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

S E C R E T CD GENEVA 000023 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) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING GROUP MEETING, DECEMBER 14, 2009 REF: GENEVA XXXX (SFO-GVA-VII-142) CLASSIFIED BY: Rose A. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B),(D) ¶1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-145. ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: December 14, 2009 Time: 3:30 P.M. - 5:45 P.M. Place: Russian Mission, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group (WG) chairs, Mr. Trout and General Orlov, met at the Russian Mission on December 14, 2009. Orlov conveyed Russian agreement to include space launch facilities in the Database. The exchange of site diagrams was discussed at length, with Orlov finally agreeing that the sides should exchange site diagrams 45 days after signature. Trout and Orlov also discussed and clarified positions regarding heavy bombers. End summary. ¶4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Data Exchange Again; Space Launch Success; General Provisions and Site Diagrams; Heavy Bomber Issues; and Closing Comments. -------------- DATA EXCHANGE AGAIN -------------- ¶5. (S) Trout asked whether the Russian side had a coordinated position on the information to be exchanged at signature, referencing the discussion from the previous night (Reftel) about Russia wanting to include facilities as part of the information to be exchanged. Orlov explained that the new Russian position was that the names of facilities and existing types should be listed but no numerical data provided. Trout agreed to the new position. -------------- SPACE LAUNCH SUCCESS -------------- ¶6. (S) Orlov announced that the Russian side had agreed to the category of "space launch facilities" and would now include such facilities in the database. He noted, however, that the Russian side believed the categories listed in Section IV should be "non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs" and "non-deployed launchers of ICBMs and SLBMs," vice the U.S. construct of "ICBMs and SLBMs at space launch facilities" and "launchers that have contained or launched ICBMs or SLBMs." Trout replied that he would consider the new language. -------------- GENERAL PROVISIONS AND SITE DIAGRAMS -------------- ¶7. (S) Turning to the revised Section I, General Provisions, Orlov asked about the new language regarding site diagrams. Trout explained that the United States had moved considerably toward the Russian side, agreeing to use START site diagrams until changed, if desired, after entry-into-force (EIF). Orlov questioned the clause that stated the site diagrams had to be agreed in the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC) for them to become effective. After some back and forth about how long the process would take and how often the BCC would meet, LT Lobner commented that if the Russian side were to agree with the original U.S. position to exchange site diagrams 45 days after signature, the new site diagrams would not have to go to the BCC to be agreed upon and would be available for use by inspectors after EIF when inspections began. Later in the meeting, Orlov stated that he agreed with the U.S. position to provide site diagrams 45 days after signature. He also stated the Russian side would look at the revised section and incorporate this new change in position. -------------- HEAVY BOMBER ISSUES -------------- ¶8. (S) Orlov and Trout moved on to Section V, regarding heavy bombers, analyzing the language that referred to "nuclear armaments" or "nuclear warheads" for deployed heavy bombers. After much back and forth and discussion of linguistics, the Russian position was clarified to be "nuclear warheads attributed to deployed heavy bombers." Trout stated that the U.S. position was "nuclear armaments for deployed heavy bombers," but that he would relay this information to his head of delegation. ¶9. (S) Poznikhir engaged Trout in a conversation about the logic of deployed and non-deployed heavy bombers, stating that it seemed natural to have two categories. He postulated that if one listed deployed items, one should also list non-deployed items. Orlov asked Trout under what category test bombers would fall, deployed or non-deployed. Trout replied that they were neither deployed nor non-deployed, they were simply test heavy bombers. Orlov and Poznikhir asked whether there were any changes to the U.S. position on heavy bombers, to which Trout replied that there were none. -------------- CLOSING COMMENTS -------------- ¶10. (S) Trout suggested that the group meet again the next morning to continue working through the document. Orlov agreed to meet the next morning and possibly in the afternoon, if necessary. ¶11. (U) Documents provided: None. ¶12. (U) Participants: UNITED STATES Mr. Trout LT Lobner (RO) Mr. French (Int) RUSSIA Gen Orlov Mr. Ivanov Col Pischulov Gen Poznihir Mr. Voloskov Ms. Evarovskaya (Int) ¶13. (U) Gottemoeller sends. LARSON