SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) CONFORMING GROUP MEETINGS IN MOSCOW,

S E C R E T GENEVA 000101

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: 2020/02/18
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) CONFORMING GROUP MEETINGS IN MOSCOW,
JANUARY 18-22, 2010 -- CORRECTED COPY

CLASSIFIED BY: Rose A. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-001.




2. (U) Meeting Dates: January 18-22, 2010

Place: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Moscow



--------------

SUMMARY

--------------




3. (S) The U.S. and Russian members of the New START Treaty
Conforming Group met in Moscow January 18-22, 2010. The meetings
were held at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and were conducted in
a very collegial and positive atmosphere. The Conforming Group
conducted a complete review of the Treaty articles and the first
four sections of Part Five of the Protocol (Inspection Activities).
In both cases, the Group identified some inconsistencies in the two
texts and corrected some technical and linguistic differences. All
changes by the Conforming Group were submitted ad-ref to the
respective heads of delegation (HOD). The U.S. side was led by
Neil Couch, VCI/SI, and included Marshall Brown, L/NPV, Brandy
Buttrick, OSD, and Lt Col Rich Goodman, JS. The Russian side was
led by Dmitry Lobach and included active participation by Col
Vladimir Kamensky, Adm (ret) Valentin Kuznetsov, and Mr Mikhail
Smirnov.



--------------

January 18 Meeting

--------------




4. (S) Russian HOD Antonov, along with Koshelev and Yermakov,
attended the Conforming Group meeting at the beginning and stayed
only long enough for Antonov to open the meeting by saying that he
considered this to be the re-start of the negotiations, after both
sides had a chance to do work during the break, and that this work
would facilitate the process. He expressed his hope that the U.S.
side would return to Geneva with more flexible positions and would
be able to meet Russian concerns, and he asked that his message be
conveyed to Washington. Antonov noted that the Russian side had
conducted an analysis of the documents negotiated in Geneva and
that there were still many "technical brackets" that, if not
removed at this point, could become political obstacles to
finalizing the texts for signature, and he noted that the
Conforming Group's work could help make the text "more attractive"
by removing some of those brackets, reminding the Group not to add
any new ones. He recognized, too, that there were certain matters
of principle that would assist in solving all remaining issues.



5. (S) Lobach, after introducing his delegation (besides the
lawyers - but not Inna Kotkova - and translators/interpreters and
Antonov's subordinates, there were two MOD representatives, as well
as Smirnov and Kuznetsov),asked for U.S. thoughts about how the
work would be structured for the rest of the week. Couch explained
that the U.S. side was prepared to work as much as possible and
asked how many meetings the Russian side was prepared to support.
Lobach said that this decision would have to wait until the end of
the day because there might be a need to consult within the Russian
delegation, but that today's meeting - which began at 1100 - would
have to close at 1300, and he proposed that the Conforming Group
start with the Treaty and then proceed through the parts of the
protocol in order. Couch responded that the U.S. side had
understood that the Conforming Group would start with Part Five
(Inspection Activities),and that this had been agreed between A/S
Gottemoeller and Antonov. Lobach said that he did not know about
that agreement and further that his side was not prepared to do
that at today's meeting, since the MOD representative from the
Inspection Working Group was not in attendance. The Conforming
Group then began its review of the Treaty, starting with the
preamble.




6. (S) In the preamble, the U.S. side agreed to a Russian proposal
to repeat the date of NPT signature the second time that treaty was
referenced and the Russians agreed to add the word "START" before
"Treaty" where it was clear that it was the START Treaty being
referred to. There were no proposed conforming changes in either
Article I or Article II.




7. (S) Lobach and Brown discussed the use of the phrase, "subject
to the limitations of the Treaty," as used in subparagraph 6(c) of
Article III, and noted that the sides apparently had the same
position on the end result - that the heavy bombers would no longer
be subject to qualitative or quantitative limitations - but that
this particular phrase is not always used to make that distinction.
The two sides agreed to keep this understanding in mind as they
continued through the text and to return to it a bit later. In
paragraph 5 of Article III, the U.S. side proposed, and Smirnov and
Kuznetsov agreed, that the word "deployed" before the words "heavy
bomber" could be deleted, based on what had been agreed in the
Conversion or Elimination Working Group as well as what had been
agreed in the Definitions Working Group and in discussions on the
three categories of heavy bombers.




8. (S) Based on a clearer understanding of the defined term
"training launchers," the sides agreed to delete the words "of
ICBMs or SLBMs" after the term "training launchers" in paragraph
7/6 of Article IV.




9. (S) Lobach asked why the U.S. could not agree to the
Russian-proposed paragraph 9 of Article IV that prohibits joint
basing of heavy bombers, noting that there was agreement on
permitting joint basing contained in the agreed statements. Brown
noted that the expression "unless the Parties agree otherwise,"
usually signifies that there would be a separate decision reached
in the BCC or in an equivalent forum, typically after entry into


force, and in this case, the Russian proposal would appear to link
the parties' agreement to do "otherwise" to the Agreed Statement,
which seemed a bit odd. After a long monologue by Kuznetsov
extolling the virtues of the Russian formulation, as well as the
explanation of the importance of its retention in the Treaty
article, the U.S. side agreed to come back to this later but that
it would have to be sent to those more directly involved in the
substance of this matter.




10. (S) Lobach, in preparation for the upcoming meeting on Part
Five, noted that most of the sections in that Part had already gone
through Conforming Group meetings and he proposed further that
there were too many brackets in two of the sections, so those did
not need to go through the conforming process yet. Couch countered
that it was important to make sure that the brackets and other
purely technical issues were identified and resolved before the
negotiations resumed in Geneva, in order to avoid unnecessary
confusion and delay, so he pressed for a full review of the text.
Couch also noted that the U.S. side intended to have a new JDT
ready for the opening of the next round in Geneva, and asked
whether this was the Russian intention as well. Lobach responded
that he was not clear about this and would have to discuss it with
Antonov, but he would get back to Couch at their meeting on the
following day. Lobach asked Couch for suggestions on the work
schedule for the week. Couch responded that the U.S. delegation
was prepared to begin just after breakfast and could work as long
as necessary each day. Lobach responded that such a schedule would
be difficult for him (and y he presumably included in his response
the rest of the Russian members of this Conforming Group) because
they could not dedicate that much time to conforming meetings since
they still had other duties (unclear whether SFO-related or not).
The sides agreed to start the meeting on January 19 at 1000, but it
would last only until 1300 - Lobach indicated to Brown that he had
another engagement in the afternoon - and the review of Part Five
would begin on January 20.




11. (S) Following the meeting, Smirnov indicated that he was going
to be leaving for Geneva on January 31. Lobach said that he was
not certain about what he would be doing the following week
(beginning January 25) nor was he certain about the resumption date
in Geneva.




12. (S) Comment: Lobach and Kuznetsov were the primary
interlocutors on the Russian side and both were in a positive,
workmanlike mood.



--------------

January 19 Meeting

--------------




13. (S) Lobach opened the meeting by thanking the U.S. side for
the good discussion on the previous day and the productive work


done. He introduced a third representative from the MOD - Col
Kamensky - and noted the different interpreter (Gayduk). In
response to Couch's question as to whether he had a chance to
discuss with Antonov the proposal to exchange revised JDTs by the
opening of the next session, Lobach admitted that he had been
unable to get in touch with Antonov but would try to do so later in
the day and would report Antonov's answer. He acknowledged that
he supported the idea of developing new JDTs by the opening of the
next session.




14. (S) Lobach asked whether the U.S. side had any commentary on
paragraph 2 of Article V, noting that there were still elements in
brackets. Couch responded that he had talked with A/S Gottemoeller
about Article V and noted that she was intending to continue to
work on this article with Antonov, and that the focus of the
Conforming Group should be primarily to ensure that the brackets
were correctly placed. He stated that in paragraph 3, however,
there needed to be a tracking change to refer to subparagraph (c)
vice subparagraph (a) of Article XIV/XII; Lobach agreed to make
this change.




15. (S) Lobach asserted that there had been full agreement on
paragraph 4 of Article V and noted that the Russian delegation had
been surprised to receive the English language text that showed
this paragraph as Russia-only proposed text. He noted that there
should not be any brackets in this paragraph except for some
"details." Couch cautioned about making changes to this text.
Lobach responded that, in the Russian-language text, the words "of
this Treaty" followed the word "signature," in Russian brackets,
adding that this addition was logical because the reference to just
"signature" would not be descriptive enough. Couch noted that this
entire paragraph was in Russian brackets, and the phrase, "of this
Treaty," was already present. Lobach argued that the final
sentence was based on a U.S. proposal, and, as such, it should be
in U.S. brackets if the first two sentences of the paragraph were
to be considered Russian-bracketed text. Thus, there would be
additional brackets in paragraph 4, to reflect the different
positions of the sides. Couch demurred, saying that he did not
believe that it was necessary to introduce additional brackets at
this point, and he asked that he be given an opportunity to first
check with Gottemoeller before any changes were made in this
paragraph, and that he would do that this evening. Lobach
eventually agreed to this outcome, although he appeared to want to
conclude discussion of this matter at this meeting.




16. (S) Lobach then noted that there was inconsistent use of the
conjunctions "and" and "or" between the two Russian and English
texts in the first sentence of paragraph 4 of Article V, as a
matter of translation, and asked whether these could be resolved at
the Conforming Group level. Brown referred to paragraph 5 of
Article V of the START Treaty, which had similar constructions
using the expression "undertakes not to" in reference to two
different obligations, and proposed that the English and Russian
texts use that convention ("... undertake not to convert and not to
use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers"),stressing that this was
just a conforming change and that ultimately it was up to
Gottemoeller to decide the status of this entire paragraph. A
similar change was made in the second sentence of this paragraph.



17. (S) The sides agreed not to make any conforming changes to
Article VI at this time - it was totally in U.S. brackets. In
Article VII/VI, Couch proposed tracking fixes to referenced
articles in subparagraphs 3(a) and 3(b). The two sides also had an
extensive - but inconclusive - discussion on the respective
brackets in subparagraph 3(b): "inspection" vs. "inspection
activities," with the sides eventually agreeing that this was bound
up in the treatment of conversion or elimination
exhibitions/inspections, and whether such activities would be
counted under a quota, and that once those issues were settled, the
language could be easily agreed. Smirnov, Kuznetsov, Buttrick, and
Goodman all participated in the discussion of this point. (Begin
comment: The U.S. Conforming Group in Moscow notes that a possible
solution to the differences in subparagraphs 3(a) and 3(b) of
Article VII/VI would be to delete paragraph 3 in its entirety. The
concepts covered in subparagraphs 3(a) and 3(b) are already
addressed elsewhere in the Treaty and do not need to be repeated
here. End comment)




18. (S) Turning to Article VIII, Couch noted that Gottemoeller had
provided a new text of Article VIII to Antonov, and asked, on her
behalf, whether the Russian side had any comments to make on it.
Lobach responded that he was aware of the new text but that the
Russian side was not yet prepared to respond to it but it was under
study. He then asked whether there was any sense of going through
any of Article VIII at this point, for conforming purposes. Couch
noted that some of the paragraphs were identical between what
Gottemoeller had provided and what was in the December 19 JDT, and
it would be worthwhile to review those to see if there were any
conforming issues to raise. In that respect, he noted that the
U.S. would like to add a reference to Part Four of the Protocol to
paragraph 2 of Article VIII, to which Lobach agreed. Returning to
paragraph 1, Lobach said that the Russian side could accept the
shortened version of that paragraph (as contained in the
Gottemoeller paper),although with a change in the English to
reflect the Russian reference to the Protocol, i.e., "Part Two of
the Protocol to this Treaty" vice "Part Two of its Protocol," to
which Couch agreed.




19. (S) The sides agreed to replace the language in U.S. bracketed
paragraphs in Article VIII with the newly tabled version of those
paragraphs, and the final paragraphs were renumbered so that the
paragraph on geographical coordinates had an agreed number rather
than two bracketed ones. The sides discussed the rationale for the
bracketed texts in the paragraph on geographical coordinates, with
the Russian side noting that this entire paragraph had been agreed
for a long time and only in the December 19 JDT did this text
appear in Russian-brackets. The U.S. side agreed, ad ref, to drop
the brackets around "relating to data contained in Part Two of the
Protocol to this Treaty" after the words "geographical coordinates"
and around "provided by the Parties pursuant to this Treaty" after
the words "site diagrams."




20. (S) Couch noted that Article IX/VIII was going to be discussed
at the Gottemoeller-Antonov level, which caught Lobach by surprise:


he commented that the Russian side considered this article to be
agreed. Brown made a conforming fix to change "which" to "that" in
the penultimate clause of that sentence. Lobach, after some
discussion of the fact that this would not change the Russian text,
agreed that the English change was acceptable. Turning to Article
X/IX, Lobach asked whether the U.S. side was prepared to drop
"test" in front of "launches." Smirnov explained the difficulty of
the use of the word "test" in front of "launches," claiming that it
referred only to testing of new missiles and not other kinds of
launches. Brown responded that a more accurate word, and the one
used in START in this same context, was the defined term "flight
test," and asked whether the Russian side could accept that. The
U.S. noted further that the term "telemetric information" was also
a defined term and included within it the concept of flight test,
so in fact this whole provision could be simplified even further by
just using the term "telemetric information" and to drop "on
((test)) launches of IBCMs and SLBMs." At this point Kuznetsov
said that this whole question should be left for the resumption of
the new session in Geneva, and Lobach added that this language had
come from his president, so it would be difficult to change.




21. (S) In Article XI/X, the main discussion was on paragraphs 2
and 3. In paragraph 2, the question was how to treat the reference
to "deployment areas" - in the Russian language text the words were
in Russian brackets, while they were unbracketed in the English
text. It was recognized by both sides that this question hinged on
discussion of the term "basing area" that had not yet been
completed, and it was ultimately agreed to have this become U.S.
bracketed text since the Russian side proposed to delete it. In
paragraph 3, Couch noted that the U.S. side was prepared to provide
the names of the two U.S. facilities, and he did so. Smirnov
argued that this whole paragraph belonged in Part Four of the
Protocol and not in the Treaty, and that its substance was
agreeable to the Russian side, while the U.S. side noted that its
inclusion was needed in this article.




22. (S) Lobach proposed that the sides meet on January 20 from
1500 to 1800, although there might be a chance to extend it a bit.
He noted that there was not much left on the Treaty articles, so
there should be no problem getting to Part Five of the Protocol by
January 21, saying that he recognized that Part Five was a U.S.
priority. And he proposed that the entire day, both morning and
afternoon, would be available for the Conforming Group meetings on
January 21.



--------------

January 20 Meetings

--------------




23. (S) Lobach opened the meeting by raising the issue of how best
to continue the work of the Conforming Group, noting that the MFA
had agreed to send Russian members of the Conforming Group, in
approximately the same composition as was present at this day's
meeting, to Geneva earlier than the rest of the Russian delegation,


which was scheduled to depart Moscow on January 30 and 31. The
Russian Conforming Group members would leave Moscow on January 27
and be prepared for three full days of meeting, from January 28
through January 30. He requested that the U.S. side arrange for
meetings during those three days because of the absence from Geneva
of the rest of his delegation during those days; Couch responded
that the U.S. side would look into that possibility.




24. (S) Couch said that he had already received a call from A/S
Gottemoeller concerning the willingness of the Russian side to
continue the conforming work and that she had been very pleased
with that news. Lobach apologized for not being able to hold
Conforming Group meetings in Moscow on January 25 and 26. Couch
commented that he had kept Gottemoeller apprised of what had been
happening during the past two days of Conforming Group meetings and
stated that she had been very satisfied with the work that had been
done so far. Couch also recalled the governing rules of the
Conforming Group, which the sides had discussed when this work had
begun in Geneva, and Lobach confirmed that he shared the same
understanding. At Embassy Moscow request, Couch handed over a
draft list of issues to be discussed at the Mullen-Makarov and
Jones-Prikhodko level meetings. He also handed over a list of
definitions that the U.S. believed represented agreement of defined
terms to be deleted. Since these deleted definitions had been
discussed late in the previous session, the deletions were not
reflected in the December 19, U.S.-proposed draft JDT; Kuznetsov
responded that the Russian side may be proposing that some of the
terms identified for deletion be retained, particularly if they are
part of another term, but that this discussion was for a later
time.




25. (S) Lobach remarked that he had also been providing progress
reports to Antonov on the results of our meetings, and his reaction
was similar to what Couch explained had been Gottemoeller's.
Lobach commented that this had been useful work, and that the
Russian side was prepared to organize Conforming Group meetings on
January 22 as well; agreement was reached on a morning meeting,
from 1000 - 1300. He also asked what Parts to the Protocol the
U.S. side thought should be addressed after the Treaty and Part
Five (Inspection Activities) of the Protocol had passed through
conforming. Couch proposed that the sides turn at that point to
Part Three (Conversion or Elimination). Lobach confirmed the
schedule for the next day - January 21: 1100 - 1300, and 1500 -

1800.




26. (S) Couch asked to return to paragraph 4 of Article IV, and,
explaining that he had been directed to do so by Washington,
proposed the addition of the words, "or modified," in the third
sentence. Lobach responded that the Russian side would take this
proposal for study but observed that he was not aware of any use of
that term elsewhere in the Treaty. In any case, he noted, the two
heads of delegation were working on this entire article, and he
proposed that the new language appear in U.S. brackets, while
commenting that the entire final sentence should be in U.S.
brackets anyway because the first two sentences had come from a
Russian proposal, the third sentence in that proposal had been
dropped in favor of new U.S. language, which now, for some reason,
appeared in Russian-only brackets, and he asked that the U.S. side


re-consider its position stated on the previous day to have no U.S.
brackets in this paragraph.




27. (S) Couch said that he understood Lobach's logic but that
Gottemoeller had instructed him not to insert or remove any
brackets until she had a chance to talk with Antonov. Lobach
countered with a proposal to allow the brackets around the entire
paragraph removed but bracket, as U.S.-proposed text, only "or
modified." Couch also said that this was not what he had been
instructed to do by Gottemoeller. Lobach commented that paragraph
4 reflected joint work on the part of both delegations and he
wanted that fact identified in some way in the text, perhaps by
having the whole paragraph in brackets but without any number, but
he also wanted to identify separately the text tabled at this
meeting in some manner because it was new. Couch proposed that the
whole paragraph remain in brackets but with a note at the beginning
of the Protocol text to explain what an unnumbered bracketed text
meant, i.e., that it was work still being undertaken by the heads
of delegation. Lobach agreed to this solution.




28. (S) Smirnov asked for the difference between "converted" and
"modified". Couch then presented a brief history of the issue as
it played out in the JCIC, based on modified launchers at
Vandenberg that had not been "converted" in accordance with START
procedures but had been removed from accountability as ICBM
launchers. Smirnov responded that the reason that he asked this
question was that there was an entire Part in the Protocol that
addressed the issue of conversion of ICBM launchers and it had to
do with making certain technical changes in the construction of a
silo, which, in his view of what had occurred at Vandenberg, had
constituted practically a conversion. He added that having two
terms in this context would create an ambiguous situation.
Kamensky added that this issue had never been finally resolved in
the JCIC.




29. (S) Turning to paragraph 2 of Article XII, Couch proposed to
delete the words "for deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear
armaments" after the words "air base." Kuznetsov initially opposed
the U.S. proposal, claiming that it would complicate inspection of
air bases for heavy bombers not equipped for nuclear armaments as
well as air bases where there was joint basing, but he eventually
recognized that the defined term, "air base," had made redundant
the words that the U.S. side proposed for deletion. Couch
indicated that Type One inspections related only to deployed heavy
bombers and therefore it was appropriate to delete these words.
Lobach indicated that he would get back to Couch on this proposal
after consultation with other experts on his delegation. In
paragraph 3, Brown proposed the addition of "Section X" to the
reference to Part Two, for both "facilities subject to inspection"
and "formerly declared facilities," noting that there were so many
facilities listed in Part Two that there had to be more precision.
Brown commented that, if the Russian side agreed to this
formulation with respect to "formerly declared facilities," it
might be able to drop its own bracketed language "subject to the
Treaty," and then the two references would be consistent. Lobach
indicated that he would have to get back to the U.S. side on this
proposal as well.



30. (U) Lobach proposed that the sides not discuss Article XIII,
which was entirely in U.S. brackets. Couch responded that he
planned to at least change the references from "Notification
Protocol" to "Part Three," since the Notification Protocol
reference was left over from START.




31. (S) There was a lengthy discussion of Article ((XIV))1
((XII))2, primarily involving paragraph (c). There were some
conforming edits made that did not involve policy decisions. In
the chapeau of the Article, both sides agreed to delete the
parenthetical "(BCC)." In paragraph (b),the Russian delegation
tentatively agreed to add the word "such" after the word "upon"
since it was missing in the Russian text. And in the last line of
paragraph (c),the U.S. delegation clarified that the correct
reference to the Section of Part Four of the Protocol was Section
VII.




32. (S) Couch asked Lobach to explain why Russia could not accept
the word "relevant" in paragraph (c) of Article XIV regarding new
kinds of strategic offensive arms (SOA). Lobach said that, in
Russia's view, the word "relevant" would not allow for a situation
in which a Party developed a new kind of strategic offensive arm
that would apply to all provisions of the new treaty: the Russian
side believed that the word "relevant" restricted application to
just a portion of the treaty. Couch responded that, on the
contrary, the word "relevant" provided both parties the most
flexibility in that it could apply, as appropriate, to none, some,
or all of the provisions of the treaty. Smirnov said that, in his
view, that word would not capture the development of new SOA for
which there were no current provisions. In such a case, the
parties would need to change the Treaty to accommodate this new
kind of SOA. Lobach stressed that the Russian delegation had the
same view of paragraph (c) as the U.S. delegation but that it still
believed the word "relevant" was too restrictive in its
application. Brown asked if the Russian definition of the word
"application" might be contributing to this misunderstanding.
Lobach responded that issue was with the word "relevant."



--------------

January 21 Meetings

--------------




33. (S) Couch handed over a draft "working text" of the Treaty,
emphasizing that this was not an official JDT and was being handed
over to assist the Russian side in developing its JDT. This would
allow the Russians to review the English to make sure that all the
positions have been captured correctly. Lobach thanked Couch for
the draft, noting that it was very clear what had been added and
changed and this would greatly facilitate the work by the Russian
side. He added that the actual JDTs would be developed in Geneva
and would be dated January 31. Couch agreed and asked whether a
working text in Russian could be provided to the U.S. side; Lobach


indicated that he would be able to do it in the afternoon.




34. (S) The Conforming Group began a review of Part Five of the
Protocol (Inspection Activities). There were no changes to Section

I. As proposed by the Russian side, and as agreed, in the title of
Section II, the words, "Provisions Concerning the" were removed, so
that the title would read, "Legal Status of Inspectors and Aircrew
Members," to conform to the style of the titles of other sections.
In paragraph 3, it was agreed to rephrase the first sentence to
read, "Each Party shall have the right to amend the lists of its
inspectors ..." vice "... amend its lists of inspectors ..." In
paragraph 4, the phrase "city, state or oblast, and country of
birth" was changed to "place of birth (city, state or oblast, and
country)." In the second sentence of paragraph 5, the phrase "the
lists of inspectors or aircrew members" was changed to "the lists
of inspectors and aircrew members," and it was noted by the U.S.
side that the Russian word for "ensure" did not appear in the
Russian language text, while it did appear in the English text.
After explanation by the chief translator on the Russian side,
Artem'yev, it was determined that the word was not needed in
Russian to convey the idea contained in the English text. In the
third sentence of this paragraph, concerning the slight difference
in meaning between the English and Russian texts concerning visas
and appropriate documents being "valid" for a period of time (the
Russian word means literally "issued"),Lobach acknowledged that he
and Artem'yev had discussed this very difference while still in
Geneva and they had agreed at that time that the legal effect of
the English and Russian texts was identical and therefore the
Russian side had not raised it in conforming; the U.S. side agreed
that this was not an issue that it intended to raise either. It
was agreed, though, that the words, "at least 24 months," be
changed to "no less than 24 months."




35. (S) In paragraph 6, Lobach asked whether the expression
"under indictment" meant that the individual had ever been indicted
or that the individual was under indictment at that particular
time, noting that in the Russian text it appeared that the meaning
was "had everQeen indicted." Couch explained that an indictment
could be dropped, or the individual could be acquitted, and
therefore the reference should be understood as "currently under
indictment." Lobach agreed and said that the Russian text would be
changed to reflect that meaning. Lobach also asked that the word
"individual" (vice "person") be used throughout this paragraph, in
order to reflect the Russian language text, as long as the meaning
was meant to be the same; it was agreed that the use of the word
"person" was not meant to convey a different meaning. It was also
agreed to delete the words "the conduct of" in the phrase,
"...violated the conditions governing the conduct of inspections
activities...," contained at the end of the first sentence, on the
grounds that they were unnecessary in this context.




36. (S) Lobach noted that there were several references to the
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) that should
include the date of signature, which corresponded to Russian treaty
practice: that change was made in subparagraph 7(b) and in
paragraph 8. In subparagraph 7(d),the two conjunctions in the
phrase, "without payment of any customs duties or related taxes or
charges" were changed to "and." Brown noted that, in subparagraph


7(f),the language of the VCDR was not quoted correctly in Russian
concerning the phrase "respect the laws," explaining that the
Russian word in that subparagraph meant "observe," and he handed
Lobach a copy of Article 41 of the VCDR in Russian. Lobach agreed
that the Russian word used in the VCDR should be used in
subparagraph 7(f). Lobach also noted that two different words in
Russian were used to translate the word "regulations" (in
subparagraph 7(d) and in subparagraph 7(f); the latter came from
the VCDR). Lobach said that he would do more research on this, but
there would be no need to change the English. In paragraph 8, the
word "Following" was changed to "Upon," to more closely correspond
to the Russian text, and, at Lobach's insistence, the word "apply"
was changed back to "subsist," to correspond to the precise wording
of the VCDR.




37. (S) In paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section III, Lobach commented
that two different Russian words were used with respect to the
transportation of inspectors, and he would change the text to use
only one word, "perevozka." At the end of paragraph 3, the sides
agreed to replace "or their aircrews" with "and to their aircrews."
In paragraph 5,the sides discussed whether there were in fact
"procedures" used to file flight plans in Part Four of the Protocol
(Notifications),and, seeing that there were none, agreed to delete
the words, "the procedures specified in" in the phrase, "...shall
be filed in accordance with the procedures specified in Part Four
of this Protocol." In paragraph 6, it was agreed that the common
term should be "security protection," and that would be reflected
in the text in both languages.




38. (S) The sides started and finished Section IV of Part Five
during the afternoon meeting of the Conforming Group.




39. (S) In the second sentence of paragraph 1 of Section IV, the
Russian side argued that there was no equipment to be brought in by
inspection teams that would be related to anything other than
inspections, so the U.S. proposal to broaden this to "inspection
activities" would have to be bracketed. After some discussion that
there could be equipment for exhibitions, the sides agreed to
simply bracket the two positions. Lobach admitted that he did not
have much leeway in trying to resolve this particular issue and
that, since this issue appeared throughout Part Five, it would be
best not to spend much time discussing it, explaining that this was
a special situation.




40. (S) Several grammatical changes were made in English in the
first sentence of paragraph 4. In the third sentence of that
paragraph, concerning the purpose of the "examination" of
equipment, Lobach asked what the expression "unconnected with the
requirements of inspections" meant, focusing in particular on the
word "requirements," and asked whether this really meant the
"tasks" or "goals" of the inspections. After some discussion, it
was agreed to accept the word "tasks", although "inspection
activities" would appear in U.S. brackets and "inspections" in
Russian brackets. In the penultimate sentence of this paragraph,
the phrase "site where inspection activities are to take place" was
replaced with the term, "inspection activity site." In paragraph


5, the Russian-bracketed reference to a paragraph and Section of
Part Four was deleted, and the term "inspection activity site" was
substituted for "site of the inspection activity."




41. (S) In subparagraph 6(a),it was agreed to accept the phrase,
"prior to the departure of the inspection team to the inspection
site," which had been in the Russian text but not included in the
English text. There was also confusion over the consistency of the
use of the terms "located at" and "based" contained in the chapeau
and the subparagraphs. This confusion called into question the
information that is to be provided by the in-country escort. The
sides also discussed at length the differences between the English
and Russian texts of subparagraph 6(b),where the 30 percent
criterion was based on SLBM launchers in the English and on SSBNs
in the Russian, and it was agreed that this should go back to the
working group for discussion. A minor conforming change was made
in subparagraph 6(c). In paragraph 7, Lobach accepted the
inclusion of the word "only" with respect to coverage of inspection
team activities by mass media "only" at the POE.



--------------

January 22 Meeting

--------------




42. (S) In paragraph 2 of Section V, the sides agreed to change
the phrase, "during the entire period of stay in the territory of
the inspected Party" to "during the entire in-country period." In
paragraph 3, Brown explained what the U.S. side had attempted to
accomplish in its earlier proposal, i.e., to more precisely
describe the legal relationship between the inspecting Party and
the inspectors, and Lobach acknowledged his full agreement with the
purpose of the U.S. proposal but was not convinced that the
language was sufficient. After some discussion, it was agreed to
add the words, "The inspecting Party shall ensure that its
inspectors," in lieu of "Inspectors" in the first sentence and
"they" in the final sentence. Lobach also asked that the consent
be "express" between the inspecting Party and the inspected Party
as well as between the inspectors and the inspecting Party.




43. (S) In paragraph 5, the sides discussed the extent to which
the restriction on interference with ongoing activities applied to
the "inspection site" or to the "inspected facility." It was
agreed that it should relate to the broader of the two; the
inspected facility. It was also agreed to reformulate "ongoing
activities" to read "activities being conducted," in the second
sentence of this paragraph. It was also decided to retain the
broader reference as well to the "Protocol," rather than just this
"Part," at the beginning of the second sentence. Finally, the
Russian side agreed to accept "inspection activity site" in the
penultimate sentence.




44. (S) In the third sentence of paragraph 6, the sides discussed


whether the clause, "Throughout the period of stay at the point of
entry, or at the inspection activity site," could be replaced by
"During the entire in-country period." The change was made, but
Lobach cautioned that he was not sure that this could be done
within the authority of the Conforming Group. In the penultimate
sentence, the phrase, "at the inspection site," was added after the
words, "inspection team subgroups." In the unnumbered paragraph
following paragraph 6, concerning lighting, the sides agreed to add
the phrase, "at the inspection activity site," after the words,
"lighting for inspectors," and the reference was broadened from
"procedures provided for in this Part" to "... in this Protocol."




45. (S) In paragraph 8, Lobach agreed to accept the U.S. proposed
formulation "in accordance with," and Couch accepted the
Russian-proposed word "kind" rather than "type" with respect to
inspection activities. In paragraph 9, the sides separately
bracketed "inspection activity" and "inspection" in the first and
second sentences, but the Russian side agreed to the title of the
report in the final sentence: "inspection activity report," as it
had already been agreed in the Inspection Working Group. In the
chapeau of paragraph 10, Lobach asked what the word "declared"
meant in front of the words, "technical data." The sides discussed
the defined term, "declared data," and noted that it included
technical data, but acknowledged that the term, "declared technical
data" was not used. The solution that was accepted was to delete
the word "declared" in this case. The sides concluded the meeting
after reviewing paragraph 11, with no comments.




46. (S) Lobach noted at the end of the five days of Conforming
Group meetings in Moscow that it had been a good idea on the part
of the U.S. side to hold these meetings prior to the resumption of
the negotiations in Geneva and that this would greatly facilitate
the work of the delegations.




47. (U) Documents exchanged.



- U.S.:



-- U.S. Delegation Working Text of the New START Treaty
Articles, dated January 21, 2010.



-- U.S. Delegation Paper on Part One - Terms and Their
Definitions, Dated January 19, 2010.



-- U.S. Delegation Paper on Article V, Dated January 20, 2010.



-- Draft List of Issues to be Discussed at the Mullen-Makarov
and Jones-Prikhodko Meetings, Dated January 20, 2010.


- Russia:



-- Russian Working Text of the New START Treaty Articles, dated
January 21, 2010.




48. (U) Participants



U.S.



Mr. Couch

Mr. Brown

Mr. Buttrick

Lt Col Goodman

Mr. Silberberg (Embassy Moscow)

Mr. Donnelly (Translator)

Mr. Lychyk (Translator)



RUSSIA



Mr. Lobach

Mr. Artemiev

Mr. Ivanov

Mr. Vorontsov

Ms. Fuzhenkova

Ms. Melikbekyan

Mr. Voloskov

Col. Kamensky

Mr. Novikov

Mr. Pishchulov

Mr. Smirnov

Adm. Kuznetsov


Ms. Zharkikh

Mr. Gayduk (Int)

Ms. Evarovskaya (Int)




49. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS