JANUARY 8 MEETING OF VCC EXPERTS

C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000019 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/21/2019 TAGS: KCFE NATO PARM PREL SUBJECT: JANUARY 8 MEETING OF VCC EXPERTS REF: A. A) AC-319-WP(2008)0009-REV6 (VD 99 IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATION) ¶B. B) AC-319-N(2008)0017-REV3 (INV) (VD 99 IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES) ¶C. C) STATE 132758 (GUIDANCE FOR THE 17 DECEMBER 2008 VCC AND EXPERTS MEETINGS) Classified By: A/DCM Walter Andrusyszyn for reasons 1.4(B)&(D). ¶1. (SBU) Summary. Experts deconflicted the CFE inspection schedule for the upcoming Treaty year (RY 14) and refined the deconflicted Vienna Document 1999 (VD 99) verification activities for 2009. Experts are close to agreement on the International Staff (IS) working paper outlining VD 99 coordination procedures for 2009. Of the original 15 issues under considered for presentation by Allies at the 2009 Annual Implementation Assessment Meeting (AIAM),only four remain under consideration in the group of Experts. With only one meeting in February prior to the AIAM (scheduled for 3-4 March) Experts may find it difficult to reach consensus on an agreed NATO approach. In any case, France, Norway and Canada announced their intentions of tabling the papers they sponsored at the AIAM. End Summary. ¶2. (C/REL NATO) Experts deconflicted the CFE inspection schedule for the 14th year of the residual period beginning 16 March 2009. U.S. allocations for the upcoming Treaty Year are as follows: (Note: Time slots are indicated by the Time Block (TB) number followed in parentheses by the beginning date of the TB. End Note) -- Non-Russia inspections: US-Armenia: TB-15 (22 Jun 09) US-Ukraine (Quota): TB-19 (20 Jul 09) US-Ukraine (Flank Supplementary): TB-27 (14 Sep 09) US-Ukraine (Additional Paid): TB-33 (26 Oct 09) and TB-36 (16 Nov 09) -- For the Russian Federation Quota: TB-01 (16 Mar 09) and TB-14 (15 Jun 09) Flank (Quota): TB-05 (13 Apr 09),TB-09 (11 May 09),TB-18 (13 Jul 09),TB-24 (24 Aug 09),TB-29 (28 Sep 09),TB-38 (30 Nov 09),TB-46 (25 Jan 10),and TB-51 (1 Mar 10) Flank Supplementary: TB-38 (30 Nov 09),TB-39 (7 Dec 09), TB-40 (14 Dec 10),TB-44 (11 Jan 10),TB-46 (25 Jan 10), TB-47 (1 Feb 10),TB-48 (8 Feb 10),and TB-51 (1 Mar 10) Note. The IS should issue a revised schedule soon. End Note. ¶3. (C/REL NATO) Allies refined their plans for 2009 VD 99 verification activities by making the following changes to the deconflicted inspection and evaluation schedules (Ref A): -- VD 99 Evaluations New Dates: Luxembourg to Austria in calendar week (CW) four; and Norway to Kazakhstan in CW 13 Changed: Belgium to Finland from CW 15 to CW 13; Germany to Kyrgyzstan from CW 12 to CW 11; and France to the Russian Federation from CW seven to CW six -- VD 99 Inspections New Dates: Germany to Georgia in CW 4; France to Georgia in CW nine; Hungary to Georgia in CW 12; Turkey to Austria in CW 38 and Denmark to Tajikistan in CW 41. Added: France to Turkmenistan, time to be determined and Estonia to Albania within the first three month period. Implementation Coordination - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¶4. (SBU) Experts agreed to accept the changes to the Implementation Coordination papers (Ref B). In addition, Allies agreed to change the word "slots" in the last sentence of paragraph eight to "passive quotas." The IS issued the newQersion as revision six. Unless instructed otherwise, USDel intends to join consensus on revision six. ¶5. (C/REL NATO) Hungary reported that it had accepted an invitation from Austria to supply a guest inspector for a VD 99 inspection in Serbia during CW seven. According to the Allies' deconflicted schedule, Austria's inspection will fall between planned Allied inspections by Bulgaria and Slovakia. If Austria's inspection takes place as reported, it would trigger the coordination mechanism outlined in Allies Implementation Coordination paper (Ref B, paragraph eight), which stipulates that when a non-Allied participating State (pS) notifies an inspection or evaluation to a country for which Allies have scheduled inspections, the first Ally scheduled for inspection following a four week period from the week the non-Allied notification is transmitted will lose its NATO-coordinated inspection allocation. Depending on the timing of the notification (per VD 99, paragraph 85, at least 36 hours but not more than five days prior to entry into the territory of the receiving State) Slovakia's inspection may fall ins ide this four week grace period, in which case Belgium, the next Ally scheduled, would lose its allocation. Implementation Issues and AIAM Discussion Papers - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ¶6. (SBU) The Chair reviewed the status of implementation issues listed in Ref C and asked sponsoring Allies whether they intended to table their topics at the AIAM. Of the 15 implementation issues under consideration, four remain viable candidates for an agreed NATO approach: topic number two on Briefings by Military Commanders (sponsored by Germany), number ten on Use of Digital Cameras and GPS (sponsored by Turkey),number 13 on Inspection and Evaluation Quota Calculation (sponsored by Denmark and Norway) and number 14 on Size of Inspection and Evaluation Teams (also sponsored by Denmark and Norway.) To the surprise of Experts, including Germany, Denmark and Norway, the French delegation announced that France was considering tabling topic numbers two, ten and 14 at the AIAM. France commented that as the FSC Chair, it wants to achieve results; and in France's opinion, focusing on these three issues provides the best chance for gaining consensus. Norway's delegation said it remained committed to present ing number 13, but that it would have to be cleared by capital. Canada announced that it would table its paper on Force Majeure, if it is cleared by the Foreign Ministry, with the understanding that its approach was not approved by Allies. ¶7. (C/REL NATO) At Italy's prompting, Experts debated how to employ discussion papers at the AIAM. Italy argued that Allies should have a common timeline for tabling the papers, if not a common approach. Turkey questioned the need for common modalities, and others cautioned that Allies should avoid appearing too rehearsed in March. USDel repeated its talking points from December's guidance (Ref C) and again cautioned that if Allies decided to provide discussion papers in advance, they should limit the scope of their submission to introducing and framing the issue. Following a prolonged discussion in which Experts failed to find consensus on how to proceed, Allies adopted a U.S. proposal calling for Allies that expect to table issues at the AIAM to report during the next meeting of Experts, 5 February, on how they intend to employ their papers. ¶8. (SBU) There was little substantive discussion on the four remaining AIAM papers as USDel noted that, due to truncated period between Experts meetings in December and January, the U.S. was not prepared to agree to proposed changes. USDel also noted that Allies could expect the U.S. to have additional edits, particularly with the paper on Evaluation and Inspection Quota Computations. The sponsors of the paper, Denmark and Norway, both approached USDel on the margins asking for U.S. proposed changes as soon as possible. USDel promised to try and forward edits before the next VCC in February. ¶9. (SBU) Absent further progress on individual discussion papers and how to employ them at the AIAM, Norway suggested that Experts should refer the remaining implementation issues to the HLTF for guidance. Turkey, supported by the U.S. and the Czech Republic, strongly opposed this suggestion, arguing that neither the papers nor the modalities involved in employing them at the AIAM reach a level requiring HLTF guidance. In addition, Turkey noted that experts could not refer a topic directly to the HLTF without first going through the VCC. The fact that the next VCC is not scheduled to meet until after the next HLTF left no legitimate option for forwarding the discussion papers to the HLTF. The Chair agreed, but noted that the VCC Chair, Mike Miggins, might want to report to the HLTF on the progress of the work in the Experts meeting. ¶10. (C) Comment. Given the time remaining before the AIAM, it is unclear which, if any, of the remaining four implementation issues under consideration will reach consensus. Also, comments from various Allies suggest that some delegations have been working these issues with minimum oversight from capitals. As such, they may still need to send any issue reaching consensus back to capital for approval. Therefore, it is quite possible that, after almost a year of debate in the group of Experts, no Ally will be able to table a discussion paper at the 2009 AIAM with the expectation of receiving full NATO support. ¶11. (C/REL NATO) Canada initiated a discussion as to whether Allies should accept the French FSC Chair's decision to move the heads of Verification (HOV) meeting from the AIAM in March 2009 to the data exchange in December 2009. While Allies generally agreed that it was too late to attempt to move the next HOV back to March, there was only partial support for holding the HOV in December. Experts also signaled significant concern that the FSC Chair made the decision without notifying Allies in advance. ¶12. (SBU) The Chair announced its intention of calling for a supplementary meeting of Experts Friday, 6 February, subject to availability of meeting space, to review programs of instruction for arms control courses at the NATO School, Oberammergau. VOLKER