VCC MEETING JUNE 4, 2009

C O N F I D E N T I A L USNATO 000235 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/04/2019 TAGS: KCFE NATO PARM PREL SUBJECT: VCC MEETING JUNE 4, 2009 Classified By: A/POLAD Alejandro "Hoot" Baez, for reasons 1.4(B)&(D). ¶1. (SBU) Summary. At the June 4, 2009 meeting of AC 319, the Verification Coordination Committee (VCC),Allies agreed that VCC experts should base their work on taskings from the VCC. Allies also agreed that the work of groups established to deal with continuing technical issues, such as the Data Management Experts Group, is already based on VCC agreements and requires no additional mandate or tasking. However, Allies remain divided over what work the VCC ad hoc experts will do in the future. ¶2. (SBU) Turkey raised concerns over reporting on training and bilateral activities in the VCC, as well as on the format and content of Alliance Mission reports. Turkey asked the NATO International Staff (IS) to include Alliance reporting on the July VCC. End Summary. ¶3. (SBU) Four Allies (Norway, Denmark, Canada and the U.S.) participated in a discussion on the role and status of experts that dominated the morning session of the VCC. With prodding from the Chair (Paksoy) Allies quickly agreed that experts receive their mandate from the VCC and that their work is based on tasking from the VCC. Subsequently, Paksoy noted that other experts groups that were established to deal with continuing technical issues (such as the DMEG, OII experts, and meetings of experts for such functions as allocation and deconfliction of CFE and VD99 inspection and evaluation opportunities) already have a VCC tasking and do not require any additional mandate. ¶4. (C/REL NATO) With the "role" of experts decided, Norway proposed that the VCC task ad hoc experts to conduct a detailed review of VD99. Norway argued that Allies should be proactive and prepare an assessment of Russia's AIAM paper on VD99 Implementation and conduct their own analysis of VD99, chapter by chapter. ¶5. (C/REL NATO) Canada supported Norway's proposal, arguing that the Alliance's position would be much stronger if it was based on a position of knowledge. Canada said it was not interested in opening VD99, but believed that experts were in a good position on the basis of the work conducted last year in preparation for the AIAM to examine the Russian paper, assess its validity, and report recommendations to the VCC. ¶6. (C/REL NATO) Denmark supported Norway and Canada, noting that there are still a number of implementation issues that could be addressed during a broad review of implementation. ¶7. (C/REL NATO) The U.S. (Meyer) outline U.S. concerns over a broad review of VD99, noting that such a review would clearly have policy implications on which the VCC should seek the advice of the High Level Task Force (HLTF). ¶8. (C/REL NATO) Doubting that the Committee would reach consensus on a review of VD99, Paksoy asked whether Allies could agree to task experts to complete their work on AC/319-WP(2008)REV4 on VD99 Implementation Issues. Canada responded that such work would be futile, since experts had exhausted their list of issues for 2008. Canada noted that while Allies did not reach consensus on any of those papers, they agreed that Nations could present any of the resulting papers for further action in Vienna. ¶9. (C/REL NATO) The Chair asked whether experts should meet to develop a list of possible topics which they would forward to the VCC for discussion. Norway and Denmark supported this proposal, but Meyer questioned how asking the experts to develop a list that would then have to be discussed and debated in the VCC would be a productive use of time. ¶10. (C/REL NATO) Paksoy noted the U.S. concern, and asked Allies to consider discussing a list of topics for experts at the VCC. In the end, Allies agreed to take up the question of topics for experts at the 8 July VCC. Paskoy asked Allies wishing to propose potential issues for future work by experts to forward those topics to the IS in advance of the July VCC. ¶11. (C/REL NATO) In other business, Turkey launched a confusing intervention that touched on VCC reporting of verification activities, Allies' mission reporting and the Intra-Alliance Understanding on inspections. As summarized by Paksoy, Turkey was concerned that when reporting verification activity in the VCC, Allies often mix reporting on CFE inspections and VD99 inspections and evaluations conducted against passive quotas, and bilateral and training missions in the same intervention. Paksoy noted that the IS would list each type of report separately on future agendas to avoid confusion. ¶12. (C/REL NATO) Turkey also argued that Allies should include more substance in their mission reports. Turkey said that this was particularly important given Russia's suspension of CFE and reports on Russian transfers of equipment and new basing plans in the Caucasus. Turkey asked Allies to take up a discussion on the format and content of mission reports at the next VCC. ¶13. (C/REL NATO) Finally, Turkey re-raised concern over the Intra-Alliance Understanding; however, it was not clear as to its specific concern or whether it was connected to Turkey's other concerns. ¶14. (SBU) Croatia announced that, following Russia's Open Skies flight from 18-22 May, Zagreb arranged for its Defense Attache in Moscow to forward the processed film via diplomatic pouch in order to avoid potential problems with Russian customs officials. ¶15. (SBU) Slovakia requested that Allies provide it with information on the size and subordination of their verification centers. Slovakia stated that it was requesting the data to support discussions in capital on the future of the Slovak verification center. ¶16. (SBU) France announced that it had cancelled its inspection to Finland. France made the decision after Finland announced its observation event under VD99, Chapter 4. ¶17. (C/REL NATO) Luxemburg announced that its CFE inspection to Azerbaijan has been moved to time block 37. DAALDER