FSC NOVEMBER 18: MUCH REMAINS IN PLAY BEFORE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USOSCE 000260 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, EUR/CARC, SCA/CEN, SCA/RA, PM/WRA, ISN/CPI NSC FOR SHERWOOD-RANDALL, HAYDEN, MCFAUL, HOVENIER, NILSSON, FRIEDT OSD FOR ISA (WALLENDER, KEHL) JCS, EUCOM, USAREUR AND CENTCOM: FOR J-5 E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL RS XG SUBJECT: FSC NOVEMBER 18: MUCH REMAINS IN PLAY BEFORE MINISTERIAL, ANIMATED EXCHANGES ¶1. (SBU) Summary: With barely a week to go before the OSCE Ministerial, many FSC issues under consideration for the OSCE Athens Ministerial Council December 1-2 remain open. Inter alia, there were animated exchanges in the FSC's Working Group B on the draft "Issues Relevant to the FSC" and the draft Vienna Document 1999 Review Decision. Russia called the revised Issues draft "gobbledygook," clearly angry that its suggestions were lost fQlowing the informal FSC discussion held on November 13Q The discussion on VD99 continued to underscore the lack of consensus on Russian and Belarusian arguments for a separate Ministerial decision, in spite of Russia's attempt to placate some participating States (pS) with the addition of the term "assessment." Several pS joined the U.S. in opposition to a separate Ministerial decision, although many indicated their support for some kind of an "assessment" or review of VD99. Meanwhile in Working Group A, no draft decision was foQarded to plenary. The Chair (UK) scheduled the two Working Groups to meet prior to the next FSC plenary on November 25. End Summary. FSC Plenary: SALW/SCA Draft Decision forwarded to Ministers ¶2. (SBU) Russia began the meeting by reading a statement by CSTO member States (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and the Russian Federation) that accused the OSCE of insufficient attention to "hard security"; supported the proposal for a legally-binding European Security Treaty; called for a meeting of the heads of CSTO, NATO, the EU, the CIS, and OSCE in 2010; a review/inventory of the "OSCE politico-military tools"; and a review of VD99 "in the interest of bringing it into line with the changed realities and requirements of the day." (COMMENT: There were no comments following the Russian statement, which seemed to catch everyone ) including a few CSTO members ) off guard. The Kazak delegate told USDel he did not know the statement was coming, and Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan were absent from the entire FSC meeting. END COMMENT.) ¶3. (SBU) The plenary ended on a positive note with agreement to forward for adoption by the Ministerial Council (MC) the FSC decision on Small Arms and light weapons and stockpiles of conventional armaments (MC.DD/4/09/Rev2). Working Group B: Ministerial Decisions in Search of Consensus ¶4. (SBU) The UK FSC/WGB Chair (Gare) introduced Rev. 3 of the Draft MC Decision on Issues relevant to the FSC (MC.DD/8/09/Rev.3),following her attempts to consolidate comments made at an informal discussion on November 13. Gare noted that informal consultations continued on how to characterize reference to discussions of the Georgia-Russia conflict. After Greece referred to the Issues paper in the context of language built into the Corfu Process and the U.S. made generally supportive comments on the cleaner and more workable text, Russia (Ulyanov) ranted that the new language failed to properly reflect the results of last week's discussion, and accused the revision of asking Ministers to task the FSC to do "gobbledygook." Though Ulyanov did not give any details to what particularly was absent, he did criticize Rev.3 as "farther removed than the original Chair's Draft!" He said Russia expected the Issues paper to be "Helsinki-plus, but what we have is Helsinki-minus." There were no other comments following Switzerland and the U.S. request for repairing language in the first tick of operational paragraph 2 on the tasks for the Security Dialogue. ¶5. (SBU) Ukraine introduced its revised draft Ministerial Declaration on Non-Proliferation (FSC.DEL/199/09/Rev.1), requesting the document to be accepted as an FSC Decision document for forwarding to the MC. Greece and the U.S. USOSCE 00000260 002 OF 003 (Ellis) made generally supportive remarks over the positive direction of the draft declaration but noted it was not yet ready to move forward as a draft decision. A few other delegations also noted they were uninstructed on the document, but no one was critical or had suggestions to amend the language. It remains on the agenda for WGB next week. ¶6. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) and Belarus (Krayushkin) made strong statements in support of their joint draft MC decision for review and/or "assessment" of Vienna Document 1999 (VD99),taking note that "most" pS recognize the need to update the document. They additionally argued for a separate decision because VD99 is a core document that needs clear, unambiguous guidelines. Russia argued their draft decision is plain and simple. Russia also claimed that previous attempts to incorporate U.S. suggestions were unsuccessful or diluted references to VD99. Ulyanov stated with this draft decision the OSCE has an opportunity to prove that the European Security Dialogue was "alive and kicking," and still capable of making a contribution. Exchange on Russian Proposals for VD99 ¶7. (SBU) The U.S. (Ellis) expressed appreciation for the Russia-Belarus proposal because it was important to have an exchange of views on the topic of VD99. The U.S. pointed out that there were already ongoing procedures in place for strengthening and improving arms control and CSBMs, of which VD99 is one part of a larger architecture. The U.S. argued that the Russian proposal would lead us down a road where we would not accomplish what we think and risked reaching the lowest common denominator that would weaken the European security architecture. ¶8. (SBU) Georgia, The Netherlands, Canada, Romania, and Latvia supported the U.S. position in opposition to a separate Ministerial Decision on VD99. Ukraine and Armenia supported the Russian position. Greece advocated a "Corfu Group" of experts for hammering out ideas that would make the FSC relevant. Austria argued that there was a difference between an assessment and a review of VD99 and suggested a "phased approach"; first assessment, then review (Russia disagreed!). Austria also questioned why VD99 was more urgent for updating than the older Code of Conduct, which had not been updated since the mid-1990s. France repeated its interest in the Russian proposal and appealed for pragmatism in that the Ministerial Decision was not garnering a consensus; therefore some other way to address improving VD99 was needed. Italy made a general comment of support to strengthen VD99. Luxembourg remarked that there was a general opinion that VD99 needed updating but there was no consensus on how to do it, adding that without a specific tasking to report to the next MC, nothing will be accomplished. The U.S. responded that when there are problems moving forward it is usually because the modalities are not well-defined, which is the issue with the Russian proposal: "the devil's in the details." The Chair noted there was no consensus and kept the draft decision on the WGB agenda for the following week. ¶9. (SBU) There was general agreement with the FSC input for the Athens Ministerial Council Declaration (MC.GAL/5/09/Rev.1). The U.S. earlier had passed a few suggestions to the UK Chair for consideration in the draft. Russia noted in WGB that it was a "good text" but overstated the FSC's achievements. Ulyanov offered some clarifying language for the next revision. WGB will discuss one more time prior to the next FSC plenary. Working Group "A" ) no decisions yet ¶10. (SBU) The Chair noted that none of the WGA draft decisions are critical for agreement before Athens. Slovakia USOSCE 00000260 003 OF 003 suggested a fix to refer to "other FSC agreed measures/documents (replacing Russia's inserted phrase "relevant OSCE instruments") in the Draft Decision on the Agenda and Modalities of the 20th AIAM (FSC.DD/9/09/Rev.1). The Chair will circulate a Rev.2 for consideration at the next meeting. Turkey noted that consultations continued on their proposal for the use of digital cameras for VD99 application (FSC.DEL/124/09/Rev.1). The U.S. requested Turkey to consider pulling the proposal off the agenda until the first quarter of 2010 when it may receive more attention considering the pre-Ministerial schedule and the upcoming recess. Turkey replied it needed instructions from its capital to do this. Since Turkey is awaiting its instructions and the agenda is full with preparations for the Ministerial in Athens, the Chair decided the Turkish proposal would NOT be on the agenda for next week, but would return after that. ¶11. (SBU) Ukraine noted it has received a few comments regarding deployment of military units during peace operations on its Food-for-Thought on Interpretation of some Provisions of the VD99, Chapter I, Annual Exchange of Military Information (FSC.DEL/196/09). Ukraine requested additional comments from delegations and noted that if there were no objections it will move to transform the FFT into a draft decision at the December 9 WGA. Russia said the Ukraine paper should be dealt with as part of the overall update of VD99. ¶12. (SBU) There were no comments regarding the Draft Decision on an Update of FSC Decision 15/02 on SALW Expert Advice (FSC.DD/12/09). It remains on the agenda, but will be forwarded to the next FSC plenary on November 25. FULLER