SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING GROUP

S E C R E T GENEVA 000241

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) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING GROUP
MEETING, FEBRUARY 23, 2010

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-077.




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

Time: 3:30 P.M. - 6:00 P.M.

Place: Russian Mission, Geneva



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

SUMMARY

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




3. (S) During a meeting of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
Working Group (WG),the U.S. and Russian chairs began working
through a joint draft text (JDT) of Part Four of the Annex on
Inspection Activities (Site Diagrams). A lengthy discussion ensued
over the difference between the title of Part Two of the Protocol,
Database for Strategic Offensive Arms, and the actual "database"
that will be created 45 days after signature. Additionally, some
changes were made to Part Two of the Protocol based on the recent
agreement on the terms for non-deployed launcher of ICBMs and SLBMs
and non-deployed heavy bombers. End summary.




4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Discussion of Part Two; Article VI; and
Page One of Site Diagrams.



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

DISCUSSION OF PART TWO

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




5. (S) Mr. Trout said he had a few quick items in Part Two that he
wished to discuss prior to focusing on site diagrams. First, he
presented Gen Orlov with some START photographs which showed the
difference between various versions of mobile launchers of ICBMs.
This spurred a conversation about "version" versus "variant."
Orlov asked what was more important, the words or the actual data
(measurements). Trout answered that naturally the data was more
important, but it was also important to write the text correctly.
No changes were made.




6. (S) Referring to Section V on heavy bombers, Trout said the
United States would drop the brackets around "equipped for nuclear
armaments" after the category non-deployed heavy bombers. This
change was based on recent agreement on the definition of
"non-deployed heavy bomber."



7. (S) In Section VI on space launch facilities, Trout announced
that the United States would delete all U.S.-bracketed text and
accept the Russian text to describe both ICBMs and SLBMs and ICBM
and SLBM launchers at space launch facilities as "non-deployed."



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

ARTICLE VI

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




8. (S) Orlov asked to clarify a point which came up during a
recent Heads of Delegation meeting in which Assistant Secretary
Gottemoeller announced the United States was deleting Article VI
which dealt specifically with mobile missiles. Orlov stated that
if the United States was dropping Article VI, then the United
States should drop all text that related to this Article from all
places in the Protocol and Annex to include Part Two of the
Protocol.




9. (S) Trout clarified that the U.S. decision to drop Article VI
did not mean U.S. insistence on a boundary on road-mobile ICBM
bases had been dropped. Trout continued that the boundary issue
required more discussion. Additionally, the sides needed to agree
where non-deployed ICBM launchers could be located on an ICBM base.




10. (S) Orlov pointed out that these issues would not be solved at
the working group level, to which Trout agreed. Trout stated a
personal idea that perhaps each Party should have boundaries for
both silo and mobile ICBM bases. In that manner, the requirement
would not apply uniquely to mobile forces. Orlov said he would
think about that approach.



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

PAGE ONE OF SITE DIAGRAMS

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




11. (S) Trout delivered the U.S.-proposed Joint Draft Text (JDT),
Annex on Inspection Activities, Part Four - Site Diagrams, that
reflected the Russian proposals of the prior week. He suggested
that the working group work from this revision, to which Orlov
agreed.




12. (S) LT Lobner delivered a few opening remarks, stating that
the United States had generally accepted the Russian structure of
the Annex and that this structure was reflected in the new JDT.
Lobner called attention to a new U.S. proposal for a simplified
site diagram for a submarine base, which was developed based on


discussion in the previous meeting and the Russian-bracketed text
in the paragraph specifying the requirements for coastlines and
waters diagrams. Finally, Lobner pointed out that this JDT
incorporated some Russian-proposed text where it was easy to
reconcile the text; however, other text required some clarification
in order for the United States to understand the meaning behind the
Russian proposal of last week.




13. (S) After some discussion, the title of Part Four was agreed
as "Requirements for Site Diagrams of Facilities Subject to
Inspection Activities."




14. (S) This was followed by a lengthy discussion over the phrase
"facility listed in Part Two of the Protocol" in the opening
paragraph. Trout pointed out that the phrase should be replaced
with "Database for Strategic Offensive Arms" as there would never
be any facilities listed in Part Two of the Protocol. Orlov,
seemingly puzzled, responded that the title of Part Two of the
Protocol is "the Database."




15. (S) Trout stated that although the title of Part Two of the
Protocol was indeed "Database for Strategic Offensive Arms," in
reality, Part Two was not a database. The database would not be
created until 45 days after signature when it was populated with
real numbers organized in the database by the categories of data
listed in Part Two of the Protocol. After many exchanges between
Orlov and Trout to explain this situation, Orlov stated the Russian
side would have to think about an appropriate title for Part Two
again, as the idea of having the same word "database" referring to
two totally different concepts was very confusing.




16. (S) Returning to the text, Petrov asked the U.S. side to
clarify the meaning of the phrase "depicting all facilities located
within" in the context of the requirements for drawing simplified
site diagrams. Lobner explained that the United States had taken
the agreed definition of "facilities," which now had been expanded
to include such things as the maintenance facility, basing areas,
and silo launcher groups, to clarify what should be in a simplified
site diagram. Petrov asked why the United States could not simply
accept "a simplified site diagram of the entire ICBM base" with no
further qualifications, as "ICBM base" was an agreed term and
included such facilities as silo launcher groups and the
maintenance facility. Lobner replied that the Russian-proposed
language did not necessarily mean that a Party would be required to
show all such facilities and could leave a loophole that a Party
could simply show some facilities that were on the ICBM base.
Lobner added, however, that perhaps "facilities" was indeed a broad
term, and perhaps the text could be more specific about what should
be included in the simplified site diagrams.




17. (S) After further discussion, Trout deleted the word
"facilities" and replaced it with a list of the specific facilities
that would be included in the simplified site diagram.



18. (S) Petrov pointed out that the U.S.-proposed JDT did not
incorporate the Russian position in subparagraph 1(a)(iii) in that
the word "inspection site" was not inserted as the Russian proposal
instead of "maintenance facility" near the end of the sentence.




19. (S) Noting the change, Trout agreed to consider it, and on
that last comment, concluded the meeting, agreeing to meet the next
day to continue progress on the JDT.




20. (S) Documents provided:



- United States:



-- U.S.-proposed Joint Draft Text of Part Four of the Annex on
Inspection Activities (Site Diagrams)




21. (U) Participants:



UNITED STATES



Mr. Trout

LTC Littorini

LT Lobner (RO)

Mr. French (Int)



RUSSIA



Gen. Orlov

COL Petrov

Mr. Pischulov

Ms. Evarovskaya (Int)




22. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
KING