Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
10GENEVA171
2010-02-27 12:01:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:  

SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) MEETING ON PROVISIONAL APPLICATION,

Tags:  PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0006
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0171/01 0581201
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O R 271201Z 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 0468
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0271
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0341
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0345
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0341
S E C R E T GENEVA 000171 

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: 2020/02/27
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) MEETING ON PROVISIONAL APPLICATION,
FEBRUARY 23, 2010

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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000171

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: 2020/02/27
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) MEETING ON PROVISIONAL APPLICATION,
FEBRUARY 23, 2010

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-078.




2. (U) Meeting Date: February 23, 2010

Time: 3:30 P.M. - 5:30 P.M.

Place: Russian Mission, Geneva



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

SUMMARY

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




3. (S) A meeting to discuss Part VIII of the Protocol-Provisional
Application was held between Mr. Highsmith and Mr. Lobach. This
was the first meeting on provisional application in the eighth
round of the negotiations. In the previous session, the United
States offered a draft proposal on provisional application. Russia
counter-offered its own, minimalist, draft on December 15. Lobach
explained the Russian approach was based on their view that a
lengthy list of articles and Protocol sections to be provisionally
applied would create a disincentive to prompt ratification. He
reiterated Russian opposition to inspections during the provisional
application period due to U.S. inability to grant privileges and
immunities, and he took the position that the treaty text would not
allow for updating the initial data exchange during the provision
application period. He noted agreement on provision application of
the articles on: application of definitions; initial data
exchange; voluntary confidence-building measures; noninterference
with national technical means (NTM); and the Bilateral Consultative
Commission (BCC). He expressed a willingness to consider
provisional application for conversion or elimination. End
summary.




4. (S) Subject Summary: Review of U.S.-Proposed Text;
Inspections; Counting Rules; New Kind of SOA and the BCC;
Conversion or Elimination; Database and Notifications;
Noninterference with NTM; Nonsubstantive Changes to Protocol;

Definitions; and Agreed Statements.



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

REVIEW OF U.S.-PROPOSED TEXT

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




5. (S) The sides reviewed a U.S.-proposed draft of Part VIII of
the protocol, which was tabled in December during SFO-GVA-VII of
the negotiations, in order to reach agreement on the list of
provisions from the treaty and Protocol to be provisionally applied
after signature, and pending entry-into-force (EIF).




6. (S) This U.S.-proposed text is reproduced below, with article
and paragraph numbers that reflect changes in the treaty and
protocol texts since the document was tabled in December.



Begin text:



The Parties agree to apply the following provisions of the Treaty
and this Protocol provisionally from the date of signature of the
Treaty pending the entry into force of the Treaty:



(a) Article I, Paragraph 2 of the Treaty; (Applicability of
Definitions of Terms)



(b) Article III, Paragraphs 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Treaty; (Rules
Regarding Which Strategic Offensive Arms (SOA) Are Covered by the
Treaty)



(c) Article V, Paragraph 2 of the Treaty; (New Kind of SOA Can Be
Raised In BCC)



(d) Article VI, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3(a) of the Treaty;
(Conversion or Elimination)



(e) Article VII of the Treaty; (Database, Notification of Changes
To Database, Nuclear Risk Reduction Center (NRRC),Voluntary
Notifications)



(f) Article VIII of the Treaty; (Voluntary Confidence-Building
Measures)



(g) Article X, Paragraphs 1(a)-(c) and 2 of the Treaty; (NTM
Noninterference and Non-Concealment)



(h) Article ((XIII))1((XII))2 of the Treaty; (BCC)



(i) Article ((XVI))1((XV))2, Paragraph 2 of the Treaty; (Changes
to the Protocol Not Affecting Substantive Rights or Obligations
Under the Treaty)


(j) Part One of this Protocol to the Treaty; (Definitions)



(k) Part Two of this Protocol to the Treaty; (Database)



(l) Part Three of this Protocol to the Treaty; (Conversion or
Elimination)



(m) Part Four, Section I, Section II, Section III, Section IV,
Section V, and Section VII of this Protocol to the Treaty;
(Notifications Regarding Changes in Data, Movement of SOA, Flight
Tests, Conversion or Elimination, Changes in Information)



(n) Part Six of this Protocol to the Treaty; (BCC)



(o) Part Nine of this Protocol to the Treaty; (Agreed Statements)



(p) Part XXX of this Protocol to the Treaty; and (Transparency
Visits and Undertaking to Treat Personnel of the Other Party with
Due Respect)



(q) Part Ten of this Protocol to the Treaty. (General)



End text.




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

INSPECTIONS

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




7. (S) Lobach reiterated the Russian position that inspections
could not occur during the provisional application period due to
the U.S. inability to grant privileges and immunities to Russian
inspectors. Thus, Russia could not accept the U.S. proposal, which
provided for transparency visits by each side and an obligation by
the host country to "treat with due respect" the personnel of the
other side and "take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on
the person, freedom, and dignity of such persons." Highsmith noted
that the sides had discussed this issue extensively, and each
understood the other's position.


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

COUNTING RULES

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




8. (S) Highsmith presented the U.S. position that paragraphs 3, 4,
6, and 7 of Article III needed to be included because they detailed
the rules that guide the content of the database. Lobach responded
that he would present the U.S. position to the experts on the
Russian side.



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

NEW KIND OF SOA AND THE BCC

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




9. (S) Lobach argued that the inclusion of Paragraph 2 of Article
V would be redundant because both sides had already agreed to
provisional application of Article ((XIV))1((XIII))2 (Bilateral
Consultative Commission (BCC)),subparagraph (c) which provides
that the BCC is established to "resolve questions relating to the
applicability of provisions of this Treaty to a new kind of
strategic offensive arm." Highsmith responded that the U.S. side
would consider the Russian position. Highsmith asked Lobach if he
found anything harmful in including Paragraph 2 of Article V.
Lobach commented that he personally could see logic in the U.S.
position to include Paragraph 2, but noted that the Russian aim for
provisional application was to keep the list of provisions short.
They did not want Part VIII to give the appearance that the two
sides were provisionally applying the entire treaty. They believed
that this would create a disincentive to proceed promptly with
ratification.



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

CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION

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




10. (S) Highsmith explained the rationale for provisionally
applying Paragraphs 1, 2, 3(a) of Article VI (Conversion or
Elimination (CorE)) by noting that if they were not applied, the
sides would be free to convert and eliminate in a way of their own
choosing during the time between signature and ratification.
Highsmith explained that these paragraphs were included to protect
against a potential dispute arising upon EIF over whether a Party's
converted or eliminated SOA was legitimately outside the scope of
the treaty. Lobach mentioned he recommended to his delegation that
it would be reasonable to include CorE provisions in the
provisional application list. However, he said that at that time
the Russian delegation was not interested in the CorE proposal. He


said he would raise the issue again, however he also noted that
inclusion of the paragraphs (and the CorE part of the Protocol)
would work against the Russian interest in keeping the provisional
application list short. (Begin comment: The Russian desire to
keep the provisional application list short was a consistent theme
during the meeting. End comment.)



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

DATABASE AND NOTIFICATIONS

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




11. (S) Lobach said the Russian side might be able to make changes
to its provisional application proposal as it related to the
initial exchange of data. He noted that Paragraph 2 of Section I
of Part Two provides for the initial data exchange no later than 45
days after signature and hence should be provisionally applied.
Lobach also noted that, by the same logic, the Russian side might
approve the inclusion of Paragraph 3 of Section 1 of Part Two,
which requires the provision of certain site diagrams within 45
days after signature. Lobach concluded that Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8
regarding geographic coordinates would not be included in the
Russian proposal, as geographic coordinates are specifically
excluded from the initial exchange of data (paragraph 2(a)).




12. (S) Lobach said many questions concerning Article VII also
applied to Part Two of the Protocol. He said that if the parts of
Part Two requiring provision of data and site diagrams 45 days
after signature were included in provisional application, then the
corresponding treaty text in Article VII could also be
provisionally applied. Lobach expressed uncertainty regarding
Article VII in its entirety. He said Paragraph 1 might be applied
(requiring establishment of the database and referring to Part Two
of the Protocol). He said his personal opinion was that Paragraph
2 and Paragraph 3 (regarding notification of changes in the
database) would not be provisionally applied since the Russian
position was that the United States and Russia would only conduct
the initial exchange of data during the provisional application
period. Highsmith asked what the sides would do if the provisional
application period became lengthy and the initial data became
stale. Lobach seemed to register this point, but declared he was
trying to proceed with caution toward provisional application. He
also noted that Paragraph 1 of Section II of Part Four of the
Protocol (notifications) required the Parties to provide data
current as of EIF no later than 45 days after EIF. Thus, the
treaty only required that the initial exchange of data be updated
as of EIF, not before, so updating cannot be required during the
provisional application period, which occurs entirely before EIF.




13. (S) Continuing with Article VII, Lobach said Paragraph 5 might
be applied provisionally in order to authorize the release to the
public of the initial exchange of data, and he said he would check
this point with Russian experts. Lobach also said that Paragraphs
6-8 would most likely not be provisionally applied, as they were
unrelated to the initial exchange of data.



14. (S) Lobach stated notifications should not be provisionally
applied since there would be no database changes to notify. (Begin
comment: The other sections of Part IV will be the topic of future
discussions. The outcome will depend in part on whether the
subjects to which these sections relate (e.g., CorE, new kinds of
SOA) are applied provisionally. End comment.)



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

NONINTERFERENCE WITH NTM

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




15. (S) Lobach noted that the two sides agreed on provisional
application of most of Article X, but the U.S. proposal excluded
some paragraphs. Highsmith agreed to check with the U.S.
delegation on these paragraphs. (Begin comment: One of the
excluded paragraphs of Article X requires 48-hours notice of the
departure of solid-fueled ICBMs and SLBMs from production
facilities; it was not in Article X when the United States tabled
its proposed Part VIII of the Protocol. The other excluded
paragraph requires unique identifiers. The U.S. position on
provisional application of this paragraph will be provided to the
Russian side. End comment.)



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

BILATERAL CONSULTATIVE COMMISSION

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




16. (S) Lobach and Highsmith agreed that Article ((XIII))1((XII))2
and Part VI of the Protocol would be provisionally applied to
establish the BCC.



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

NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO PROTOCOL

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




17. (S) Paragraph 2 of Article ((XVI))1((XV))2 provides that the
Parties may agree to changes in the Protocol "that do not affect
substantive rights and obligations under the Treaty" without
resorting to the treaty amendment process. Lobach raised a concern
that, because the list of provisions to be provisionally applied
would be part of the Protocol, the BCC would be able to agree to
changes in that list and thereby expand (or contract) the scope of
provisional application. He also expressed concern about the BCC


making changes to the Protocol while it was still subject to
consideration by the respective legislatures. Highsmith and Lobach
agreed to check with their respective sides and also to see if this
provision was provisionally applied in the expired START Treaty.



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

DEFINITIONS

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




18. (S) Highsmith and Lobach noted that both sides had proposed to
apply provisionally paragraph 2 of Article I and Part I of the
Protocol, which relate to the definition of terms used in the
treaty and Protocol.



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

AGREED STATEMENTS

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




19. (S) The sides agreed it was premature to discuss the agreed
statements in Part IX of the Protocol. They agreed to revisit the
statements later to determine if provisional application would be
useful and appropriate.




20. (U) Documents provided: None.




21. (U) Participants:



UNITED STATES



Mr. Highsmith

Ms. Miller (RO)



RUSSIA



Mr. Lobach

Ms. Vodopolova




22. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
KING