Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
10GENEVA243
2010-02-28 17:38:00
SECRET
Mission Geneva
Cable title:
SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) DEFINITIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING,
how-toVZCZCXYZ0001 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHGV #0243/01 0591738 ZNY SSSSS ZZH O R 281738Z FEB 10 FM USMISSION GENEVA TO 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 0669 RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0417 RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0487 RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0491 RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0487
S E C R E T GENEVA 000243
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) DEFINITIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING,
FEBRUARY 19, 2010
CLASSIFIED BY: Rose E. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)
S E C R E T GENEVA 000243
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) DEFINITIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING,
FEBRUARY 19, 2010
CLASSIFIED BY: Rose E. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)
1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-068.
2. (U) Meeting Date: February 19, 2010
Time: 3:30 P.M. - 4:30 P.M.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva
--------------
SUMMARY
--------------
3. (S) At the Definitions Working Group meeting chaired by Mr.
Siemon and Adm (Ret) Kuznetsov, the U.S. side provided
U.S.-proposed definitions of "solid-fueled ICBM or solid-fueled
SLBM," "solid rocket motor," "solid rocket motor case,"
"non-deployed launcher of ICBMs" and "non-deployed launcher of
SLBMs." In addition, Siemon provided U.S. official translations
for the Russian proposal to change the term "submarine base," and a
Russian proposal to replace the term "flight test" with the term
"launch." The U.S. side handed over to the Russian side a U.S.
proposal concerning Heavy Bomber terms. Siemon also provided
modified definitions for the terms "non-deployed launcher of ICBMs"
and "non-deployed launcher of SLBMs," based on the U.S. position
that soft site launchers would not be counted as non-deployed
launchers. End summary.
4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Terms and Definitions Discussed.
--------------
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS DISCUSSED
--------------
5. (S) Siemon provided the Russian side with the U.S.-proposed
definitions "solid-fueled ICBM or solid-fueled SLBM," "solid rocket
motor," and "rocket motor case." He stated that the definitions
had been discussed at the previous meeting and he provided the
translations for the Russian side to consider. Kuznetsov stated he
would take the definitions back for study. Siemon also provided
the Russian side with the U.S. official translations for the
proposal of the Russian side on changing the term "submarine base,"
and the proposal of the Russian side on replacing the term "flight
test" with the term "launch." Siemon noted that the Russian side
had added text to include submarines that had been previously
equipped with launchers of SLBMs but after conversion were no
longer capable of launching a SLBM and had also deleted the
formulation "unless otherwise provided for in this Treaty." He
asked if Kuznetsov could explain the changes.
6. (S) Kuznetsov responded that the sides had discussed an agreed
statement on the exhibition and inspection of SSBNs converted to
SSGNs and he believed the Russian-proposed changes reflected the
obligation in the agreed statement for the inspected Party to show
the presence of SSGNs on the coastlines and waters diagram of a
submarine base during an inspection. Siemon agreed with
Kuznetsov's remarks regarding the agreed statement, but did not
believe the added text was required in the definition. Kuznetsov
asked Mr. Dean if the Russian-proposed text was necessary to insure
the right to inspect both the SSBNs and the SSGNs. Dean assured
Kuznetsov that the agreed statement spoke for itself and the
additional Russian text was not required.
7. (S) Regarding the term "launch," Siemon understood the Russian
position on the need for the term in the treaty. However, there
was a difference in the U.S. and Russian concept of the meaning of
"flight test" and "launch." In some cases the terms were used
interchangeably. The U.S. side used the term "launch" to define
the initiation of a flight of a ballistic missile, making it
awkward to refer to the whole flight of the missile as "launch."
Kuznetsov acknowledged the U.S. position but did not want to change
any of the treaty text that was already agreed. Siemon believed
the issue required consideration in the Telemetry Working Group.
8. (S) Siemon inquired about the Russian reaction to a U.S.
proposal to delete the formulation "with a range of less than 600
kilometers" within the definitions for "heavy bomber equipped for
nuclear armaments," "heavy bomber not equipped for nuclear
armaments, and "nuclear armaments for heavy bombers." He asked
Kuznetsov if there was any movement on this from the Russian side.
Kuznetsov said he understood the U.S. position; however, neither
the Russian delegation nor Moscow was ready to discuss the issue.
9. (S) Siemon provided the Russian side with the U.S. proposal
concerning heavy bomber terms. The proposal included modified
definitions for a "deployed heavy bomber," "non-deployed heavy
bomber" and "test heavy bomber." Siemon began the discussion with
the term "test heavy bomber" and indicated this definition provided
the basis for discussion on the other definitions. Kuznetsov asked
if the U.S. side would delete the phrase "equipped for nuclear
armaments" in the 800 aggregate limit provision on deployed and
non-deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers in Article II. Siemon
indicated that in a meeting earlier that day, Assistant Secretary
Gottemoeller had said to Ambassador Antonov that the U.S. side
would drop the phrase "equipped for nuclear armaments" in the
language describing the 800 limit in Article II, subparagraph 1(c),
if the Russian side accepted the phrase in these definitions.
Kuznetsov noted that the offer followed previous discussions on
non-deployed heavy bombers. He remarked that the Russian-proposed
text for these terms that he had planned to provide was no longer
needed since it paralleled the U.S.-proposed definitions. He would
provide the U.S. proposal to his lawyers to determine if the text
was acceptable.
10. (S) Siemon noted that the U.S. side did not intend to count
soft-site launchers at test ranges and space launch facilities as
non-deployed under the aggregate limit. This position and the fact
that the sides had agreed on the definition of "soft-site launcher"
required the definitions of "non-deployed launcher of ICBMs" and
"non-deployed launcher of SLBMs" be modified. Siemon provided
Kuznetsov with U.S.-proposed text for the two definitions.
Kuznetsov asked if the United States intended not to include
soft-site launchers at these locations whether or not the Russian
side accepted the proposal. Siemon replied that the United States
did not intend to declare soft-site launchers as non-deployed
launchers.
11. (S) Kuznetsov stated that he personally thought the
definitions were fine and no one on the Russian delegation would
object but he still wanted to take them back for review. He
indicated that the Russian side had never intended to include
soft-site launchers in the aggregate limit.
12. (S) Siemon believed the seven remaining telemetry definitions
and the two missile defense-related definitions could not be
decided until the larger issues had been decided. He stated that
the U.S. side would also review the concept of size in the
definitions of "ICBM base" and "basing area." He believed the
U.S. side would have a proposal during the following week.
13. (U) Documents provided:
- U.S.:
-- U.S-proposed definition of the term "solid-fueled ICBM or
solid-fueled SLBM," dated February 18, 2010.
-- U.S-proposed definition of the term "solid rocket motor," dated
February 18, 2010.
-- U.S-proposed definition of the term "rocket motor case," dated
February 18, 2010.
-- U.S-proposed definition of the term "non-deployed launcher of
ICBMs," dated February 18, 2010.
-- U.S-proposed definition of the term "non-deployed launcher of
SLBMs," dated February 18, 2010.
-- U.S. Official translation of the Proposal of the Russian
E
Federation on changing the term "submarine base," dated February
16, 2010.
-- U.S. Official translation of the Proposal of the Russian
Federation on replacing the term "flight test" with the term
"launch," dated February 16, 2010.
-- Unofficial Russian translation of the Proposal of the U.S.
concerning "Heavy Bomber Terms," dated February 19, 2010.
14. (U) Participants:
UNITED STATES
Mr. Siemon
Lt Col Comeau
Mr. Connell
Mr. Dean
Mr. Hanchett (RO)
Mr. Taylor
Ms. Zdravecky
Mr. French (Int)
RUSSIA
Adm (Ret) Kuznetsov
Ms. Fuzhenkova
Mr. Kamenskiy
Mr. Trifonov
Ms. Komshilova (Int)
15. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
KING
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) DEFINITIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING,
FEBRUARY 19, 2010
CLASSIFIED BY: Rose E. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B),(D)
1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-068.
2. (U) Meeting Date: February 19, 2010
Time: 3:30 P.M. - 4:30 P.M.
Place: Russian Mission, Geneva
--------------
SUMMARY
--------------
3. (S) At the Definitions Working Group meeting chaired by Mr.
Siemon and Adm (Ret) Kuznetsov, the U.S. side provided
U.S.-proposed definitions of "solid-fueled ICBM or solid-fueled
SLBM," "solid rocket motor," "solid rocket motor case,"
"non-deployed launcher of ICBMs" and "non-deployed launcher of
SLBMs." In addition, Siemon provided U.S. official translations
for the Russian proposal to change the term "submarine base," and a
Russian proposal to replace the term "flight test" with the term
"launch." The U.S. side handed over to the Russian side a U.S.
proposal concerning Heavy Bomber terms. Siemon also provided
modified definitions for the terms "non-deployed launcher of ICBMs"
and "non-deployed launcher of SLBMs," based on the U.S. position
that soft site launchers would not be counted as non-deployed
launchers. End summary.
4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Terms and Definitions Discussed.
--------------
TERMS AND DEFINITIONS DISCUSSED
--------------
5. (S) Siemon provided the Russian side with the U.S.-proposed
definitions "solid-fueled ICBM or solid-fueled SLBM," "solid rocket
motor," and "rocket motor case." He stated that the definitions
had been discussed at the previous meeting and he provided the
translations for the Russian side to consider. Kuznetsov stated he
would take the definitions back for study. Siemon also provided
the Russian side with the U.S. official translations for the
proposal of the Russian side on changing the term "submarine base,"
and the proposal of the Russian side on replacing the term "flight
test" with the term "launch." Siemon noted that the Russian side
had added text to include submarines that had been previously
equipped with launchers of SLBMs but after conversion were no
longer capable of launching a SLBM and had also deleted the
formulation "unless otherwise provided for in this Treaty." He
asked if Kuznetsov could explain the changes.
6. (S) Kuznetsov responded that the sides had discussed an agreed
statement on the exhibition and inspection of SSBNs converted to
SSGNs and he believed the Russian-proposed changes reflected the
obligation in the agreed statement for the inspected Party to show
the presence of SSGNs on the coastlines and waters diagram of a
submarine base during an inspection. Siemon agreed with
Kuznetsov's remarks regarding the agreed statement, but did not
believe the added text was required in the definition. Kuznetsov
asked Mr. Dean if the Russian-proposed text was necessary to insure
the right to inspect both the SSBNs and the SSGNs. Dean assured
Kuznetsov that the agreed statement spoke for itself and the
additional Russian text was not required.
7. (S) Regarding the term "launch," Siemon understood the Russian
position on the need for the term in the treaty. However, there
was a difference in the U.S. and Russian concept of the meaning of
"flight test" and "launch." In some cases the terms were used
interchangeably. The U.S. side used the term "launch" to define
the initiation of a flight of a ballistic missile, making it
awkward to refer to the whole flight of the missile as "launch."
Kuznetsov acknowledged the U.S. position but did not want to change
any of the treaty text that was already agreed. Siemon believed
the issue required consideration in the Telemetry Working Group.
8. (S) Siemon inquired about the Russian reaction to a U.S.
proposal to delete the formulation "with a range of less than 600
kilometers" within the definitions for "heavy bomber equipped for
nuclear armaments," "heavy bomber not equipped for nuclear
armaments, and "nuclear armaments for heavy bombers." He asked
Kuznetsov if there was any movement on this from the Russian side.
Kuznetsov said he understood the U.S. position; however, neither
the Russian delegation nor Moscow was ready to discuss the issue.
9. (S) Siemon provided the Russian side with the U.S. proposal
concerning heavy bomber terms. The proposal included modified
definitions for a "deployed heavy bomber," "non-deployed heavy
bomber" and "test heavy bomber." Siemon began the discussion with
the term "test heavy bomber" and indicated this definition provided
the basis for discussion on the other definitions. Kuznetsov asked
if the U.S. side would delete the phrase "equipped for nuclear
armaments" in the 800 aggregate limit provision on deployed and
non-deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and heavy bombers in Article II. Siemon
indicated that in a meeting earlier that day, Assistant Secretary
Gottemoeller had said to Ambassador Antonov that the U.S. side
would drop the phrase "equipped for nuclear armaments" in the
language describing the 800 limit in Article II, subparagraph 1(c),
if the Russian side accepted the phrase in these definitions.
Kuznetsov noted that the offer followed previous discussions on
non-deployed heavy bombers. He remarked that the Russian-proposed
text for these terms that he had planned to provide was no longer
needed since it paralleled the U.S.-proposed definitions. He would
provide the U.S. proposal to his lawyers to determine if the text
was acceptable.
10. (S) Siemon noted that the U.S. side did not intend to count
soft-site launchers at test ranges and space launch facilities as
non-deployed under the aggregate limit. This position and the fact
that the sides had agreed on the definition of "soft-site launcher"
required the definitions of "non-deployed launcher of ICBMs" and
"non-deployed launcher of SLBMs" be modified. Siemon provided
Kuznetsov with U.S.-proposed text for the two definitions.
Kuznetsov asked if the United States intended not to include
soft-site launchers at these locations whether or not the Russian
side accepted the proposal. Siemon replied that the United States
did not intend to declare soft-site launchers as non-deployed
launchers.
11. (S) Kuznetsov stated that he personally thought the
definitions were fine and no one on the Russian delegation would
object but he still wanted to take them back for review. He
indicated that the Russian side had never intended to include
soft-site launchers in the aggregate limit.
12. (S) Siemon believed the seven remaining telemetry definitions
and the two missile defense-related definitions could not be
decided until the larger issues had been decided. He stated that
the U.S. side would also review the concept of size in the
definitions of "ICBM base" and "basing area." He believed the
U.S. side would have a proposal during the following week.
13. (U) Documents provided:
- U.S.:
-- U.S-proposed definition of the term "solid-fueled ICBM or
solid-fueled SLBM," dated February 18, 2010.
-- U.S-proposed definition of the term "solid rocket motor," dated
February 18, 2010.
-- U.S-proposed definition of the term "rocket motor case," dated
February 18, 2010.
-- U.S-proposed definition of the term "non-deployed launcher of
ICBMs," dated February 18, 2010.
-- U.S-proposed definition of the term "non-deployed launcher of
SLBMs," dated February 18, 2010.
-- U.S. Official translation of the Proposal of the Russian
E
Federation on changing the term "submarine base," dated February
16, 2010.
-- U.S. Official translation of the Proposal of the Russian
Federation on replacing the term "flight test" with the term
"launch," dated February 16, 2010.
-- Unofficial Russian translation of the Proposal of the U.S.
concerning "Heavy Bomber Terms," dated February 19, 2010.
14. (U) Participants:
UNITED STATES
Mr. Siemon
Lt Col Comeau
Mr. Connell
Mr. Dean
Mr. Hanchett (RO)
Mr. Taylor
Ms. Zdravecky
Mr. French (Int)
RUSSIA
Adm (Ret) Kuznetsov
Ms. Fuzhenkova
Mr. Kamenskiy
Mr. Trifonov
Ms. Komshilova (Int)
15. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
KING