START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VII): (U)

S E C R E T CD GENEVA 000021 SIPDIS DEPT FOR T, VCI AND EUR/PRA DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24 CIA FOR WINPAC JSCS FOR J5/DDGSA SECDEF FOR OSD(P)/STRATCAP NAVY FOR CNO-N5JA AND DIRSSP AIRFORCE FOR HQ USAF/ASX AND ASXP DTRA FOR OP-OS OP-OSA AND DIRECTOR NSC FOR LOOK DIA FOR LEA E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/08 TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA (SFO-GVA-VII): (U) INSPECTION PROTOCOL WORKING GROUP MEETING, DECEMBER 15, 2009 CLASSIFIED BY: Rose A. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B),(D) ¶1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-144. ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: December 15, 2009 Time: 10:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M. Place: Russian Mission, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) The Inspection Protocol Working Group (IPWG),co-chaired by Secretary of Defense Representative Dr. Warner and Russian Ministry of Defense Representative Col Ilin, met on December 15, 2009. The sides reached agreement on sequential inspections and payment of security and parking fees during inspections. The sides also reviewed remaining major issues and began discussion of the Parts to the Annex. ¶5. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Agreement on Sequential Inspections and Payment for Security and Parking; Remaining Issues; and Annexes. End Summary. -------------- AGREEMENT ON SEQUENTIAL INSPECTIONS AND PAYMENT FOR SECURITY AND PARKING -------------- ¶6. (S) The sides agreed to include provisions for sequential inspections in Sections IV and V and clarified that individual facilities could not be selected for inspections more than once by an inspection team. ¶7. (S) The U.S. side agreed to the Russian proposal that the inspecting Party would pay for the costs of parking and security for inspection aircraft contained in Section III. ¶8. (S) The Parties discussed Section VIII on exhibitions but without result. -------------- REMAINING ISSUES -------------- ¶9. (S) Ilin listed the remaining issues: dealing with heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear armaments and definitions of deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers; terms for restricted or basing areas; the overall number of annual inspections permitted; inspections at submarine bases, joint basing of nuclear and non-nuclear heavy bombers; geographic notifications for heavy bomber movements outside of national territory; numbers of launchers subject to inspection under Type 1 inspections; inspections of restricted/basing areas; numbers of exhibitions for eliminations; covers for reentry vehicles; and inspection of nuclear armaments on heavy bombers. ¶10. (S) During this discussion, Warner made clear that the United States would not provide more than a general location for heavy bombers outside of national territory. Separately, Ilin provided the rationale for Russian resistance to inspections of restricted/basing areas during Type 1 inspections by explaining that Russia's logic was that there should be "parity in verification" and that neither deployed silo ICBMs nor deployed SLBMs in submarines were inspected. He commented that "each side has to live with what the counterpart gives them." -------------- ANNEXES -------------- ¶11. (S) Warner urged discussion of the Parts to the Annex, but Ilin resisted, stating that Russian Head of Delegation Ambassador Antonov had told him that the Parts were "not a priority." Warner responded that the Parties would have to work through the Parts sooner or later and that the United States simply could not submit a treaty for ratification without this work having been completed. ¶12. (S) After a long sidebar conversation between Warner and Ilin, the Parties began work on Part 7 (procedures for Type 2 inspections). Ilin raised several concerns with the draft provisions, emphasizing the Russian side's desire to discourage gratuitous and unnecessary inspections. Ilin urged that the inspections focus solely on counting the number of items declared as opposed to searching for undeclared items, asking, rhetorically, "Why should we go around looking for stuff?" ¶13. (S) Warner offered to rework the Part in order to ensure that inspections conducted were "reasonable," and agreed that verification provisions, such as reference cylinders, could be tailored to individual installations. ¶14. (S) The meeting concluded with Warner noting that the principal outstanding issues within the purview of the IPWG were: the number of inspections permitted annually, whether elimination exhibitions would be deducted from the main inspections quota, and the Russian reversal, rejecting the emplacement of unique identifiers on all systems. ¶15. (U) Participants: UNITED STATES Dr. Warner Mr. Buttrick Mr. Colby (RO) LTC Leyde Ms. Pura Mr. Rust Ms. Stewart Ms. Gesse (Int) RUSSIA Col Ilin Mr. Izrazov Col Petrov Col Zaitsev Ms. Voldopolova Mr. Pogodin ¶16. (U) Gottemoeller sends. LARSON