Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09USNATO235
2009-06-05 16:21:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Mission USNATO
Cable title:  

VCC MEETING JUNE 4, 2009

Tags:  KCFE NATO PARM PREL 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0054
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHNO #0235/01 1561621
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 051621Z JUN 09
FM USMISSION USNATO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3039
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6393
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUDKSR/EUCOM PLANS AND ANALYSIS STUTTGART GE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JCS WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE PRIORITY
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY
RUEHBS/USNMR BRUSSELS BE PRIORITY
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).

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