Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09USOSCE132
2009-05-22 14:35:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Mission USOSCE
Cable title:  

FSC MAY 20: RUSSIA RETURNS TO NAVAL CSBMS

Tags:  PARM PREL KCFE OSCE MD RS XG 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO1147
PP RUEHAST RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0132/01 1421435
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 221435Z MAY 09
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6396
INFO RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0755
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 1312
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RHMFISS/CDRUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHDLCNE/CINCUSNAVEUR LONDON UK
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE
RHMFIUU/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RUEKJCS/JCS WASHDC
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 1250
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 USOSCE 000132 

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, EUR/CARC,
SCA/CEN, SCA/RA, PM/WRA, ISN/CPI
JCS FOR J-5
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI)
NSC FOR HAYES
USUN FOR LEGAL, POL
EUCOM FOR J-5
CENTCOM FOR J-5
UNVIE FOR AC
GENEVA FOR CD

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL KCFE OSCE MD RS XG
SUBJECT: FSC MAY 20: RUSSIA RETURNS TO NAVAL CSBMS

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 USOSCE 000132

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, EUR/CARC,
SCA/CEN, SCA/RA, PM/WRA, ISN/CPI
JCS FOR J-5
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI)
NSC FOR HAYES
USUN FOR LEGAL, POL
EUCOM FOR J-5
CENTCOM FOR J-5
UNVIE FOR AC
GENEVA FOR CD

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL KCFE OSCE MD RS XG
SUBJECT: FSC MAY 20: RUSSIA RETURNS TO NAVAL CSBMS


1. (SBU) Summary: Russia again proposed naval CSBMs and
asked that they be included on the June 3 working group
agenda. Code of Conduct expert Alexander Lambert praised the
updated Code questionnaire but lamented the "imbalance"
caused by additional questions related to terrorism. The
decision on FSC contributions to the 2009 Annual Security
Review Conference (ASRC) was adopted. Moldova charged that
Russian peacekeeping forces in Transnistria lacked any legal
basis and host nation consent, and violated Moldovan
neutrality. Russia reminded that Moldova recently signed a
joint declaration with Russia and the Transnistrian leader
that supported a continuing Russian military presence.
Russia also asserted that Moldova never withdrew from the
1992 agreement that authorized stationing of Russian
peacekeeping forces in the Transnistrian conflict area.


2. (SBU) In the working groups, Azerbaijan and France
disagreed on one of the political-military elements from the
list the Forum is preparing for the ASRC. Support is
widening for a meeting of heads of verification agencies on
December 14 in conjunction with the annual information
exchange. Several delegations expressed support for the
guidelines proposed by Germany for Vienna Document inspection
and evaluation briefings. Several delegations recommended
that the review of the OSCE Document on Small Arms and Light
Weapons, required by a 2008 ministerial decision, be linked
to UN activities and consider new norm-setting. A 2007
proposal to hold an annual review of Code of Conduct
implementation will be reconsidered. Germany, the original
sponsor, claimed that review in the Annual Implementation
Assessment Meeting was too little and too late, coming almost
a year after the annual replies to the Code questionnaire.
End summary.

Russian Naval CSBMs Resurface
--------------


3. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) returned to its proposal at the
2009 Annual Implementation Assessment Meeting for a series of

naval CSBMs that would include an information exchange on
naval personnel and major weapons, prior notice of planned
naval activities and provision for their observation,
exchange of annual calendars, and contact visits with naval
forces. Ulyanov said these proposals should be a priority
for the FSC and would contribute to the security and
stability of the OSCE area by extending the transparency of
the CSBM regime to naval forces whose influence on strategic
and regional stability is increasing. Ulyanov said these
measures would apply "within the limited maritime space
around Europe."


4. (SBU) Ulyanov noted that, as part of the Global Exchange
of Military Information, participating States (pS) already
provide information on the total number of surface combatants
greater than 400 tons displacement and submarines over 50
tons. While his proposals would not change the displacement
criteria, Ulyanov said additional information would be
required for each warship and auxiliary vessel:

- designation and subordination
- type
- displacement and major dimensions
- designation of the naval base where ship is based
- peacetime authorized personnel strength

USOSCE 00000132 002 OF 006



Information would also be required on the total number of
warships and auxiliaries in naval formations. The
information would be submitted by December 15 to be valid as
of the following January 1. Ulyanov noted the provenance of
these proposals in the Vienna Document. He requested
discussion of the proposals at the June 3 working group.
(FSC.DEL/118/09/Corr.1)

Praise for New Code Questionnaire
--------------


5. (SBU) Alexander Lambert, an academic expert on the Code of
Conduct at the Geneva Center for Democratic Control of the
Armed Forces, praised the recently adopted technical update
to the Code of Conduct (FSC.DD/2/09). Lambert reviewed the
changes to the 2003 version of the questionnaire, finding
most of them improved the organization and were likely to
enhance the responses from pS. Lambert welcomed the
differentiation among the different components of the
"security sector" (Code para 20) now found in question I.1.3,
which refers to military, paramilitary, and security forces
and police. He regretted the expansion of the question on
counter-terrorism efforts, finding they distracted from
attention to the intrastate elements of the Code addressing
democratic control of the armed forces.


6. (SBU) Lambert supported the inclusion of a new question
dealing with arms control, disarmament, and CSBMs (I.3) and
said it added an "entirely new dimension" to the
questionnaire. He found the inclusion of "conscripts" in the
question on rights protection in the military (II.3.3)
constituted a "significant expansion" of the questionnaire's
coverage of human rights.


7. (SBU) Lambert recommended specifically identifying
"intelligence services" in questions pertaining to terrorism.
He also, in response to a question from Finland, recommended
addressing the increasing role of private military and
security companies, perhaps through question II.4.1 on the
provision of training in international humanitarian law. As
to the interface between international and domestic law and
the military (Code paras 34-37) sections, Lambert said
questions found in under II.4 of the 2009 questionnaire
constituted a "small revolution" in politico-military affairs
and "will help set new standards of conduct."
(FSC.DEL/114/09)


8. (SBU) The EU, through the Czech presidency (Reinohlova),
supported the updated questionnaire, but regretted the
omission of a question soliciting information on the
promotion of gender equality in security affairs as described
in UN Security Council Resolution 1325. Turkey (Begec) and
the U.S. (Neighbour) noted the questionnaire is derived from
the Code and should not contain elements not found in the
Code. Begec said it was not wise to question, as Lambert
had, the added value of the questions on counter-terrorism
given the many changes in the security environment since the
Code was adopted in 1994. Neighbour, concurring, said the
Code can be applied to new problems such as the struggle with
terrorism and make the world safer without sacrificing
fundamental principles.


9. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) said the update of the

USOSCE 00000132 003 OF 006


questionnaire had been useful. The update, he said, helped to
correct an imbalance between, on the one hand, arms control
and CSBMs, and, on the other, the democratic control of armed
forces on the other. He noted with approval the questions on
implementation of arms control measures and on taking account
of the security needs of other states. In a larger context,
Ulyanov asserted, the Code is not the only priority of the
FSC: arms control and CSBMs are also important.

FSC Input to ASRC
--------------


10. (SBU) The Forum adopted without discussion the decision
on FSC contributions to the 2009 Annual Security Review
Conference (FSC.DEC/3/09). These are: a written and oral
report on FSC activities by the FSC chair; an FSC Troika
representative or the director of the Conflict Prevention
Center will chair a working session; and a list of
politico-military elements for discussion at the conference.

List of Pol-Mil Elements
--------------


11. (SBU) In the working group, Russia (Ulyanov) suggested
the list of politico-military elements for discussion at the
ASRC (FSC.DEL/115/09) include "modernization" of the Vienna
Document. France (Fournier) requested that "interstate
conflicts and border security," presently listed under
working session III on terrorism and related threats, be
moved to working session I on conflict prevention.
Azerbaijan (Jafarova),in response to France, reported
"concern about the process" by which the list had been
created and noted it had proposed the topic and believed it
should remain in the terrorism session, as it had in 2007.
The chair (Georgia, Giorgadze) noted the list was not a
consensus document but promised to consider delegations'
suggestions.

Contacts BPG
--------------


12. (SBU) The UK (Gare) and Russia (Ulyanov),the co-sponsors
of the draft Best Practices Guide on Vienna Document contact
visits (FSC.AIAM/8/09),reported they were incorporating
comments received from other delegations and will issue a
revised draft. Switzerland and Sweden expressed support for
the guide.

HOV Meeting
--------------


13. (SBU) Denmark (Petersen),author of a draft decision to
hold a meeting of heads of verifications agencies on December
14, 2009, in conjunction with the Annual Exchange of Military
Information, reported wide support for the decision
(FSC.DEL/107/09). Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Russia,
Greece and Norway announced support. Portugal said it would
prefer the HOV meeting be held in conjunction with the Annual
Implementation Assessment Meeting but would not block any
consensus for a December meeting. The paper is now a chair's
draft decision (FSC.DD/3/09).

VD99 Inspection Briefing Guide
--------------

USOSCE 00000132 004 OF 006




14. (SBU) Germany (Schweizer),the author of a draft decision
on guidelines for Vienna Document inspection and evaluation
briefings (FSC.DEL/103/09),reported wide support based on
informal conversations. Switzerland and Sweden announced
support. Norway also reported support; it had even used the
guidelines during a recent Russian inspection in Norway.


15. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) supported efforts to improve
implementation, noting it "had done that too," and believed
the draft was moving in the right direction. Ulyanov
expected comments from Moscow in about three weeks. He was
surprised, however, that the draft decision used the words
"decides to encourage": that sounds, he said, more like a
chair's statement than a decision. Something stronger will
be needed, he said.


16. (SBU) Greece (Pediotis) proposed adding to guidelines
para 1.1 "activity, time schedule, and transport plan."
Greece also, in tic 3 of para 1.3, proposed substituting
"designation and subordination of units" for "organization
and deployment of the subordinate units." Schweizer said a
revision will be prepared.

SALW Review
--------------


17. (SBU) The chair of the Informal Group of Friends (IGOF)
of Small Arms and Light Weapons (Germany, Schweizer)
acknowledged comments from the U.S. and the CPC on his
Food-for-Thought paper on implementing the 2008 ministerial
decision to conduct a review of the OSCE Document on SALW
(FSC.DEL/104/09). Switzerland supported the paper and
recommended a decision be adopted before the summer recess at
the end of July. France proposed UNIDIR be added to the list
of other organizations to be included in the review process.
Greece supported the thematic approach discussed in the
paper.


18. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) expected detailed comments from
Moscow at the end of June, but found it strange that the
paper did not mention the "main" problem in SALW in recent
years: the failure to prevent the transfer of arms to
conflict regions. This must be the main focus of the review,
Ulyanov said.


19. (SBU) Ireland (Donagh) said delegations would have to
quickly develop a concrete agenda for the special meeting
described in the paper. He suggested a series of briefings
in the working group over the remaining weeks in the
spring-summer session to address the OSCE concept of SALW,
parallel efforts by other organizations, and the current
effectiveness of implementation.


20. (SBU) Finland (Kangaste) recommended a pragmatic
approach, aligned with the UN Program of Action on SALW, and
that would consider brokering, marking and tracing, stockpile
surpluses, and illicit air transport of SALW. A special
meeting should consider the next steps on implementation,
alignment with UN programs, and norm-setting.


21. (SBU) The UK (Hartnell) agreed that realistic goals were
important given the limited time. The major aim of the
review should be to assess implementation of the SALW

USOSCE 00000132 005 OF 006


document while avoiding the creation of additional burdens
not based on the document. Schweizer, responding to
Hartnell, replied that the ministerial mandate was to "review
the document, not implementation." He supported Ireland's
suggestion of a series of briefing, and volunteered to
provide the first, on the OSCE concept of SALW, as early as
May 27. He preferred use of the working group at 56 to
explore the various proposals rather than smaller informal
meetings.


22. (SBU) Schweizer noted that, as IGOF chair, he could not
propose a draft decision: it was for the delegations to
develop concrete proposals that could respond to identified
needs. In an oblique response to U.S. comments on his paper,
Schweizer noted that his "Way Ahead" section called for new
norms on stockpile management, marking and tracing, export
controls, and even end-use certificates; OSCE Best Practices
Guides were not sufficient as they were not politically
binding decisions. In response to requests from some
delegations, Schweizer called on the CPC to develop a list of
relevant documents needed for the review.

Code of Conduct
--------------


23. (SBU) Germany (Schweizer) proposed returning to its 2007
paper on an annual assessment of implementation of the Code
of Conduct (FSC.DEL/434/07/Corr.1). Schweizer said
assessment of the Code by the AIAM, normally held in March,
had been inadequate and came too long after the annual
responses to the Code questionnaire in April.


24. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) countered that a better approach
would be a new review conference as the last was in 1999.
While Russia will consider the proposal, it struck Ulyanov as
strange to focus on the Code of Conduct when there were so
many other areas of stagnation. Here was, he concluded, too
much focus on the Code. Schweizer recalled that the 2005
review of the Code could not reach agreement o hold a review
conference but recommended that review of its implementation
could take place "at other meetings." While the Code
routinely appeared on the AIAM agenda, it was usually
eclipsed by the Vienna Document.

Moldova Objects to Russian PKF
--------------


25. (SBU) Moldova (Cuc),referring to the Russia response to
the Code of Conduct questionnaire on forces stationed abroad,
denied that the 1992 agreement on peaceful settlement of the
Transnistrian conflict or the 1994 agreements on the legal
status and withdrawal of Russian forces in Moldova provide a
legal basis for the continued Russian military presence. The
1992 agreement concerned the cease-fire but did not envisage
any status for Russian forces and the two 1994 agreements
never entered into force. Russia's continuing presence
violates the neutrality of Moldova, which never consented to
the Russian military presence.


26. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) noted that Moldova never withdrew
from the 1992 agreement, which includes provisions for
Russian peacekeeping forces (PKF). Under a 1992 protocol,
Russia has the right to station up to six battalions of PKF
in the conflict area, although Russian actual presence is

USOSCE 00000132 006 OF 006


considerably less. Ulyanov closed by recalling that only
three months ago Moldova's president, Voronin, had signed a
joint declaration with Russian president Medvedev and
Transnistrian leader Smirnov that stressed the stabilizing
role of the PKF. Ulyanov said Cuc's comments were perplexing
and subject to doubt as they were contradicted by Voronin's
actions.

Next Meeting
--------------


27. (SBU) The FSC will next meet on May 27.
Scott