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