CFE/JCG:JUNE 30:RUSSIA REPEATS ACCUSATIONS OF NATO

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 USOSCE 000153

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 30:RUSSIA REPEATS ACCUSATIONS OF NATO
VIOLATIONS AND MOVING GOALPOSTS; QUOTES BIBLE TO JUSTIFY
POSITIONS


1. (SBU) Summary. In a relatively lengthy JCG meeting,
Canada refuted Russia's 16 June claim that Canada did not
understand Russia's views on actions versus words. Russia
commented on its Aide-Memoire, stating that the Parallel
Actions Package requires considerable work to flesh out
necessary details which should be done in Vienna. Russia
said it requires a clearly defined timeline for all States
Parties on ratification and urged provisional application.
Russia also said following A/CFE signing in 1999, NATO
referred to only one condition for ratification -- this being
that Russian forces in the flank be reduced to within A/CFE
limits. Once Russia drew down its forces there and met
NATO's one condition, NATO Allies allegedly created new
conditions that Russia had to meet before they would submit
A/CFE for ratification. These were new "political"
conditions.


2. (SBU) The U.S. and other Allies declined to debate history
with Russia, but did refute its allegations in general terms
and referred to the high-level bilateral talks and the
package as the way forward. Subsequently, ten Allies took
turns criticizing Russia in support of a French intervention
condemning Russia for rejecting a CFE inspection by France.
In reply, Russia accused NATO of seriously breaching the CFE
Treaty as a consequence of enlargement, which in turn
prompted charged replies from Turkey and Italy. End Summary.

- - - - - - - - - - -
It all starts out normally with Canada Pushing Back...
- - - - - - - - - - -


3. (SBU) At the 30 June 2009 JCG, Canada (Linteau) refuted
Russia's 16 June JCG charge that Canada did not understand
Russia's claim that the Parallel Actions Package consists of
"Russian actions for NATO promises." Linteau thanked Russia
for the Aide-Memoire and reassured Russia that the
Aide-Memoire was being carefully studied in its capitol.
Linteau said that Canada fully supports the Parallel Actions
Package as the best way forward for progress on issues of
concern to all States Parties. Furthermore, Canada very well
understands Russia's positions on CFE, but agrees with the
Allied position regarding when Allies will move forward on
ratification of A/CFE. This is parallel actions by Allies
and Russia, not "actions for promises" as alleged by Russia
-- i.e., all move forward with matching steps so that all
States Parties may fulfill their commitments while addressing
concerns.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Russia Accuses NATO of Moving Goalposts on Ratification
- - - - - - - - - - -


4. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) thanked Canada for its support of
the Russia-U.S. draft package of solutions, as well as for
its "constructive" statement. However, Russia did not agree
with Canada's claim that conditions need to be met in order
for NATO Allies to move forward with ratification. Russia is
familiar with this approach shared by all NATO states;
however, the foundation for this position is political, not
legal. In the 1990s, conditions were set when all committed
to the Istanbul Commitments and thereby agreed to rapid
ratification of A/CFE.


5. (SBU) Following A/CFE signing in 1999, NATO referred to
only one condition for ratification -- it being that Russia
was over-strength in the flank in the south. Ulyanov
explained that was due to its anti-terrorist operations in
Chechnya. Russia subsequently drew down its forces there and
met NATO's condition. At that point, NATO Allies created new
conditions, new "political" conditions. These "outside
issues" have no relevance to the CFE Treaty itself. Ten
years ago all the legal conditions were met for ratification
of A/CFE; only political conditions prevent all from
fulfilling the Istanbul Commitments, Ulyanov alleged.

USOSCE 00000153 002 OF 005



- - - - - - - - - - -
There seems to be a misunderstanding out there
- - - - - - - - - - -


6. (SBU) Ulyanov noted that in his contacts with other
delegations, it was evident that there was not a clear
understanding of Russia's matrix for future work. Some think
that NATO and Russia must first agree on the text, and that
this will then serve as a tool for negotiations with other
countries. It is Russia's position that, if the U.S. speaks
on behalf of all of NATO, which it seems to have a clear
mandate to do, then any agreement between Russia and the U.S.
will be final with no future fine tuning.


7. (SBU) Ulyanov then offered clarifications on Russia's
Aide-Memoire. Russia wants direct reference in the Package
to the necessity for States Parties to submit ratification
instruments to the depository in order to prevent confusion
(one country has already ratified the treaty but not yet
deposited it, hence causing confusion). There also needs to
be a clearly defined timeline for the schedule of all States
Parties on ratification of the A/CFE. Last year Russia asked
for an estimated schedule for ratification of the adapted
treaty. While many countries were in the position to ratify
it within 6-8 months, a number of states indicated they may
require up to two years. Ulyanov noted that the accession of
Albania and Croatia into NATO took less time than that; this
shows the genuine priorities of NATO -- that NATO expansion
has a higher priority than A/CFE.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Another pitch for Provisional Application of A/CFE
- - - - - - - - - - -


8. (SBU) Russia went on to stress that it understands that
there are no absolute guarantees of having A/CFE ratified
within 12 months--the executive branches can not provide a
guarantee since ratification depends on the Parliaments.
Therefore, in its Aide-Memoire, Russia proposed provisional
application of A/CFE, similar to what was done in the
beginning of the 1990s when Germany requested provisional
application of the CFE Treaty. Provisional application of
A/CFE could be accomplished in two stages.


9. (SBU) The first stage would be 6-9 months long when all
states make the political commitment to act IAW the
objectives of A/CFE and to comply with its limitations. In
the second stage, after the majority of states have ratified
the adapted treaty, then provisional application would go
into effect. Russia is not asking for concessions --
provisional application provides the requisite predictability
of implementation of A/CFE in addition to addressing the
concerns of countries that have spoken out against the
Russian moratorium. Ulyanov then promised to provide
further explicatory statements on the Russian Aide-Memoire
before the summer break.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Allied Support for Canada's Stand
- - - - - - - - - - -


10. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour) supported Canada. Turning
then to reply to Russia, Neighbour noted that the U.S. had
already responded to Russia's points on a number of occasions
-- we had replied in Vienna, in Berlin 3 weeks ago, and in
the high-level bilateral negotiations. However there were
two points that he would make in response. The first
concerned Albania and Croatia--without claiming to speak for
a legislative body, he observed that there was a long period
of implementation of their Membership Actions Plans. This
allowed parliaments to prepare for ratification so that the
ratification legislation could be quickly approved. In
contrast, the actions and approach of the Russian Federation

USOSCE 00000153 003 OF 005


at present on CFE do not provide the encouragement for
legislatures to begin anytime soon to prepare to consider
ratification of A/CFE. Russia's actions, such as
"suspension," have had the opposite effect. Second, while
saying his delegation had no intention of debating historical
details, Neighbour observed that the Istanbul Commitments
were part of the package in Istanbul that enabled the
signature of all parties to A/CFE. He emphasized that "host
nation consent" was an integral part of the package deal
then, and is in both A/CFE and CFE. It is also part and
parcel of the Parallel Actions Package, which is the best way
forward.


11. (SBU) The Czech Republic (Reinohlova),Germany
(Schweizer) and the UK (Gare) similarly expressed support for
the Canadian statement. Schweizer (stressed that at the
highest levels, NATO has made it perfectly clear that it has
a great interest in the CFE regime and in ratifying A/CFE.
Agreeing with the UK, Schweizer reiterated that it was not
political promises for political promises, but political
intent. Here in the JCG we can only talk about formulations
because we're not Parliaments and we're not ratifying. It is
a question of pre-conditions and the Parallel Actions
Package. Germany agrees with Russia when it says the Package
can't be opened again, but we must establish a precondition
of negotiations so that we can move forward to ratification
of A/CFE.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Can we have that in writing?
- - - - - - - - - - -


12. (SBU) The UK expressed gratitude to Russia and the U.S.
for their statements and asked whether Russia would append
its comments -- both today's and its promised future
clarifications -- to the journal. To the surprise of many
delegates, Ulyanov stated that he would refrain from
appending his statement, that his oral statement was
sufficient. He explained that the statement would first need
to be agreed upon by the Russian Interagency; "comments and
clarifications take time to get approved." Ulyanov stated
that he intentionally spoke slowly and therefore his
colleagues had ample opportunity to write down what he said.
He would answer any and all questions.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Russia Urges Bilateral Talks on Package Details in Vienna
- - - - - - - - - - -


13. (SBU) Ulyanov said he referenced Albania and Croatia to
demonstrate that the accession of new NATO states was a
greater priority than ratification of A/CFE. Albania and
Croatian accession took a year, but some countries say it may
take up to two years for ratification of A/CFE. Turning to
host nation consent, Russia has it to be in South Ossettia
and Abkhazia. States that don't agree with Russia apparently
view host nation consent from a U.S. definition. However,
the U.S. does not respect host nation consent. For example,
U.S. forces have been in Cuba for over 50 years without host
nation consent from Fidel Castro and despite Cuba having
asked for the U.S. to leave. Also, the U.S. went into Iraq
without host nation consent. Allies should find a country
with a more honest record than the U.S. for adhering to the
principle of host nation consent to argue this point for them.


14. (SBU) Ulyanov further amplified Russia's position. He
said that on 5 May at the JCG, the U.S. delegation said first
there would have to be agreement on the parallel package in
the high-level bilateral track. Russia can't agree to that.
The specific details are integral part of the package. If
there are no details, then there is no package. Ulyanov
urged his colleagues and other countries to step up this
process. It is hard to negotiate such a large package with
so many details at high levels. This is why Russia suggested

USOSCE 00000153 004 OF 005


that to complement U.S.-Russia high-level bilateral meetings;
there should also be meetings in Vienna that follow the
U.S.-Russia format to work out details in support of high
level talks. Both Russia and the U.S. already large
delegations with instructions from their capitols here in
Vienna who have the knowledge to work these details. This
would help achieve a full-fledged Parallel Actions Package.


15. (SBU) In a brief reply, the U.S. (Neighbour) responded
that a number of first order issues must be resolved in talks
in the current bilateral format. Only then could talks in
other venues be productive; to do otherwise this would
disaggregate the Package.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Allies Pile-on Russia over Inspection Refusal
- - - - - - - - - - -


16. (SBU) France reported that on 23 June, Russia refused a
CFE inspection in the flank inspection zone. This inspection
would have occurred during the timeframe of 29 June-5 July.
France "condemned" Russia's refusal of the inspection and
noted the consequential inability of France to use this
valuable tool for transparency and verification. Turkey, the
U.S., Romania, Italy, Belgium, Portugal, the Czech Republic,
Denmark, Germany, and Georgia expressed support for France's
statement that called attention to Russia's non-compliance to
the CFE Treaty.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Noncompliance? I'll tell you what's noncompliance...
- - - - - - - - - - -


17. (SBU) In response to the Allied condemnation of Russia's
refusal of France's inspection, Ulyanov said he would refrain
from the ritual response regarding inspections. He pointed
out that a number of delegations used the term
"noncompliance," however only three weeks earlier, he had
raised the serious violation of quantitative elements of the
treaty and asked when they would be removed. He planned to
share specifics at the next meeting of the JCG. Nonetheless,
noncompliance by certain States Parties, nay, the "breach of
the agreement" persists. Ulyanov demanded to know when
partners intended to cease this brazen breach of the existing
treaty.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Turkey and Italy slap Russia with legal rebuttals...
- - - - - - - - - - -


18. (SBU) Turkey (Begec) immediately responded with a
reminder that it had provided a legally-based rebuttal 3
weeks ago to this allegation of noncompliance. Obviously
irritated, he explained that NATO enlargement does not equate
to a breach of the treaty nor noncompliance. Ulyanov agreed
that the "expansion" of NATO was not a breach of the CFE
Treaty; however, he argued that breaches occurred as a result
of the consequences of the expansion of NATO. Limits set
forth by the existing treaty (Article IV) were breached.
Begec took the floor again and pointed out that CFE divided
States Parties into two groups* "Western Group" and "Eastern
Group," which at the time, corresponded to the unnamed
then-NATO and Warsaw Pact. Begec noted that it can't be a
breach since the Treaty did not foresee a change to these
groups.


19. (SBU) Italy (Negro) provided full support for the Turkish
comments, adding that Article Two of the Treaty defined the
State Parties and noting that this was not a moving
article--it doesn't change with the years. Therefore, no
violation could have occurred since there was no provision
regarding future composition of the two groups. The U.S.
(Neighbour) stated that the U.S. fully agreed with the
Turkish and Italian analysis -- they are absolutely correct

USOSCE 00000153 005 OF 005


that there was no violation of the treaty. However, the
solution to Russia's concerns is addressed by A/CFE and the
route forward to that is the Parallel Actions Package.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Violation of the Treaty? Let's talk about what happened a
year ago...
- - - - - - - - - - -


20. (SBU) Not missing an opportunity to remind the JCG of
recent events in Georgia, Georgia (Giorgadze) highlighted
that while Russia had used the term "gross violation" in its
previous comments about NATO expansion, there had in fact
been a violation of the Treaty that occurred only last year
when Russia invaded Georgia.

- - - - - - - - - - -
Why are we arguing about something we agree about?
- - - - - - - - - - -


21. (SBU) Germany (Schweizer) stated he had listened
attentively and was amazed at the discourse. It seemed that
everyone had forgotten why in 1999 there was an attempt to
achieve consensus to sign A/CFE. Political changes caused
the need for changes of CFE. That's why A/CFE came about and
it was determined to have national and territorial ceilings.
This legalistic discussion doesn't help regarding the NATO
expansion and its affects on an outdated treaty. The
important aspects of the CFE regime are the matter at hand
now. Ratification of A/CFE is the means of continuing the
notification, verification and implementation regimes.
Everyone needs to move forward on A/CFE, not look backward.

- - - - - - - - - - -
The final benediction...
- - - - - - - - - - -

22. (SBU) Ulyanov asserted that everyone needed to step up
their efforts to find mutually acceptable agreements. Then,
in his final repartee, and seemingly as a means of
summarizing and justifying his points, Ulyanov, with a
straight face, quoted the Bible, "It is easier to see the
splinter in another's eye than to see the log in your own
eye."
Scott