussion during these meetings.) The goal is to have
the treaty ready for signature on or about December 1,
2009.
--------------
U.S. DRAFT TREATY AND DEFINITIONS ANNEX
--------------
4. (S) GUIDANCE: The U.S.-proposed draft text of the
treaty and accompanying definitions annex were provided to
the Russian MFA on August 25, 2009 (Refs B-E). Delegation
should use the U.S.-proposed texts to review and explain
the U.S. positions on the treaty. Delegation should
encourage Russian questions and reactions to the U.S.
texts and seek to identify areas of agreement and
disagreement. Delegation also should seek the date by
which an official Russian response to the U.S. draft texts
will be provided. Delegation should determine if Russia
is willing to work from the U.S.-proposed text to begin
developing a joint draft text (JDT) identifying issues
that will need to be discussed and resolved. Delegation
may continue to draw from previous guidance and U.S.
nonpapers (Refs F-N),and July Moscow Summit Documents,
including the July 6, 2009, Joint Understanding (Ref M,
para 8) to discuss and explain U.S. views relating to a
START follow-on treaty.
5. (S) Following discussion of the treaty text and
related issues by the Heads of Delegation, Delegation
should seek to convene an introductory meeting of each
working group so that they may begin discussion of the
organization of their work as well as discussion of treaty
and protocol text, consistent with the U.S. proposal
provided on July 23 (Ref A paras 28-30). Washington
believes it will be important to convene at least one
meeting of each working group so the chairs on both sides
can be introduced and initial planning for the next
session may begin. Delegation should report on all
meetings as expeditiously as possible.
-------------- ---
SEVEN RUSSIAN PAPERS PROVIDED ON JULY 22-23, 2009
-------------- --------------
6. (S) BACKGROUND AND GUIDANCE: During meetings on July
22-23 (Refs O and P),Russia provided seven papers with
its positions on key issues. Delegation is authorized to
discuss and seek agreement on the issues raised in these
papers as provided in Ref M and below.
-------------- --------------
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE ARMS
-------------- --------------
7. (S) GUIDANCE: In responding to the Russian paper On
the Interrelationship between Strategic Offensive Arms and
Strategic Defensive Arms, dated July 22, 2009 (Ref O para
15),Delegation should seek to clarify Russias concerns
about the relationship between strategic offensive and
defensive arms.
--------------
CONVENTIONALLY-ARMED ICBMS AND SLBMS
--------------
8. (S) GUIDANCE: In responding to the Russian paper On
Strategic Missile Systems in a Non-nuclear Configuration,
dated July 22, 2009 (Ref O para 20),Delegation should
draw on the U.S.-proposed draft treaty text to explain
which U.S. strategic delivery vehicles currently counted
in START should be excluded from the new treaty.
9. (S) If Russia raises the proposal made by the United
States prior to the July 6 Moscow Summit to count
non-nuclear armed ICBMs and SLBMs toward the treaty limit
in exchange for Russian concessions on delivery vehicle
issues, Delegation should probe the Russian delegation for
its views and report back to Washington any Russian
proposal for alternate numbers for warhead or delivery
vehicle limits and for additional limitations on
non-nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs, or Russian questions about
which non-nuclear warheads are to be counted.
--------------
BASING SOA OUTSIDE NATIONAL TERRITORY
--------------
10. (S) GUIDANCE: In responding to the Russian paper On
Basing and Temporary Stationing of Strategic Offensive
Arms Outside the National Territory of Each Party, dated
July 23, 2009 (Ref P para 6),Delegation should make clear
that the United States believes the START Treaty
provisions regarding the basing and stationing of heavy
bombers outside national territory, including related
notification provisions, should be retained. Regarding
the use of Meck Island as a space launch facility,
Delegation should draw upon the response provided by the
U.S. delegation in Ref P para 10 and make clear that the
United States expects the provisions for space launch
facilities outside national territory that were developed
in the JCIC to continue to be observed under the new
treaty.
--------------
PREAMBLE AND CONCLUDING PROVISIONS OF TREATY
--------------
11. (S) GUIDANCE: Regarding the Russian-proposed Draft
Preamble to the New Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms
(Proposals of the Russian Side, and Draft Concluding
Provisions of the New Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms,
both dated July 23, 2009 (Ref P paras 12 and 16),the U.S.
response is contained in the U.S.-proposed draft treaty
text. As provided in paragraph 4 above, Delegation should
review and explain the U.S.-proposed text, noting that we
have taken Russias proposals into account.
--------------
PROPOSED UNGA RESOLUTION
--------------
12. (S) GUIDANCE: Regarding the Russian-proposed paper
On a Draft Resolution Bilateral Reductions in Strategic
Nuclear Arms and the New Framework for Strategic
Relations, dated July 23, 2009 (Ref P para 18),
Delegation should indicate that the U.S. concurs with what
we understand to be Russias reassessment (Ref Q para 10)
that it would not be wise to table such a resolution while
the negotiations on a replacement for START are still
under way. Delegation should state that the U.S.
preference is to table our traditional joint resolution in
the UNGA Plenary once our negotiations conclude
successfully.
-------------- --------------
PROPOSED JOINT UNDERSTANDING REGARDING BELARUS, KAZAKHSTAN,
AND UKRAINE
-------------- --------------
13. (S) GUIDANCE: Washington is continuing to study the
Russian paper On a Draft Joint Statement in Connection
with the Expiration of the Treaty on the Reduction and
Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, dated July 23,
2009 (Ref A para 21). Delegation is authorized to
indicate that the United States believes a joint statement
might be issued either bilaterally or by the five START
Parties in connection with the START Treatys expiration.
End guidance.
CLINTON
SIPDIS
GENEVA FOR JCIC
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/31/2019
TAGS: PARM PREL KACT KTIA START JCIC US RS
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE FOR U.S. DELEGATION TO U.S./RUSSIA
NEGOTIATIONS ON START FOLLOW-ON TREATY, GENEVA,
SWITZERLAND, AUGUST 31-SEPTEMBER 3, 2009
REFS: A. STATE 078776 (SFO-GVA-III-003)
B. STATE 088262 (U.S.-PROPOSED TREATY TEXT PART 1)
C. STATE 088263 (U.S.-PROPOSED TREATY TEXT PART 2)
D. STATE 088259 (U.S.-PROPOSED DEFINITIONS ANNEX
PART 1)
E. STATE 088260 (U.S.-PROPOSED DEFINITIONS ANNEX
PART 2)
F. STATE 041125 (GUIDANCE FOR APRIL 2009 ROME
MEETING)
G. STATE 050911 (GUIDANCE FOR MAY 2009 MOSCOW
MEETING)
H. STATE 050910 (U.S. NON-PAPER ON ELEMENTS OF SFO
TREATY)
I. STATE 060343 (U.S. NON-PAPER ON SNDVS AND ODSNWS)
J. STATE 060487 (U.S.-PROPOSED JOINT UNDERSTANDING)
K. STATE 061832 (GUIDANCE FOR JUNE 2009 MOSCOW
MEETING)
L. STATE 064643 (GUIDANCE FOR JUNE 2009 SFO-GVA-II)
M. STATE 075614 (GUIDANCE FOR JULY 2009 SFO-GVA-III)
N. MOSCOW 01347 (20 MAY 2009 SECOND SESSION)
O. GENEVA 00616 (SFO-GVA-III-001)
P. GENEVA 00617 (SFO-GVA-III-002)
Q. GENEVA 00662 (2009 CD)
Classified By: Rose Gottemoeller, VCI. Reason: 1.4(b) and (d).
1. (U) Assistant Secretary for Verification, Compliance,
and Implementation, Rose Gottemoeller, will head the U.S.
delegation in continuing negotiations regarding a START
Follow-on treaty with Russian MFA Director of Security and
Disarmament Affairs Anatoliy Antonov, in Geneva,
Switzerland, August 31-September 3, 2009.
--------------
SCHEDULE AND ORGANIZATION
--------------
2. (S) BACKGROUND: The U.S. and Russian delegations have
agreed to meet in Geneva from August 31-September 3 and
from September 21-November 20 to complete work on a START
Follow-on treaty. The U.S. delegation has proposed to
establish working groups modeled on those used during the
START negotiations (Ref A). The Russian delegation
indicated agreement in principle, but also indicated
concern about how soon such groups would be able to begin
meeting.
3. (S) The U.S. also proposed a stocktaking at the
mid-way point on October 20 with a view, in particular, to
determining which issues may need to be referred for
higher-level review and decision (Ref A). (FYI:
Delegation should be aware that it is possible Presidents
Obama and Medvedev will meet on the margins on the UNGA in
late September; in addition, Secretary of State Clinton
and Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov will be meeting in
Moscow on October 13-14. Thus, even in advance of October
20, appropriate issues may need to be prepared for
discussion during these meetings.) The goal is to have
the treaty ready for signature on or about December 1,
2009.
--------------
U.S. DRAFT TREATY AND DEFINITIONS ANNEX
--------------
4. (S) GUIDANCE: The U.S.-proposed draft text of the
treaty and accompanying definitions annex were provided to
the Russian MFA on August 25, 2009 (Refs B-E). Delegation
should use the U.S.-proposed texts to review and explain
the U.S. positions on the treaty. Delegation should
encourage Russian questions and reactions to the U.S.
texts and seek to identify areas of agreement and
disagreement. Delegation also should seek the date by
which an official Russian response to the U.S. draft texts
will be provided. Delegation should determine if Russia
is willing to work from the U.S.-proposed text to begin
developing a joint draft text (JDT) identifying issues
that will need to be discussed and resolved. Delegation
may continue to draw from previous guidance and U.S.
nonpapers (Refs F-N),and July Moscow Summit Documents,
including the July 6, 2009, Joint Understanding (Ref M,
para 8) to discuss and explain U.S. views relating to a
START follow-on treaty.
5. (S) Following discussion of the treaty text and
related issues by the Heads of Delegation, Delegation
should seek to convene an introductory meeting of each
working group so that they may begin discussion of the
organization of their work as well as discussion of treaty
and protocol text, consistent with the U.S. proposal
provided on July 23 (Ref A paras 28-30). Washington
believes it will be important to convene at least one
meeting of each working group so the chairs on both sides
can be introduced and initial planning for the next
session may begin. Delegation should report on all
meetings as expeditiously as possible.
-------------- ---
SEVEN RUSSIAN PAPERS PROVIDED ON JULY 22-23, 2009
-------------- --------------
6. (S) BACKGROUND AND GUIDANCE: During meetings on July
22-23 (Refs O and P),Russia provided seven papers with
its positions on key issues. Delegation is authorized to
discuss and seek agreement on the issues raised in these
papers as provided in Ref M and below.
-------------- --------------
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE ARMS
-------------- --------------
7. (S) GUIDANCE: In responding to the Russian paper On
the Interrelationship between Strategic Offensive Arms and
Strategic Defensive Arms, dated July 22, 2009 (Ref O para
15),Delegation should seek to clarify Russias concerns
about the relationship between strategic offensive and
defensive arms.
--------------
CONVENTIONALLY-ARMED ICBMS AND SLBMS
--------------
8. (S) GUIDANCE: In responding to the Russian paper On
Strategic Missile Systems in a Non-nuclear Configuration,
dated July 22, 2009 (Ref O para 20),Delegation should
draw on the U.S.-proposed draft treaty text to explain
which U.S. strategic delivery vehicles currently counted
in START should be excluded from the new treaty.
9. (S) If Russia raises the proposal made by the United
States prior to the July 6 Moscow Summit to count
non-nuclear armed ICBMs and SLBMs toward the treaty limit
in exchange for Russian concessions on delivery vehicle
issues, Delegation should probe the Russian delegation for
its views and report back to Washington any Russian
proposal for alternate numbers for warhead or delivery
vehicle limits and for additional limitations on
non-nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs, or Russian questions about
which non-nuclear warheads are to be counted.
--------------
BASING SOA OUTSIDE NATIONAL TERRITORY
--------------
10. (S) GUIDANCE: In responding to the Russian paper On
Basing and Temporary Stationing of Strategic Offensive
Arms Outside the National Territory of Each Party, dated
July 23, 2009 (Ref P para 6),Delegation should make clear
that the United States believes the START Treaty
provisions regarding the basing and stationing of heavy
bombers outside national territory, including related
notification provisions, should be retained. Regarding
the use of Meck Island as a space launch facility,
Delegation should draw upon the response provided by the
U.S. delegation in Ref P para 10 and make clear that the
United States expects the provisions for space launch
facilities outside national territory that were developed
in the JCIC to continue to be observed under the new
treaty.
--------------
PREAMBLE AND CONCLUDING PROVISIONS OF TREATY
--------------
11. (S) GUIDANCE: Regarding the Russian-proposed Draft
Preamble to the New Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms
(Proposals of the Russian Side, and Draft Concluding
Provisions of the New Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms,
both dated July 23, 2009 (Ref P paras 12 and 16),the U.S.
response is contained in the U.S.-proposed draft treaty
text. As provided in paragraph 4 above, Delegation should
review and explain the U.S.-proposed text, noting that we
have taken Russias proposals into account.
--------------
PROPOSED UNGA RESOLUTION
--------------
12. (S) GUIDANCE: Regarding the Russian-proposed paper
On a Draft Resolution Bilateral Reductions in Strategic
Nuclear Arms and the New Framework for Strategic
Relations, dated July 23, 2009 (Ref P para 18),
Delegation should indicate that the U.S. concurs with what
we understand to be Russias reassessment (Ref Q para 10)
that it would not be wise to table such a resolution while
the negotiations on a replacement for START are still
under way. Delegation should state that the U.S.
preference is to table our traditional joint resolution in
the UNGA Plenary once our negotiations conclude
successfully.
-------------- --------------
PROPOSED JOINT UNDERSTANDING REGARDING BELARUS, KAZAKHSTAN,
AND UKRAINE
-------------- --------------
13. (S) GUIDANCE: Washington is continuing to study the
Russian paper On a Draft Joint Statement in Connection
with the Expiration of the Treaty on the Reduction and
Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, dated July 23,
2009 (Ref A para 21). Delegation is authorized to
indicate that the United States believes a joint statement
might be issued either bilaterally or by the five START
Parties in connection with the START Treatys expiration.
End guidance.
CLINTON