SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION WORKING GROUP

S E C R E T GENEVA 000107 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: 2020/02/23 TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION WORKING GROUP MEETING, FEBRUARY 10, 2010 CLASSIFIED BY: Rose E. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B),(D) ¶1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-035 ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: February 10, 2010 Time: 12:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M. Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) A small group meeting of the Conversion or Elimination Working Group, chaired by Lt Col Goodman and Mr. Smirnov, was held on February 10. The purpose of the meeting was to review Part Three of the Protocol to the treaty on conversion or elimination that had been through the conforming process although several brackets remained. The sides confirmed only three sets of brackets remained in Part III of the Protocol. The first, in Section I, related to the right to periodically confirm conversion. The second, in Section II, concerned the time period of inspection and NTM for elimination of solid-fueled ICBMs and SLBMs and the third, in Section IV, related to submarines waiting for final scrapping being visible to NTM. End summary. ¶4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Section I: General Procedures; SECTION II: Procedures for Elimination of ICBMs and SLBMs; SECTION III: Procedures for Conversion or Elimination of ICBM Launchers; SECTION IV: Procedures for Conversion or Elimination of SLBM Launchers; SECTION V: Procedures for Conversion or Elimination of Heavy Bombers; and Conclusion. -------------- SECTION I: General Procedures -------------- ¶5. (S) Mr. Smirnov reviewed Section I: General Procedures. One Russian bracket remained in paragraph 3 relating to the periodic verification of converted items. Smirnov asked the status of this bracket. Lt Col Goodman stated it was a Russian proposal and the U.S. side had understood Russia bracketed the sentence until the Agreed Statements were finalized. Smirnov confirmed this was the opinion of the Russian Federation; however, the Russian side believed the Agreed Statements on B-1B and SSGN conversion were agreed with the exception of some minor details, and brackets could be dropped. Goodman accepted Smirnov's offer to drop the Russian brackets in paragraph 3. -------------- SECTION II: PROCEDURES FOR ELIMINATION OF ICBMs AND SLBMs -------------- ¶6. (S) Goodman discussed paragraphs 3 and 4 ofQction II noting that in all other paragraphs where the right of inspection existed, that right was explicitly specified in the protocol. Paragraphs 3 and 4 did not explicitly bestow this right. Goodman recommended using paragraph 3 of Section III as a model and rewriting paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section II. After reviewing the proposed changes, Smirnov agreed. Goodman read both paragraphs to ensure both sides agreed on the new wording. ¶7. (S) Smirnov asked whether the U.S. side was ready to agree to 30 days for the verification of eliminated solid-fueled ICBMs and SLBMs by national technical means (NTM). Goodman responded both sides had agreed at the end of the last session that the period of inspection would be 30 days while the period of verification for NTM would be 60 days in all cases. Goodman continued that he was disappointed the Russian Federation had backed away from this agreement and insisted on keeping the U.S. brackets on the 60-day period for verification by NTM. -------------- SECTION III: PROCEDURES FOR CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION OF ICBM LAUNCHERS -------------- ¶8. (S) Smirnov moved to Section III and stated that in paragraph Q there were two different time periods for verification of elimination of solid-fueled ICMBs and SLBMs, 30 days for inspection and 60 days for NTM. The phrase in sentence three of paragraph 3 "conducted during the period" was incorrect because it referred to the 60-day NTM period not to the 30-day inspection period. Goodman reiterated both sides had agreed the period of inspection should be 30 days while the NTM window should be 60 days in all cases. Goodman reviewed the sentence and proposed deleting the phase "conducted during this period" thus referring to the correct time period. Again, Goodman read the paragraph to ensure both sides agreed on the new wording. Smirnov agreed to the new wording in paragraph 3. -------------- SECTION IV: PROCEDURES FOR CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION OF SLBM LAUNCHERS -------------- ¶9. (S) Smirnov asked whether the U.S. side was ready to drop its brackets in paragraph 4 regarding submarines remaining visible to NTM while waiting for final scrapping. Goodman responded that staff at the Pentagon could not provide one instance of a Russian submarine that was not visible to NTM while it waited for final scrapping and asked what new procedures the Russian Federation was planning to use that required the entire submarine to be under cover and not visible to NTM while scrapping. Smirnov responded the workers who were scrapping the submarine needed a cover to protect them from the elements of the Russian winter. Goodman said he understood that point; however, under START the Russian Federation had no trouble complying with the requirement to have the submarine visible to NTM and the U.S. side was unable to understand why the Russian Federation could not accept this well known and proven provision. The U.S.-proposed brackets remained in paragraph 4. ¶10. (S) Smirnov stated a Party converting an SLBM launcher into a launcher for another type of SLBM in accordance with paragraph 5 should not be subject to the exhibition and inspection requirements in paragraph 7 and this section was the only place in Part III where conversion from one type of nuclear delivery vehicle into another type of nuclear delivery vehicle was subject to exhibition and inspection. Goodman reviewed the proposal and agreed the reference to paragraph 5 (conversion from an SLBM launcher into a launcher for another type of SLBM) should be removed from paragraph ¶7. -------------- SECTION V: PROCEDURES FOR CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION OF HEAVY BOMBERS -------------- ¶11. (S) Regarding Section V, Goodman referred to paragraph 4(a) in the Russian text and noted the Russian text still used the START wording of "external attachment joints for pylons" and this was not what was negotiated and discussed at length during previous meetings. Smirnov responded it was simply an administrative error in the text and the wording should be as agreed. Goodman read the wording to ensure both sides agreed on the concept. Smirnov agreed with the wording "external attachments for pylons" dropping the word "joints" in the Russian text. The Russian side had no comments on the remainder of the Protocol. Goodman stated the U.S. side had no further comments and suggested a wrap-up of the issues discussed in the meeting. -------------- Conclusion -------------- ¶12. (S) Goodman stated the sides should create new joint draft texts to ensure both texts were ready for conforming on February ¶12. Smirnov agreed. ¶13. (U) Documents provided: None. ¶14. (U) Participants: UNITED STATES Lt Col Goodman (RO) Ms. C. Smith (Int) RUSSIA Mr. Smirnov Mr. Ivanov Ms. Komshiloca(Int) ¶15. (U) Gottemoeller sends. GRIFFITHS