EURO SECURITY ARCHITECTURE: ALLIES AT OSCE STAND

C O N F I D E N T I A L USOSCE 000035

SIPDIS

STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM
NSC FOR HAYES
JCS FOR J5 NORWOOD
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI)

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/12/2013
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL
SUBJECT: EURO SECURITY ARCHITECTURE: ALLIES AT OSCE STAND
UNITED IN MEETING WITH RUSSIA

Classified By: Chief Arms Control Delegate Hugh Neighbour,
for reasons 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (C/REL NATO) Summary. The NATO Caucus of the OSCCE on
February 10 agreed that Allies attending Russian Chief of
Arms Control Mikhail Ulyanov's meeting would attend in
listening mode only, maintain a united front, and report back
to all Allies. Allies also agreed to consolidate questions
reflecting their shared position in advance of Russian DFM
Grushko's presentation at the February 18 joint FSC-PC on a
new European security architecture.


2. (SB) At the February 12 informal meeting, Ulyanov
stressed his desire for an open, inclusive dialogue on the
structure and content of the arms control portion of a
hypothetical new European security arrangement. Ulyanov
proposed five principles/criteria for any new arms control
arrangement--balance/reciprocity, military significance, cost
effectiveness long-term impact, verifiability and
adaptability. Allies were in marked unity. In responding
that they were in a listening mode, Allies also emphasized
that any discussion on a new arrangement should take a
comprehensive approach to security, include all participating
States and build on the existing security acquis, including
the CFE Treaty. They also made clear that the meeting was a
one-time event. End summary.

- - - - - - - -
NATO Caucus Agrees to Talk with Ulyanov
- - - - - - - -


3. (C/REL NATO) The NATO Caucus met on February 11 to
coordinate NATO approaches to Russian Chief of Arms Control
Ulyanov's informal meeting on European Security, scheduled
for February 12, and Russian DFM Grushko's presentation on
European Security Architecture at the February 18 OSCE joint
FSC-PC meeting. Providing a lead-in to discussion among
Allies on Ulyanov's meeting, the UK reported that Russian DFM
Antonov had misrepresented to some Allies the UK positionfrom
bilat recent talks in Moscow, claiming that the UK raised the
concept of a "ginger group," which included some Allies and
excluded others. The UK saw this as another clear attempt by
Russia to play Allies off against each other, reasured Allies
that the UK made no such proposal, and cautioned Allies to
keep this in mind when discussing Ulyanov's meeting.


4. (C/REL NATO) The roll call of Allies Ulyanov invited to
his meeting included Germany, the UK, the U.S., France,
Turkey, Spain, Canada, Greece, and the Czech Republic.
Germany favored dialogue, while most invitees cautioned that
Allies should remain in the listening mode. The Netherlands,
Italy, Romania, Slovakia, and Luxembourg expressed concern
that Ulyanov was attempting to dictate the pace and scope of
discussions, while Slovenia, Latvia, Bulgaria and Belgium
requested that attendees report back on the results. The
U.S. Charge (Scott) noted U.S. willingness to attend the
meeting in order to support dialogue, but added that the U.S.
could gladly defer if there was a consensus that Allies
should not attend. Concern over implicitly relinquishing
control over future discussion to Russia was balanced against
the need to demonstrate a willingness to engage. Allies
finally agreed that invitees could attend Ulyanov's informal
meeting, provided they remain in a listening mode, clearly
indicate to Ulyanov that his informal sub-group approach is a
one-off event that is not acceptable for future discussions,
and that attendees back-brief all Allies on the results of
the meeting at the next caucus.

- - - - - - - -
Grushko--Allies to Consolidate Questions on Euro Security
- - - - - - - -


5. (SBU) The remainder of the caucus focused on coordinating
an Allied response to the February 18 presentation on
European Security Architecture by Russian DFM Grushko.
Greece, as the CiO, outlined its response, which it said
would draw from the NAC communique last fall and the Helsinki
Ministerial. The Czech Republic outlined a preliminary EU

position consisting of five main points that closely mirrored
the CiO position. The U.S. noted that both approaches
closely mirrored its response: existing institutions working
well, the need for better implementation, Vienna/OSCE is the
forum, comprehensive approach to security essential-- with
one essential exception of the need for a strong
transatlantic link. (Note. Greece later suggested it might
add that to their remarks as CiO. End note.) France, Turkey,
the UK and the Czech Republic reported similar lines of
reasoning, with the latter noting that Prague had forwarded
three pages of questions for use at the joint meeting. Scott
proposed that Allies coordinate their questions so as to
efficiently use the limited time for Q and A. Turkey, which
will chair the next JCG-T and NATO Mini-Caucus, agreed to
collate Allied questions, which it will distribute for
deconfliction at the Mini-Caucus on February 16.

- - - - - - - -
Ulyanov Searching for Ideas on New Arms Control Treaty
- - - - - - - -


6. (SBU) During Russia's meeting on European security, Ulynov
initiated discussion by acknowledging that the process should
be inclusive and that the invitee list for the first meeting
was driven by practical limitations of space. He asked
participants to inform all colleagues that they are invited
to participate, and said that for the next meeting he will
reserve one of the larger halls.


7. (SBU) Ulyanov stressed that he had not received
instructions from Moscow and that he wanted an open-ended
informal dialogue with no strings attached. He wanted
partners' questions and comments to help frame Russia's
vision. His purpose was to discuss a hypothetical arms
control component to a hypothetical broader security treaty.
He said Russia does not envision a European treaty
substituting for existing treaties and agreements, although
he claimed that these were no longer working. He referenced
a set of principles that ought to shape and discussion of a
new arms control arrangement--balance/reciprocity, military
significance, cost effectiveness long-term impact,
verifiability and adaptability.

- - - - - - - -
Ulyanov: "Existing Security Acquis Not Working."
- - - - - - - -


8. (SBU) Ulyanov said he was looking at ways to link existing
security structures, to cover areas where those structures do
not overlap, and to explore measures that can assist current
international institutions to interact and coordinate more
effectively. While Ulyanov agreed that it might be useful to
reaffirm the existing arms control acquis, uncertainty over
the future of CFE suggested a more general endorsement would
be appropriate. If the U.S. and Allies begin serious
negotiations on the parallel action package, this could
influence the scope of the endorsement. "The ball is in your
court," he said.

- - - - - - - -
Allies Remain United and Cautious
- - - - - - - -


9. (SBU) Allies spoke with marked unity in response to
Ulyanov's invitation. With the possible exception of Spain,
almost all stressed the importance of the timing of any
discussion of a new European security arrangement; the need
to include all 56 participating States in a transparent
discussion; the need to consider all aspects or dimensions of
security, including the human and economic/environmental as
well as the political-military; and the need to build on the
existing security acquis in the Euro-Atlantic area, including
the CFE and Open Skies Treaties, the Vienna Document, and
other OSCE documents. While a few delegations actually asked
open-ended questions, e.g., Greece wanted to know how the
basic principles of arms control Ulyanov posed would relate
to the existing arms control acquis and Turkey asked if the
principles would extend to disarmament, most made statements

in response to Ulyanov's plea for engagement and dialogue on
a "hypothetical new European security treaty.


10. (SBU) Ulyanov acknowledged that some dels may be
uncomfortable with the idea of discussing concrete arms
control issues in Vienna when their capitals have yet to
decide whether they want to support the broader Medvedev
proposal. He defended the idea of working on concrete arms
control by using the chicken and egg analogy; i.e., dialogue
on AC could help frame the larger picture and may contribute
to a more favorable political climate. As to scope, Ulyanov
acknowledged the desire of many delegations to base any new
security arrangement on multi-dimensional security, but
questioned whether such a comprehensive approach was
practical for one document.

- - - - - - - -
Caution Against Similar Meetings in the Future
- - - - - - - -


11. (SBU) The U.S. and Germany recommended against holding
similar meetings in the near future. There were simply too
many unknowns. Delegations, as well as their capitals,
needed to better understand what Russia was proposing. The
U.S. added that it did not fully understand the Russian
proposal but would listen carefully to Ulyanov's ideas and
those of DFM Grushko when he addressed the OSCE on February

18. The UK, the U.S., Germany and Turkey emphasized the need
to avoid a separate discussion of arms control: any new
security arrangement would have to include the human and
economic dimensions and reflect already agreed fundamentals
as reflected in the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of
Paris.


12. (SBU) Canada obtained confirmation from Ulyanov that any
new arrangement would include the entire Euro-Atlantic area,
including the U.S. and Canada. Finland and the Czech
Republic repeated calls for inclusiveness at 56 in the
discussion. Switzerland noted that any discussion could not
begin with a blank page but had to reflect the existing
acquis and current conditions.


13. (SBU) Spain agreed that dialogue was inherently valuable,
but then offered that it was prepared to find a way to
"operationalize" ideas in an "attempt to go farther."
Ulyanov did not directly respond to this offer.


14. (SBU) Belarus, not surprisingly, endorsed the "Medvedev
proposals" and agreed with Ulyanov that the initial focus of
political-military experts in Vienna should be, because of
their expertise, on the political-military dimension. It was
also the
most crucial issue.


15. (SBU) Ulyanov said emphasized that event the current
dialogue has been useful, that he had a lot to mull over and
report to Moscow, and that he would take all comments and
questions into consideration and come up with a more
comprehensive text.


16. (SBU) After the meeting, the U.S. quietly reiterated to
Ulyanov that should not convene another meeting. It was far
too early to even think of convening arms control experts to
work on a portion of a larger, undefined instrument.

SCOTT