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