Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
10GENEVA145
2010-02-26 13:38:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) TELEMETRY WORKING GROUP MEETING. FEBRUARY

Tags:  PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0145/01 0571338
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O R 261338Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0399
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0203
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0273
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0277
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0273
S E C R E T GENEVA 000145 

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) TELEMETRY WORKING GROUP MEETING. FEBRUARY
22, 1010

REF: 10 GENEVA 143 (SFO-GVA-VIII-065)
10 STATE 14963 (SFO-VIII GUIDANCE-008)

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000145

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) TELEMETRY WORKING GROUP MEETING. FEBRUARY
22, 1010

REF: 10 GENEVA 143 (SFO-GVA-VIII-065)
10 STATE 14963 (SFO-VIII GUIDANCE-008)

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-072.




2. (U) Meeting Date: February 22, 2010

Time: 5:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.

Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva



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

SUMMARY

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




3. (S) At the Telemetry Working Group meeting co-chaired by Mr.
Siemon and General Poznikhir, the U.S. side provided comments to
the Russian-proposed Part Seven of the Protocol to the
Treaty--Telemetric Information, dated February 18, 2010 (Ref A).
The U.S. side offered a general review of the proposal indicating
where similarities and differences existed between the positions of
the sides. The Russian side stated that it was surprised when a
U.S. proposal on language for the Telemetry Protocol was delivered
the previous Friday. The Russian side noted that it had provided
conceptual work to move the process forward twice and the U.S
proposal was dramatically different from the approach Russia
presented. He also noted that the United States, during this round
of negotiations, had provided nothing to the Russian side to move
the telemetry issue forward. The U.S. side indicated it intended
to merge the U.S.-proposed and Russian-proposed Protocols and
deliver a U.S.-proposed merged document prior to the Russian
delegation's departure for Moscow the following Saturday. (Begin
comment: At the time of the meeting, the Russian delegation said
they planned to leave Geneva after week four of the current
session. End comment.) End summary.




4. (U) Subject Summary: General Review of Russian Proposal;
Section I: General Provisions; Section II: Access to Telemetric

Information; Section III: Guidance for the Exchange of Telemetric
Exchange; Additional Issues; What was Needed for Signature; and Why
Didn't the U.S. Proposal Consider Russia's Approach?



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

general review of russian proposal

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




5. (S) Siemon indicated the U.S. side had received guidance from
Washington (Ref B) that directed A/S Gottemoeller to deliver the
U.S. draft proposal on language for the Telemetry Protocol to the


Russian side. The proposal was delivered to the Russian side on
February 19. The text follows.



Begin text:



Paper of the U.S. Side

19 February, 2010



Draft Proposal on Language for Telemetry Protocol




1. From the entry into force of the Treaty, the Parties shall
exchange telemetric information, on a parity basis, on no more than
five launches per year of ICBMs and SLBMs.


2. The exchange of telemetric information shall be carried out for
an equal number of launches of ICBMs and SLBMs conducted by the
sides, and in an agreed amount.


3. On an annual basis, the sides shall review the conditions and
method of further telemetric information exchange on launches of
ICBMs and SLBMs within the framework of the Bilateral Consultative
Commission. Additional details on the telemetry exchange are
contained in the Annex on Telemetry Exchange Procedures.

End text.




6. (S) The U.S. proposal sought to fulfill the agreement that
President Obama and President Medvedev had made during their
January 27 telephone call to find a rapid way to come to closure to
enable Treaty signature. The U.S. side believed that since Article
X was close to agreement and since the U.S. Protocol proposal was
based on agreed text from the Mullen-Makarov meetings in Moscow,
the proposal was a means to reach closure quickly on Treaty and
Protocol text. Siemon indicated that nothing the United States had
provided or said was meant as a rejection of the Russian proposal.
He noted that the U.S. side had two choices: work to provide a
U.S.-proposed Annex or take the proposals of the two sides and
draft a U.S.-proposed merged text. The U.S. side chose to draft a
merged document that accurately indicated the similarities and
differences in the text of the sides within brackets. Although the
merged document was not yet drafted, Siemon conducted a general
walk-through of the Russian-proposed protocol to indicate where the
similarities and differences existed.



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

section I. General provisions

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



7. (S) Beginning in Section I, Siemon noted that paragraph 1 of
the Russian text was the textual equivalent to paragraphs 1 and 2
of the U.S-proposed Protocol. Therefore, he believed no changes
were necessary. Sentence one of paragraph 5 captured the text of
paragraph 3 of the U.S-proposed Protocol. It was apparent that the
Russian side had taken the text agreed to in the Mullen-Makarov
meetings and incorporated it into its proposal. Paragraph 2 would
be the first place where U.S.-bracketed text would appear since the
U.S. side believed there needed to be a role for the receiving
Party in the selection of the flight tests on which telemetric
information would be exchanged. The U.S. side realized the
ultimate decision belonged to the conducting Party and, therefore,
the U.S side would include bracketed text that identified the right
of the conducting Party to reject a certain number of the requests
from the receiving Party. Some of the U.S.-proposed text would
carry over to paragraph 3 which referenced the role of the
Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC) in the process. Siemon
noted that the U.S. text would focus on those flight tests in the
upcoming year; however, the Russian idea that was reflected in the
text which focused on flight tests of the previous year could be

considered.




8. (S) Regarding paragraph 5 which included the Russian-proposed
right of a Party to unilaterally suspend the telemetry exchange,
Siemon believed the disagreement in the sides' positions could be
resolved by changing sentence 2 to read as follows: "In the event
that one Party raises a question concerning the need to change the
quantity and amount of telemetric information transferred ((that
cannot be resolved within the BCC,))1 the exchange of telemetric
information shall be ((continued without change))1 ((suspended))2
until the Parties reach an agreement on the given change." Siemon
stated he used this example to demonstrate the idea that only small
text changes were necessary to create a merged document.




9. (S) Siemon stated that it was quite clear in the language of
paragraph 6 that the Russian side envisioned exchanging telemetric
information for 10 years, the life of the Treaty. He noted that
the concept of this paragraph could be moved to either paragraph 2
or paragraph 3; however, it was important to clarify what happened
at the end of the Treaty with respect to telemetry exchange in the
final year.



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

Section II. Access TO Telemetric Information

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




10. (S) Siemon stated there were few substantive differences in
paragraphs 1, 2 or 3. The paragraphs encompassed the same basic
concept as the U.S. approach, but that did not mean there would be
no brackets.



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


Section III. Guidance for the

Exchange of Telemetric information

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




11. (S) Siemon stated that paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 contained text
that differed dramatically from the U.S. position on the exchange
of telemetric information and interpretative data for the
self-contained dispensing mechanism (SCDM). Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7
would include brackets that changed references to a "Part" versus a
"Protocol" and an "Annex" versus a "Section." Siemon concluded his
review of the Protocol stating that there were both big differences
in the sides' positions and also areas where the sides agreed.



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

Additional issues

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




12. (S) Siemon stated there were four additional issues to discuss
during the next meeting. The first was an obligation for a Party
to add additional information to the launch notification currently
required by the Agreement between the United States of America and
the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on Notifications of
Launches of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and
Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles, dated May 31, 1988. The
second was additional discussion on replacing the term "flight
test" with the term "launch." Siemon noted that a Russian proposal
had been tabled in the Definitions Working Group on the issue;
however, the treaty text needed to be reviewed to determine if the
substitution could be made consistently throughout the entire
treaty text. Siemon agreed with the Russian proposal in the last
meeting that there were additional definitions required as a result
of the proposed Protocol and Annex. Siemon believed the sides
needed to determine if definitions from START were adequate or if
new definitions needed to be drafted. Siemon believed the last
item the sides needed to discuss was the additional notifications
that were required to implement the Telemetry Protocol and Annex.
He realized this was the work of the Notifications Working Group
but a basic understanding of what was required needed to be
discussed.




13. (S) Siemon stated the purpose of the brief overview was to
give the Russian side insight into what the U.S. side believed was
needed and to give the Russian side a preview of what to expect in
the U.S. merged text. He noted some differences in positions were
not technical, but political. He believed both capitals could
provide guidance throughout the discussions but the discussions
needed to continue in the Working Group. It was also important for
the sides to accurately report discussions conducted in the Working
Group so that capitals could respond with appropriate and
productive guidance. Poznikhir had no questions.


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

What was needed for signature

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




14. (S) Poznikhir was interested in Siemon's opinion on what was
required before Treaty signature. The Russian side had heard many
times that the United States believed it was important for the
Treaty, Protocol, and Annex to be prepared for signature. It was
important to understand the U.S. position so that work could
continue toward a common goal. Siemon believed both the Treaty and
the Protocol should be prepared for signature. The Annex could be
completed during the time period between signature and ratification
as it had been in the START negotiations, but that the sides should
work diligently to complete the Annex before signature.



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

Why didn't THE U.S. Proposal

Consider Russia's Approach?

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




15. (S) Poznikhir understood the U.S. side had guidance to
implement, but he was surprised that the U.S proposal had not
incorporated the Russian approach. Twice during this round the
Russian side had provided proposals and discussed them in detail to
move the work forward. Yet the U.S approach was dramatically
different from the Russian approach. From this, the Russian side
understood that the Russian text was unacceptable. The U.S
proposal did not reflect the fundamental position of the Russian
side that it was the right of the conducting Party to determine on
which launches telemetric information would be exchanged. The
Russian Protocol included provisions important to Russia, but none
of these were reflected in the U.S proposal. Poznikhir did not
understand why the U.S. side had not explained its approach to its
Protocol language. Will the U.S side merge the Russian text into
the new U.S. approach?




16. (S) Siemon noted that daily dialogue between A/S Gottemoeller
and Amb Antonov focused on a desire to complete the Treaty text and
Protocol quickly on the basis of previously agreed language so that
progress could be made toward signature. The text of the U.S.
proposal was simple, direct, and based on previously agreed
Protocol text.




17. (S) He noted that Gottemoeller had tried to pass text to
Antonov and to explain the U.S. position, but Antonov had refused
to accept the text or engage in a discussion. Siemon stated that
he intended to work from the Russian proposal and draft a U.S.
merged text that he would provide to the Russian side prior to its
departure for Moscow. He intended the U.S. text to be a reflection
of the positions of the sides and for the Russian side to study the


text while in Moscow.




18. (S) Poznikhir commented that the Russian side would not
consider an additional telemetry meeting until it had an
opportunity to fully review the merged text in written form. He
also stated the Russian delegation would return to Moscow later in
the week and take any U.S. text for review between sessions. He
stated he intended to report that during this round of negotiations
the United States had provided nothing to the Russian side to move
the telemetry issue forward.




19. (U) Documents provided: None.




20. (U) Participants:



UNITED STATES



Mr. Siemon

Mr. Dean

Lt Col Goodman

Mr. Hanchett (RO)

Ms. Pura

Dr. Ringenberg

Ms. Smith (Int)



RUSSIA



Gen Poznikhir

Ms. Fuzhenkova

Col Kamenskiy

Col Ryzhkov

Mr. Voloskov

Col Zaitsev

Ms. Evarovskaya (Int)




21. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
KING