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