SFO-GVA-VIII: AGREED STATEMENTS, FEBRUARY 11, 2010 --

S E C R E T GENEVA 000177

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: AGREED STATEMENTS, FEBRUARY 11, 2010 --
CORRECTED COPY

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-037.




2. (U) Meeting Date: February 11, 2010

Time: 10:00 A.M. - 11:30 P.M.

Place: Russian Mission, Geneva



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

SUMMARY

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




3. (S) A meeting co-chaired by Mr. Elliott and Col Ilin on
proposed Agreed Statements was held at the Russian Mission on
February 11. The proposed Agreed Statements on Converted B-1B
Bombers and SSGNs were discussed in detail and the subject of SLBM
launcher conversion was reviewed. End summary.




4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Converted B-1B Heavy Bombers; U.S. SSGNs;
and SLBM Launcher Conversion.



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

Converted B-1B heavy bomberS

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




5. (S) Ilin noted no brackets remained in the opening paragraph of
the Agreed Statement on Converted B-1B Heavy Bombers. Elliott
corrected him and said the U.S. side had inserted the term
"eliminated" inside its bracketed text in the opening paragraph to
better capture the nature of the facilities covered in this Agreed
Statement and that this change applied to the remainder of the
document. Elliott added the U.S. side had altered its next
bracketed text to read "the following provisions shall apply" to
ensure the cited provisions from the Treaty applied to the
remainder of the document. He stated a legal assessment of this
text was needed. Ilin responded that adding the term "eliminated"
to the bracketed text was an interesting change and he felt it
might be acceptable, but the Russian side would need to review it.
He agreed to let the legal representatives review the last
bracketed text in the first paragraph.




6. (S) Discussing the bracketed text in paragraph 1(A),Ilin
stated that "in accordance with" and "identical to" did not mean
the same thing. Elliott concurred and clarified that the U.S. side
had altered this sentence because there were certain scenarios
where the procedures used to demonstrate that the B-1B was
incapable of employing nuclear armaments might not be "identical


to" the procedures used in the exhibition of the B-1B and therefore
the U.S. side would not be able to comply with this provision as
written by the Russian side. Dr. Warner inquired why the term "in
accordance with" was not acceptable. Ilin replied that "in
accordance with" did not indicate to what extent the procedures
would be followed. Mr. Brown recommended the word "analogous" or a
similar term. The sides agreed to ask their respective lawyers to
collaborate on an appropriate term.




7. (S) Elliott stated paragraph 1(A) had been altered to include
"distinguishing features" in an effort to match the Russian intent
to capture the purpose of the exhibition but that it failed to make
sense in English. Ilin questioned why the brackets remained and
explained that, without the bracketed text, the meaning of the
paragraph would be lost. Elliott agreed to draft changes which
retained the meaning of the paragraph yet made sense in both
languages. Elliott explained that the United States was actively
converting B-1B heavy bombers at the present time and understood
that one B-1B would need to remain in its original state in order
to meet the requirement detailed in paragraph 1(A). (Comment: the
reference is to an exhibition of distinguishing characteristics for
which one converted and one unconverted bomber would be needed.
End comment.)




8. (S) Ilin stated paragraph 1(C) was agreed text. Elliott, Ilin
and Warner discussed paragraph 1(D) and agreed that during the
exhibition the demonstrating party would show the inspecting party
that the converted item was incapable of delivering nuclear arms
and the distinguishing features would be recorded for future use.
During subsequent inspections of the converted items, the inspected
party would demonstrate that the distinguishing features were
present and the inspecting party would confirm this, thereby
confirming that the converted item had not been reconverted and
remained incapable of delivering nuclear arms. Elliott agreed to
rewrite the paragraph to ensure this concept was captured.




9. (S) Elliott stated that paragraph 1(D)(i) remained bracketed
and Warner stated this paragraph was being reviewed for placement
in the General Provisions Part of the Protocol which would make it
applicable to all inspection activities.



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

U.S. SSGN

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




10. (S) Ilin declared that the brackets in the first paragraph and
paragraph 1(A) of the Agreed Statement on SSGNs converted from
SSBNS would be resolved if the same issues on the B-1B Agreed
Statement were resolved. Ilin said paragraph 1(B) still required
revision to include locations of not only SSGNs but also SSBNs on
the Coastlines and Waters diagrams. Elliott agreed to make that
revision. Ilin continued that paragraph 1(C)(i) of the United
States version was acceptable but that the last sentence was


unnecessary. Elliott agreed to send a revised proposal.



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

SLBM Launcher conversions

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




11. (S) Regarding SLBM launcher conversions, Ilin said the Russian
side had many questions on this topic, including how such a
conversion was possible, how often it would occur, for what purpose
it would be conducted and the time period in which the conversion
would take place. Adm (ret.) Kuznetzov interjected that while the
Conversion and Elimination Protocol for submarine launcher
conversions was nearly complete, the Protocol only covered
conversion to a new type of SLBM. Elliott disagreed and explained
that this topic had been covered in detail with Col Ryzhkov and the
U.S. side had made it clear throughout the negotiations what the
United States position on this matter was. Elliott continued that
he had on several occasions explained that, since the United States
had constructed its submarines with 24 SLBM launchers, it would be
required to convert some of its SLBM launchers in order to meet the
new treaty's limits. He explained that these conversions, although
the process had not been completely developed yet, must be such
that the launcher was no longer capable of launching an SLBM. The
procedures would be presented to the Bilateral Consultative
Commission, a demonstration would be conducted and notification and
subsequent opportunity for exhibition and inspection would be
provided. Elliott reiterated that he had explained all this to Col
Ryzhkov and given an explanation of the U.S. side's intent to
convert two to four tubes on each of its 14 SSBNs. While there was
no estimate available as to how long it would take to conduct the
conversions, they would normally take place in conjunction with
other major work on the submarine.




12. (S) Ilin inquired what the converted SLBM launchers or SSBNs
would be used for. Elliott responded that the decision was not
final on what the converted launchers would be used for, but it was
likely storage or ballast. It was certain that enough of the
launch system would be removed to require some structural work, he
added. Ilin asked if the United States would provide to the Russian
Federation, the purpose of the converted launchers. Elliott
responded "yes." Gen Orlov asked if the U.S. side understood what
problems it would face if it converted the launchers to employ
other types of weapons and Elliott again responded "yes." Probing
how long it would take to conduct the conversions, Ilin asked if it
could take a month and Elliott responded that the details were not
known but that the U.S. side had 7 years in which to conduct the
conversions. The standard would be that the launchers would not be
capable of launching SLBMs, as had been demonstrated to the Russian
side during the conversions of the SSGNs. Ilin requested written
responses to a list of questions on the topic. (Begin note. The
list of questions was provided on February 15. End note.) Elliott
agreed that he would provide written responses.




13. (U) Documents provided: None.



14. (U) Participants:



UNITED STATES



Mr. Elliott

Mr. Ahlm (RO)

Mr. Albertson

Mr. Brown

Lt Col Goodman

LTC Litterini

Amb Ries

Mr. Trout

Dr. Warner

Mrs. Zdravecky

Ms. Gesse (Int)



RUSSIAN



Col Ilin

Mr. Koshelev

Adm (Ret) Kuznetsov

Mr. Luchaninov

Gen Orlov

Gen Poznihir

Gen Venevtsev

Ms. Komshilova (Int)




15. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
KING