SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) AGREED STATEMENTS, FEBRUARY 17, 2010

S E C R E T GENEVA 000141

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) AGREED STATEMENTS, FEBRUARY 17, 2010

REF: 10 GENEVA 139 (SFO-GVA-VIII-049)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-058.




2. (U) Meeting Date: February 17, 2010

Time: 11:00 A.M. - 1:00 P.M.

Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva



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

SUMMARY

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




3. (S) Mr. Elliott and Col Ilin co-chaired a meeting to discuss
proposed agreed statements on February 17. The agreed statements
on converted B-1B bombers, SSGNs, joint basing and rapid reload
were discussed. The Russian side questioned the need to reorder
the agreed statement on converted B-1B bombers and again questioned
the need for the agreed statement on rapid reload. End summary.




4. (U) Subject Summary: Vandenberg; Converted B-1B Heavy Bombers;
U.S. SSGNs; Joint Basing; Rapid Reload; and Status of Other Agreed
Statements.



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

Vandenberg

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




5. (S) Ilin asked whether the U.S. side would like to respond to
the Russian delegation's proposed agreed statement on Vandenberg
Air Force Base. Elliott responded that an official translation
had been completed and a draft response had been drafted and sent
to Washington for approval. He said he hoped to be able to discuss
the matter further later in the week.



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

Converted B-1B heavy bomberS

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




6. (S) Ilin recalled that during the last meeting agreement had
been reached on paragraphs 1 and 2 of the agreed statement on B-1B
heavy bombers. He noted the new U.S. draft did not reflect this.

Elliott reminded the Russian side of the need to reorder the text
of the agreed statement due to a chronological inconsistency which
had been discussed at the last meeting (Reftel) and said it was the
intention of the U.S. side to fully capture all the agreements made
during the previous meeting. Elliott requested the Russian side
bracket the new draft as it saw fit. In a paragraph-by-paragraph
review, Elliott pointed out where all of the agreed portions from
the previous version were in the new document, identified which
paragraphs had been eliminated, and pointed out where Russian
bracketed text remained. Ilin said he would review the new
proposal and provide comments.




7. (S) Elliott reminded the Russian side that the United States
had continued conversions of B-1B bombers following the expiration
of START and noted that all conversions might be completed prior to
START Follow-on ratification, depending on how long that process
took. Elliott said there might be a need to provisionally apply
this agreed statement in order to conduct the exhibition offered if
the last B-1B were scheduled for conversion prior to treaty
ratification. Ilin questioned the legality of this idea. Elliott
and Mr. Koshelev both said this was legal.



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

U.S. SSGNS

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




8. (S) Ilin inquired whether the United States had a response to
the questions the Russian side had posed on individual SLBM
launcher conversion. Elliott responded the answers were still
being prepared. Ilin noted the United States had slightly modified
the language of the agreed statement on SSGNs to which Elliott
replied that some of the language in the chapeau and paragraph 1
was redundant so the two paragraphs were combined. Ilin said the
new paragraph implied that both sides already agreed that the SSGN
was incapable of launching an SLBM. He noted this agreement had
yet to be reached, which was why exhibitions were needed. Elliott
agreed to review the language.




9. (S) Ilin agreed to the U.S.-proposed changes in paragraph 1(b)
regarding the annotation of SSGN locations on the coastlines and
waters diagram. Ilin recommended the deletion of paragraph
1(c)(iii) because it was redundant and Elliott concurred.



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

Joint basing

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




10. (S) Elliott explained that paragraph 2 of the agreed statement
on joint basing of heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments and

heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear armaments was not needed
because, unlike paragraph 2 in the agreed statement on SSGNs, no
additional inspection rights would need to be developed in the
Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC). He continued that Article
XII of the Russian treaty text (Article XIV of the U.S. treaty
text) provided both Parties the right to raise any questions in the
BCC. Ilin requested paragraph 2 be written in a more consistent
manner and Adm (ret) Kuznetsov requested it capture the
applicability to B-1B bombers and B-52H bombers. Elliott stated
that the agreed statement on joint basing was not specific to B-1Bs
or B-52Hs as Kuznetsov had implied but was applicable anytime
either side jointly based heavy bombers equipped for nuclear
armaments and heavy bombers equipped for non-nuclear armaments.
That being said, Elliott agreed to review the revised paragraph and
determine whether the United States could accept it.



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

rapid reload

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




11. (S) Ilin inquired whether the U.S. side was ready to remove
the brackets on the last sentence of the agreed statement on rapid
reload related to maintaining ICBMs and SLBMs with warheads on
them. Elliott responded that this was a political issue and the
inclusion of the last sentence would impact routine operations;
therefore, the United States could not accept the sentence.
Elliott proposed referring this agreed statement to the Heads of
Delegation. Kuznetsov questioned the need for the agreed statement
and asked what it implied about the relationship between the United
States and Russia. He claimed the issue was "a complete throwback
that resurrected the Cold War." Mr. Zaitsev commented that rapid
reload was not a problem under START, so, he inquired, why was it
necessary to broach the topic under this treaty. Zaitsev
questioned whether the facilities the United States utilized for
SSGNs in Diego Garcia might be developed as infrastructure for
rapid reload of U.S. Ohio Class SSBNs. Elliott explained that a
failure to address the matter of rapid reload in Start Follow-on
might be considered a step back from the prohibition in START. He
mentioned that it might be necessary for the United States to make
this a unilateral statement, potentially raising the question among
observers as to why Russia had not agreed to the same statement.
Koshelev explained that rapid reload had been an important
political question between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
and the United States and that it appeared the United States was
attempting to extend this matter into the current relationship
between the Russian Federation and the United States. He continued
that any attempt to make this an agreed statement could be
misconstrued as a disagreement between the sides. He added that
the purpose of the agreed statements for this treaty should be to
solve current problems not the problems of the past.



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

Status of other agreed statements

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


12. (S) Elliott stated both sides were waiting for the
Notifications Working Group to resolve issues related to the
Leninsk Test Range and the transfer of Trident II missiles to the
United Kingdom. Ilin concurred, asking whether the U.S. side
retained its brackets on the agreed statements on the use of
telemetry. Elliott replied that discussions on that matter were
being conducted at the Heads of Delegation level. Ilin recommended
the U.S. side review the use of the word "retired" in the proposed
unilateral statement on Trident I since there was no defined term
"retired" in the proposed treaty. Elliott agreed to review the
matter. Elliott and Ilin said the agreed statement on basing of
deployed heavy bombers at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base was agreed.




13. (U) Documents exchanged: None.




14. (U) Participants:



UNITED STATES



Mr. Elliott

Mr. Albertson

Mr. Ahlm (RO)

Mr. Brown

Mr. Evans

Lt Col Goodman

LTC Litterini

Amb Ries

Mr. Taylor

Mr. Trout

Mrs. Zdravecky

Ms. Gesse (Interpreter)



RUSSIA



Col Ilin

Mr. Koshelev

Adm (Ret) Kuznetsov

Mr. Trifonov

Mr. Zaitsev

Ms. Komshilova (Interpreter)




15. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
KING