SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) ARTICLE VIII MEETING, FEBRUARY, 15, 2010

S E C R E T GENEVA 000137

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: 2020/02/26
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) ARTICLE VIII MEETING, FEBRUARY, 15, 2010

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-048.




2. (U) Meeting Date: February 15, 2010

Time: 11:00 A.M. - 12:00 A.M.

Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva



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

SUMMARY

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




3. (S) Amb Ries led a meeting with the Russian side to discuss
joint draft text (JDT) on Treaty Article VIII regarding the initial
release of data and public release of the data. Gen Poznikhir
commented that the Russian side worked over the weekend with their
lawyers and had some changes to the previously agreed and conformed
first paragraphs of Article VIII that established the database and
the requirement to update the data through notifications. The
discussion lasted the entire time allotted, without much progress
on the issue of public release of data. End summary.




4. (S) Subject summary: Basic Russian Position; and New Tactic -
Propose Changes to Previously-Conformed Text.



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

Basic Russian Position

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




5. (S) Poznikhir reviewed where the sides were on paragraph 5,
namely that the United States proposed to initially exchange data
on all the categories of data whereas the Russian side, as
previously explained, believed this was unacceptable. Poznikhir
continued that the Russian side agreed to an initial exchange of
data including only aggregate numbers. He further noted that this
differed from the concept in paragraph 6 in which the exchange of
data involved data obtained during the implementation of the
Treaty. Poznikhir stated, in reference to paragraph 8, that the
issue of releasing data to the public was spread throughout the
Treaty Article. He emphasized the word "opublikovat," which the
Russians preferred, meant to "publish" the data as opposed to
"release it to the public."




6. (S) Mr. Lobach offered further clarification on the use of
Russian terms related to "publish" and "release to the public."
Lobach stated the term "opublikovat" referred exclusively to
publishing data in print form which was different from a public

announcement, radio broadcast or internet posting. In contrast,
the term "oglasit" means literally to reveal. Ries queried whether
"oglasit" had a broader meaning to which Lobach answered in the
affirmative. Ries further asked whether it was acceptable if the
Russian side used its term for "disclose" to represent its concept
and the U.S. side used "release to the public" in English. Lobach
answered in the affirmative.



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

New Tactic - Propose Changes to

Previously-Conformed Text

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




7. (S) After a brief exchange on what language was used in START,
Poznikhir proposed several changes to paragraphs 1 and 2 in Article
VIII. (Begin comment: Article VIII had been agreed and conformed
with no brackets since mid-November 2009. End comment.) Poznikhir
began a dialogue on paragraph 1 which centered on the use of the
phrase "categories of data" in lieu of "database." Lobach, Gen
Orlov, and Mr. Dean joined the dialogue, eventually reaching an
understanding of the Russian side's point. Ries summarized the
Russian concern that, at the time of Treaty signature, Part Two of
the Protocol would not be filled with numerical data and, thus, it
could not be characterized as a "database." The Russian side
believed that it should be referred to as simply "categories of
data." Ries noted that the United States would take the proposal
for review.




8. (S) On paragraph 2, Lobach recommended deleting the phrase "in
order to ensure the fulfillment of its obligations with respect to
this Treaty" since all the activities of a Party under the Treaty
were to "fulfill the obligations" of the Treaty. Lobach asserted
that every paragraph in the Treaty could have the same phrase. He
agreed with Dean that the paragraph was not technically incorrect;
however, he pointed out a slightly revised version of the paragraph
as included in the Russian paper provided to the U.S. side. Ries
stressed reluctance to reopen parts of the Treaty that were
completely finished; however, she said she would take the proposal
for review.




9. (S) Lobach again averred that there remained a basic problem
with Part Two of the Protocol and Treaty Article VIII. The issue
stemmed from use of the term "database." Lobach asked whether, in
the U.S. view, "database" was the same as the term "initial
database" used in the START Treaty. Dean replied that the sides
were free to characterize parts of the Treaty in any manner so long
as it was done clearly and consistently throughout the Treaty.
Ries further clarified that the initial exchange of data was
narrower than the term "database." She maintained that the entire
concept was a process; the initial exchange would be the beginning
point. Forty-five days after entry-into-force that data would be
updated and every 6 months thereafter the data would again be
updated for the remainder of the Treaty's life. Poznikhir referred
to the agreement reached by the sides to have categories of data

but no numbers at Treaty signature. Ries stated that she was
perplexed by the Russian desire to refer to categories of data
since the central feature of the Article was the establishment of
the database, but was willing to look at the Russian proposal.




10. (S) Orlov claimed that both sides had agreed on this topic for
some time. He further stated that both sides had the same
fundamental approach and the question here was of a technical
aspect. Orlov emphasized that the Russian side wanted to ensure it
was possible for the layman to understand the Treaty and used an
analogy of Napoleon having an order reviewed by a line soldier to
make sure it was understandable to someone who would have to
implement it.




11. (S) Poznikhir rounded out the discussion by proposing a final
change to paragraph 5. He suggested replacing the phrase
"contained in" to "provided for" since Part Two of the Protocol
would not contain geographic coordinates and for internal
consistency within Article VIII.




12. (U) Documents provided:



- United States:



-- U.S. Official Translation of Russian-Proposed JDT on Article
VIII dated February 9, 2010



- Russia:



-- Russian Paper on Article VIII, February 15, 2010




13. (U) Participants.



UNITED STATES



Amb Ries

Lt Col Comeau (RO)

Mr. Dean

LT Lobner

Mrs. Zdravecky

Ms. Gross (Int)



RUSSIA



Ambassador Antonov

Gen Orlov

Gen Poznikhir

Gen Venevtsev

Mr. Koshelev

Mr. Lobach

Ms. Komshilova (Int)




14. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
KING