SFO-GVA VIII: (U) NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING,

S E C R E T GENEVA 000115

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) NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING,
FEBRUARY 10, 2010

REF: 10 GENEVA 49 (SFO-GVA-VIII-022)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-033.




2. (U) Meeting Date: February 10, 2010

Time: 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.

Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva



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

SUMMARY

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




3. (S) During a meeting of the Notifications Working Group held at
the U.S. Mission on February 10, the Russian Federation (RF)
provided its comments to Sections I-VI of the U.S.-proposed Joint
Draft Text (JDT) of Part Four of the Protocol to the treaty that
was provided to the Russian side on February 5 (Reftel). Russia
agreed to use the U.S. text as the baseline JDT for all future
discussions, and as such, the document would be recognized as a
true "U.S.--RF" JDT. The Russian side requested clarification of
some U.S.-proposed changes and provided counter proposals for some
text. Mr. Smirnov raised a concern about U.S.-proposed text in
item (c)of U.S. treaty Article XIV and paragraph 3 in Article V.
(Begin comment: Both reference new types/new kinds of strategic
offensive arms (SOA) and how such items would be handled within the
Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC). End comment.) End
summary.


4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Treaty Article XIV; and
Section-by-Section.



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

TREATY ARTICLE XIV

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




5. (S) Smirnov noted the U.S. had added new text to treaty Article
XIV (Begin comment: Treaty Article XIV requires a notification be
sent by the developing Party of a new kind or new type of SOA prior
to the other Party requesting a discussion in the BCC about
applicable provisions for that new SOA. End comment). He opined
the text was not appropriate at the treaty level and should be
deleted or moved to the Protocol level. Smirnov further asserted
this language was contrary to Article V which stated either Party
had the right, within the BCC, to raise the question concerning the
emergence of a new kind of SOA by either side.




6. (S) Mr. Siemon explained the language in Article XIV was needed


to ensure that one Party did not attempt to apply treaty provisions
to an item of the other Party prior to that Party sending
notification of a new item. He also noted the two instances raised
by Smirnov were different; the first was a statement that treaty
provisions would not be applied to a new SOA prior to notification
being sent, and the second was a right to raise a concern in the
BCC when one side believed the other had developed a new kind of
SOA. Nevertheless, Siemon agreed to take Smirnov's concern back to
the U.S. Treaty Text Working Group (TTWG).



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

SECTION-BY-SECTION

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




7. (S) Comments and responses on each section are as follows:



-- Section I: The Russian side proposed new language to paragraph
3 to clarify the date when activities associated with a
notification would commence. Smirnov explained it was possible for
the date of a notification to indicate either an event that
occurred in the past or a date that triggered a particular event,
such as the beginning of a conversion or elimination inspection
window. Smirnov requested the following text be added to paragraph
3: "The date of provision of the notification shall be the date
specified in the notification by the Party providing it, or the
date of the event specified in the notification, whichever comes
later." Siemon informed Smirnov that the U.S. side would review
the Russian-proposed text.



-- Section II: At the end of paragraph 3, the Russian side
accepted the U.S.-proposed text "Such changes in data shall
include, but shall not be limited to:" in addition to subparagraph
(g),which states "A change in status from deployed to non-deployed
or from non-deployed to deployed." The Russian side continued,
however, to reject subparagraphs (e) and (f) which capture
notifications concerning locations of production facilities and
notifications concerning the beginning of construction of a new
silo launcher of ICBMs. Siemon replied the U.S. side would review
those notifications in the START Treaty and provide a response
during the next meeting.



-- Section III: The sides cleared numerous brackets in this
section. Remaining brackets included instances where a time period
for provision of a notification was specified and those
notifications pertaining to heavy bomber visits. Smirnov noted
those issues should be discussed once Col Ryzhkov returned the
following week.



-- Section IV: No changes were made to the text in this section.


-- Section V: The sides agreed to the following text for paragraph
1:



Begin text:




1. For conversion or elimination of ICBMs or SLBMs, launch
canisters for ICBMs and SLBMs, ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers,
heavy bombers, and facilities:



End text.




8. (S) Smirnov walked back on previous Russian acceptance of a
requirement to deliver an annual conversion or elimination plan.
He argued it would be difficult for the RF to provide a schedule or
plan and raised concerns about an incurred liability if the
schedule dates were not met. He stated if such a plan was to be
provided by the RF, it should only contain the esQmated number of
items to be eliminated during that year. LTC Leyde replied such a
decision should be made by COL Ilin and Dr. Warner in the
Inspections Protocol Working Group (IPWG). Lastly, the two sides
discussed what notification would be sent in the case of batched
eliminations of first stages of ICBMs and SLBMs. Smirnov proposed
sending notifications for each eliminated item; the inspection
window would open when the required completion notification was
sent for the final item in each batch. He argued that this action
could be captured in a "comments" field of the associated Nuclear
Risk Reduction Center notification. Leyde acknowledged Smirnov's
issue and clarified that the batching issue would be discussed
during the afternoon's IPWG.



-- Section VI: The first nine notifications in this section were
discussed. Numerous brackets were removed, and the two sides
agreed on the text in the following four paragraphs.



Begin text:




2. Notification concerning flight plan data for an inspection
airplane shall be provided no less than six hours in advance of the
planned time of departure of such an airplane from the last
airfield prior to its entry into the airspace of the inspected
Party.




3. Notification of the confirmation of a flight plan approval for
an inspection airplane shall be provided by the inspected Party no
less than three hours in advance of the planned time of departure
of such an airplane from the last airfield prior to its entry into
the airspace of the inspected Party.



5. Notification containing the initial lists of inspectors and
aircrew members shall be submitted no later than 25 days after
entry into force.




6. Notification transmitted no more than once in each 30-day
period, of amendments to the lists of inspectors and aircrew
members in accordance with Part Five of the Protocol to the Treaty.




End text.




9. (S) Additionally, U.S.-proposed paragraph 8(a) was removed, and
both sides agreed to the text in paragraph 9 with the exception of
time periods and article numbers. The remaining text in that
paragraph was moved to the third tier. The updated text in
paragraph 9 follows.



Begin text:




9. Notification of an intention to conduct an inspection pursuant
to paragraphs XX of Article ((XII))1 ((XI))2 of the Treaty shall be
provided no less than ((16))1 ((72))2 hours in advance of the
estimated time of arrival of the inspection team at the point of
entry from outside the territory of the inspected Party.



((1)) = U.S. Text

((2)) = RF Text



End text.




10. (S) The remaining notifications in Section VI (paragraphs
10-17),in addition to paragraphs 1-6 of Section VII, would be
discussed at the next Notifications WG meeting.




11. (U) Documents provided: None.




12. (U) Participants:



UNITED STATES


Mr. Siemon

Mr. Dwyer

Dr. Fraley

LTC Leyde

LT Sicks (RO)

Ms. Smith (Int)



RUSSIA



Mr. Smirnov

Mr. Ivanov

Mr. Voloskov

Ms. Komshilova (Int)




13. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS