Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09USOSCE203
2009-09-15 15:33:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Mission USOSCE
Cable title:  

CFE/JCG:15 SEPTEMBER: 12 ALLIES CRITICIZE RUSSIAN

Tags:  KCFE OSCE PARM PREL 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO6137
PP RUEHSK RUEHSL
DE RUEHVEN #0203/01 2581533
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 151533Z SEP 09
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6586
INFO RUCNCFE/CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAE
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5-DDPMA-IN/CAC/DDPMA-E//
RUEAHQA/HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC//XONP//
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USOSCE 000203 

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

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

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/JCG:15 SEPTEMBER: 12 ALLIES CRITICIZE RUSSIAN

REFUSALS (SBU)

REF: STATE 92639

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 USOSCE 000203

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

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

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/JCG:15 SEPTEMBER: 12 ALLIES CRITICIZE RUSSIAN

REFUSALS (SBU)

REF: STATE 92639


1. (SBU) Summary. In the JCG on 15 September, Russia claimed
to welcome elements of the U.S. opening of round statement
last week and said it was open to U.S. overtures to work in
the JCG on matters other than those simply technical in
nature. Bulgaria noted Russia's refusal of an inspection and
twelve Allies expressed support for Bulgaria. Russia then
reminded States Parties that there has been no response to
its previous charges of NATO's gross violation of the Treaty.
The UK, Germany, The Netherlands, Turkey and the U.S.
briefly countered these allegations, including by referring
to previous Allied statements. End Summary.

Russia Lauds U.S. Opening Statement
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

2. (SBU) General Statements. Russia (Ulyanov) responded to
the statement made by the U.S. at the Opening of the Fall
Session, 8 September and noted a number of positive notes in
it. He was heartened to see that his U.S. colleagues
acknowledged the JCG could work to further strengthen the
Treaty and not merely discuss technical issues. Overall
Russia was quite happy with the U.S. position and delighted
to lend a hand. Ulyanov looks forward to further suggestions
on the JCG work. (Comment. Ulyanov apparently was referring
to the line in the U.S. statement (Ref A) which stated only,
"...what we can and must do is sustain the core functions the
JCG is chartered to perform: oversee Treaty implementation;
consider disputes; raise compliance issues; resolve
ambiguities and technical questions; and consider means to
enhance the viability and effectiveness of the Treaty." End
Comment.)


Allies Pile on Russia Over Inspection Refusal
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

3. (SBU) The Bulgarian Chairman (Iliev),in his national
capacity, notified state parties that on 8 September 2009
Bulgaria notified Russia of its intent to conduct a CFE
inspection IAW Section 4, Para 1&2, POI. Russia rejected
this planned inspection citing its statement made on 14 July

2007. Bulgaria reaffirmed its firm commitment to the CFE
Treaty and called upon others to do so as well. Twelve

Allies (the U.S., UK, France, Czech Republic, Romania,
Portugal, The Netherlands, Georgia, Italy, Denmark, Turkey,
Germany and Hungary) intervened in support of Bulgaria.
Turkey, in addition to supporting Bulgaria, also stated that
it hoped the JCG could function with other core activities as
outlined in Article 16 of the Treaty. Russia did not reply.

Hand in your summer assignments now please...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

4. (SBU) Under the topic of limitations, Russia (Ulyanov),
reminded states parties that prior to the summer break he had
raised the issue of "gross violations" of the established
group levels. Russia expects its Treaty partners to give
some explanations and a date as to when this will be
remedied.

It must be Ground Hog Day
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

5. (SBU) Overall reaction to the Russian statement was barely
concealed annoyance as Allies had heard this worn Russian
argument several times during the spring round. The UK
(Gare) referred delegates to its comments made before the
summer break and then reminded Russia that it had asked for
evidence of these violations in writing and is still waiting
for this.


6. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour) stated that the U.S. takes all
allegations of non-compliance with the CFE Treaty seriously
and also referred delegates to the U.S. comments made prior
to the summer break. He noted that the Russian claim is
inconsistent with the structure of the Treaty since there is
no basis under the Treaty or applicable customary
international law to count the holdings of new NATO members
from the Eastern group against Western group limits. The

USOSCE 00000203 002 OF 002


group limits are applied to the cumulative holdings of
specific States Parties that are specified by name in each of
two separate groups. States Parties may only change groups
by an amendment of the Treaty. The U.S. concluded that the
discussion merely showed the importance of moving to A/CFE.
The only way to do that is through the Parallel Actions Plan
through bilateral talks which are held elsewhere.


7. (SBU) Germany (Schweizer) elaborated that the so-called
criticism for these gross violations is based on basic
provisions for group states in the Treaty, but that this
concept has lost significance. Germany does not share the
Russian interpretation of the CFE Treaty and has not violated
the Treaty in any way. The only possible solution is to do
everything possible to get A/CFE ratified and implemented so
that group ceilings don't apply.


8. (SBU) The Netherlands (Kleinjan) pointed out there was a
dichotomy in thinking. The philosophical view with Germany
looking forward and the legalistic, Russian view that wants
to adhere to what is still in force. Nonetheless, there are
certain stipulations in the Treaty regarding changing groups
and this has not been done, therefore the Russian views do
not hold ground.


9. (SBU) In a separate intervention, Germany (Schweizer)
pointed out that the Russians keep referring to Article 2 in
the Treaty which refers to "the group of States
Parties...that signed or acceded to the Treaty of Brussels or
the Treaty of Washington". Both are past tense referring to
a completed action and those states that were already members
of those Treaties. The Treaty does not use the future tense
implying all subsequent members were then part of that group
of States Parties. Schweizer then pointed out that Russia
was merely taking the 1990 group limits and adding numbers of
states who were part of the Warsaw Pact. Before the summer
break Germany asked Russia to explain why the maximum level
of holdings should be unchanged and applied to the Western
Group of States Parties. Real holdings are much lower than
stipulated numbers. He asked Russia to acknowledge that the
29 countries who exchanged information on their current
holdings that all NATO states are far below in real holdings
and the group holdings of 1990. Summing up the group
holdings is not helpful. We must move forward with a/CFE.
Russia (Ulyanov) conceded that many countries are below their
required levels, however in the flank regions, there are
objective, realistic violations in the number of battle
tanks, fighting units, and armoured combat vehicles. When
confronted with this violation in numbers, Russia's refusal
to allow inspections is a" lesser sin".


10. (SBU) Turkey (Begec) was heartened to see that Russia and
Turkey agree about the core functions of the JCG, but he was
disappointed about the integrity and credibility of this
forum. The current CFE Treaty is not in touch with the
political realities of the day, but that is not due to NATO
expansion. The U.S. (Neighbour) intervened that as Germany
pointed out and Russia acknowledged, holdings are way down
and he can't imagine where the U.S. is in violation of TLE
holdings in Europe. As Russia noted, a number of countries
exercised their sovereign right and decided to become members
of NATO. However the CFE Treaty and the Washington Treaty of
1949 are wholly separate. There is no mechanism that ties
the CFE group structure to Alliance membership or that
requires changes to the CFE group structure based on changes
in Alliance membership. Let's move forward to A/CFE.


11. The next JCG is scheduled for Tuesday, 29 September
2009, chaired by Bulgaria.


FULLER