CFE/JCG: JUNE 16: RUSSIA ACCUSES NATO OF

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 USOSCE 000144

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM
NSC FOR NILSSON, HAYDEN
JCS FOR J5 NORWOOD, COL SMITH
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI)

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/JCG: JUNE 16: RUSSIA ACCUSES NATO OF
"WARPED" UNDERSTANDING IN BERLIN


1. (SBU) Summary: At the June 16 JCG plenary, Russia
accused most of its CFE partners of demonstrating a distorted
sense of the Russian position regarding CFE and the parallel
actions package during the June 9-10 conventional arms
control meetings in Berlin. Russia singled out Canada and
the Czech Republic for particular criticism. Russia also
characterized the current CFE situation as unbalanced, tipped
in NATO's favor. A lengthy debate ensued in which a series
of responses left Russia isolated. Separately, Belgium and
the U.S., supported by 8 other delegations, criticized the
Russian Federation's refusals of their recent CFE inspection
notifications leaving Russia further alone. End Summary.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russia Concerned by "Warped" Understanding in Berlin
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


2. (SBU) The Joint Consultative Group (JCG) met on June 16
under the Chairmanship of Azerbaijan (Muradov). Russian Head
of Arms Control delegation Ulyanov immediately took the floor
under general statements and conveyed surprise at the
"warped" understanding of Russia's position shown by many
CFE, and non-CFE states, at the June 9-10 Berlin meetings on
conventional arms control. Ulyanov was concerned that some
countries reiterated Istanbul Commitments "as if we were back
in 2005 and not 2009." These countries, he said, were
willing to abandon arms control for political interests that
did not relate to CFE. He hoped they would soon "come back
to reality."


3. (SBU) Ulyanov assured the JCG that the Russian delegation
in Vienna was ready and willing to answer any questions
regarding its position or its Aide-Memoire distributed to the
JCG on May 5. It was unfortunate that some delegations did
not resort to this opportunity. He tried to invite dialogue:
"Don't be shy... ask questions!" He emphasized that the JCG
should be used for further talks, in particular, on Russia's
paper.


4. (SBU) Ulyanov noted that in Berlin the Canadian and Czech
Republic delegations disagreed with the Russian position that
NATO had only offered "vague promises." There was nothing in
the parallel actions package, or in any other document, that
outlined specific requirements for NATO that would be in
Russia's interest. Instead, all language referring to NATO
action was characterized by conditional words like "would,"
i.e., "NATO would strive to seek ratification..." Russia,
however, had been singled out on several occasions with very
specific activities that it MUST complete, for example,
withdrawing Russian forces from Moldova and Georgia.


5. (SBU) Without guarantees, Ulyanov stressed, Russia was
left with "merely vague promises" on everything from
ratification of A/CFE, to accession of the Baltic countries
to the Treaty, to the definition of substantive armed forces,
and so on.

- - - - - - - - -
Allied Responses
- - - - - - - - -


6. (SBU) Canada (Linteau) responded by reserving the right to
reply at a future JCG plenary, but said its position remained
to create the conditions necessary for entry into force of
the Adapted CFE Treaty. Canada also confirmed it remained
committed to the U.S.-led, NATO-supported parallel actions
package.


7. (SBU) The Czech Republic (Reinohlova) reminded
delegations that the Russian Aide-Memoire had come 14 months
after the parallel actions package was presented officially
to Russia. There were many formulations in the Russian paper
that required clarification. Reinohlova, however, noted that
in Berlin Russian MFA Director Antonov did not appear to
"like questions." She sought, in particular, clarification

USOSCE 00000144 002 OF 004


on paragraph 11 in the Aide-Memoire (provisional
application). Russia criticized NATO of "vague promises
without guarantees," but what was NATO's guarantee that
Russia would "as a gesture of goodwill consider the
possibility of implementing some reciprocal transparency
measures on a bilateral basis...prior to the provisional
application or entry into force of the Agreement on
Adaptation?"

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Problem is Russia's Actions, Not Allied Misunderstandings
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


8. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour) attested to the readiness of
Russia's Vienna delegation to answer questions from
delegations regarding Russia's position on CFE, both in
plenary and on the margins. Neighbour pointed out that
success in any negotiation depended, in part, on active
listening and understanding counterpart positions. Questions
on CFE, therefore, were good, even if allegedly "warped or
vague." The "bad questions" were the ones not asked, leaving
misunderstandings and missed opportunities. Neighbour said
that in Berlin, Allies had asked questions stemming from HLTF
discussions in Oberammergau. He reaffirmed that NATO
countries sent a consistent, unified message in Berlin.
Among other things, discussions in Berlin confirmed that
there were first order issues that must be overcome in the
existing bilateral channel, augmented with Allies, before
discussions in other venues could be productive.


9. (SBU) Neighbour went on to note that Allies understand
well Russia's position -- the problem is Russia's actions.
This included unilateral suspension of CFE implementation,
not provided for by either the CFE Treaty nor customary
international law. This combined with Russia's military
actions in Georgia, its deployment of forces in Abkhazia and
South Ossetia and recognition of these Georgian regions as
independent countries, had raised very serious concerns about
Moscow's commitment to cooperative approaches to security and
the CFE regime. Russia's actions were inconsistent with
core CFE principles and only served to complicate prospects
for progress on fulfillment of Russia's Istanbul Commitments
with respect to Georgia as well as CFE more broadly.
Russia's position on adapted CFE and the parallel actions
package further complicated the issue with its demands for
major changes, such as to the flank regime, of the Adapted
Treaty -- which Russia itself has signed and ratified.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russia Claims Authorship Rights
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


10. (SBU) Ulyanov, in reply to the Canadian, Czech
Republic, and U.S delegations, restated his argument that CFE
was a "Cold War relic." He expressed displeasure that the
current CFE Treaty maintained a bloc-to-bloc approach and so
had "lost all connection with reality." Ulyanov then
referred to Canada's earlier statement that the parallel
actions package was a U.S./NATO plan. He stressed that in
fact the document was a "U.S.-Russia draft, with Russian
proposals making up more than 1/3 of the draft." For the
remainder of the JCG meeting, Ulyanov resorted to calling the
parallel actions package the "U.S.-Russia plan," implying
that NATO's voice had been left out. Ulyanov also said
Russia would soon submit to the JCG a document outlining the
legal rationale for its "moratorium" of CFE.


11. (SBU) The UK (Gare) reminded the Russian Federation
that any agreement reached would be "promises for promises."
Gare hoped that a legally-binding treaty would be a
guarantee, but suspension of it by one State Party had proven
that wrong. She pointed out that the very countries Ulyanov
alluded to as "not committed to arms control" are the same
countries that continue to implement the CFE Treaty without
fail. On the contrary, the one country that accused others

USOSCE 00000144 003 OF 004


of lacking commitment was the very country that had
unilaterally suspended CFE implementation. She also
confirmed that it was clear the Alliance had had substantial
input into the U.S.-Russia bilateral process.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Istanbul Commitments are Part and Parcel of Package
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


12. (SBU) Georgia (Giorgadze) stressed that no matter how
hard Russia tried to erase the Istanbul Commitments from
memory and their linkage to Adapted CFE, it would be
impossible for entry into force "while Georgia is around this
table." Guduata cannot be forgotten. Romania (Matei) did
not agree with Russia's assessment that an "artificial link"
had been forged between political commitments and arms
control in 1999. Matei said that the political commitments
were "part and parcel" of the package. Moldova (Cuc) said
the parallel actions package provided "many answers" on
fulfilling Istanbul Commitments and for moving forward.
Russia (Ulyanov) shot back that the A/CFE Concluding Act was
binding but that the attached political statements were not
part of the Treaty and therefore not binding.


13. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour) noted its agreement with
Romania's characterization of the Istanbul Commitments as
"part and parcel" of A/CFE, and underlined that the Istanbul
Commitments were an integral part of a "package deal" at
Istanbul. He pointed to Allied proposals in the parallel
actions package as the solution for all and the best way
forward. Germany (Schweizer) helpfully said that specific
points from the parallel actions package could not be
disaggregated. He also stressed that the way forward would
not be legally-binding, yet; it would be a political
commitment. Schweizer also noted that delegations should
bear in mind other commitments that had been reached since

1999.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Russia Criticized for Latest Noncompliance
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


14. (SBU) Belgium (de Brandt) "deplored" Russia's refusal of
its intent to conduct a CFE inspection on June 2. The U.S.
(Neighbour) supported Belgium and called attention to
Russia's refusal on June 11 of a U.S. inspection
notification. Neighbour added that NATO Allies, including
the U.S., had offered a set of constructive and
forward-looking proposals for parallel actions on key issues.
He urged Russia to work cooperatively with us and other
concerned CFE States Parties to reach agreement on the
parallel actions package. Belgium and the U.S. were
supported in statements by 8 other delegations ) the UK,
Turkey, Romania, Italy, Czech Republic, Portugal, Germany,
and France. Russia did not reply.

- - - -
NATO-T
- - - -


15. (SBU) At the request of the U.S. chair (Neighbour),on
June 15 The Netherlands (Kleinjan) provided a readout of the
June 9 meeting in Berlin in which Russia and several NATO
Allies participated. Germany (Schweizer) provided a factual
account of the June 10 Berlin meeting. The U.S. chair warned
the Allies that Russia would criticize their positions in
Berlin at the JCG the next day. Turkey (Begec) questioned
whether delegations would deliver statements at the opening
of the Annual Security Review Conference on June 23,
particularly in response to Russian FM Lavrov's remarks. The
Czech Republic (Kyrian),Canada (Linteau),and the U.S.
(Wright) said their delegations were preparing opening
statements that would address the conference in general but
not specifically reply to Lavrov.


USOSCE 00000144 004 OF 004


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


16. (U) NATO-T and JCG meetings on June 22 and 23,
respectively, have been cancelled in light of the Annual
Security Review Conference. The next JCG Plenary will be on
June 30 under the chairmanship of Azerbaijan. The NATO-T,
chaired by the U.S. for the month of June, will take place on
June 29.
Scott