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