SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING,

S E C R E T GENEVA 000225 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: 2020/02/28 TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING, FEBRUARY 25, 2010 REF: 10 GENEVA 223 (SFO-GVA-VIII-082) CLASSIFIED BY: Rose E. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B),(D) ¶1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-087. ¶2. (U) Meeting Date: February 25, 2010 Time: 3:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. Place: Russian Mission, Geneva -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶3. (S) During a meeting of the Notifications Working Group held at the Russian Mission on February 25, issues arising from the bracketed text of Part Four of the Protocol were discussed. It was agreed at the end of the meeting to send Sections I, IV, V and VIII to conforming. End summary. ¶4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Section VI: Inspection and Exhibition Notifications; Section VIII: BCC Notifications; Section I: General Provisions; and What to Send to Conforming. -------------- SECTION VI: INSPECTION AND EXHIBITION NOTIFICATIONS -------------- ¶5. (S) Col Ryzhkov provided a copy of the description of notifications in Russian. He noted this proposal was based on the discussions held in the previous day's meeting (Reftel),and would show all of the text that had been agreed in that session. ¶6. (S) Mr. Siemon and Ryzhkov then turned their attention to completing a review of Section VI Paragraph 15, which outlines the process by which the inspecting team chief provides notification to a member of the in-country escort for the designation of the site and type of inspection to be conducted. Ryzhkov explained that following an internal discussion with the Russian delegation, it was agreed to accept the U.S.-proposed text for sub-paragraph 15(a). It was also agreed that notification would be made within 4 hours of the inspecting Party's arriving at the point of entry (POE) whether it was the initial entry into the country or whether the inspection team was returning to the POE from a previous inspection and intended to conduct a sequential inspection. ¶7. (S) For sub-paragraph 15(b),Ryzhkov thought there was some confusion concerning the intent of this provision. He noted how the U.S. version, with its requirement for a notification of a sequential inspection before the completion of pre-inspection procedures, mirrored the provisions found in START. He then explained the rationale for the Russian proposal to only declare the intent to conduct a sequential inspection at the POE at the same time that notification was given for the first inspection site. If the inspected Party knew in advance the intent to conduct a sequential inspection, the Party would be able to ensure the appropriate escorts with technical background would be on the escort team, thus obviating the need for a return to the POE solely to swap out escort team members. ¶8. (S) Maj Johnson asked how the Russian proposal would work if the inspected Party was aware of the sequential inspection but not the type and location. Ryzhkov replied, this scenario would allow the inspected Party to bring a more robust escort team who could anticipate possible venues and be able to proceed directly to the sequential site. If the escort team knew there was not going to be a sequential inspection, the team would bring only the experts required for the inspection of the one site. Siemon took the proposal for further thought, and he and Smirnov agreed to discuss the matter further with their counterparts in the Inspection Protocol Working Group and report back their findings. ¶9. (S) For subparagraph 15(c),Ryzkov dropped the Russian formulation, and both sides accepted the draft text containing U.S.-proposed language addressing cancellations of inspections at the POE or the inspection site in those cases when the inspection may not be conducted. -------------- SECTION VIII: BCC NOTIFICATIONS -------------- ¶10. (S) The sides agreed to the Russian addition of "activities of" to the title of the Bilateral Consultative Commission messages. Siemon thought the Conforming Group might further modify the title. Ryzhkov was open to suggestions, though he indicated the original construction of the title without the addition of "activities of" sounded odd in Russian. -------------- SECTION I: GENERAL PROVISIONS -------------- ¶11. (S) Paragraph 1 was not addressed. Paragraph 2 elicited a lengthy discussion on the need for two times and dates to record the effective date of a notification. Ryzhkov argued there could be a circumstance in which a notification could be sent on one date and be acknowledged on another date. Such a situation would arise if a notification were sent 1-2 minutes before midnight and received after midnight. He conceded that, in the 15 years of START, such an event may have taken place one or two times. In the end, both sides agreed to shorten the bracketed text to state the effective date of the notification was the date of receipt. ¶12. (S) Paragraph 3, agreement on an annex regarding the content and format of notifications, was provisionally agreed. Ryzhkov wanted to complete a legal review to ensure the wording matched similar formulations elsewhere in the protocol. He and Siemon agreed, however, that the text could be sent to the Conforming Group. -------------- WHAT TO SEND TO CONFORMING -------------- ¶13. (S) Having completed the review of the remaining text of the Notifications Part of the Protocol, Siemon discussed, and Ryzhkov agreed, to the following disposition of the various sections: Section I. Sent to conforming. Section II. Held for further discussion, although Ryzhkov thought the remaining differences could be resolved at the next meeting. Section III. Held for further discussion, since Ryzhkov had a number of questions on the notifications for bomber movements. Ryzhkov offered to discuss this section in the next meeting. Section IV. Sent to conforming with brackets on the use of the term flight test or launch. Section V. Sent to conforming. Section VI. Held for further discussion. Ryzhkov offered to provide a new formulation for the bracketed text in paragraph 7 concerning objections to inspectors or crew members that he thought would satisfy both U.S. and Russian concerns. Section VII. The telemetry section was not addressed. Section VIII. Sent to conforming. ¶14. (U) Documents provided: - Russia: -- Description of Notifications, dated February 25, 2010, in Russian. ¶15. (U) Participants: UNITED STATES Mr. Siemon Mr. Connell (RO) Mr. Dean Mr. Dwyer Maj Johnson Mr. Stickney Ms. Smith (Int) RUSSIA Col Ryzhkov Mr. Smirnov Mr. Voloskov Ms. Komshilova (Int) ¶16. (U) Gottemoeller sends. KING