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

S E C R E T GENEVA 000245

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 24, 2010

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-080.




2. (U) Meeting Date: February 24, 2010

Time: 10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M.

Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva



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

SUMMARY

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




3. (S) During a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group
meeting held at the U.S. Mission on February 24, the sides
discussed Part Four to the Annex on Inspection Activities,
specifically, the provisions and requirements for site diagrams and
references to Part Two of the Protocol. End summary.


4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Site Diagrams; and Part Two of the
Protocol.



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

SITE DIAGRAMS

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




5. (S) Mr. Trout asked General Orlov about his intent to return to
Moscow the weekend of February 27. Orlov, in a departure from the
Russian delegation's recent talking points, admitted that he would
not know whether the Russians would be returning to Moscow until
later in the afternoon when Russian Head of Delegation, Ambassador
Antonov, returned from his Moscow trip.




6. (S) Continuing the work begun the previous day, Orlov suggested
to Trout that the group begin with the last section of paragraph 1
of Part Four to the Annex on Inspection Activities. Colonel Petrov
made a brief intervention, suggesting that since the group had
worked from the U.S. proposal yesterday, the group should logically
work from the Russian proposal today. Orlov stated that Petrov's
proposal made no sense and that the group should continue to work
from a single proposal, and in this case it would be the U.S.
proposal. LT Lobner offered that since the Russian side had
already pointed out some errors in the Joint Draft Text (JDT),
perhaps, as the two sides continued their discussions, Petrov could
point out missing text.




7. (S) Trout deleted U.S.-proposed text at the bottom of
subparagraph 1(a) that dealt with provisions for simplified site


diagrams and moved the concept into the chapeau for paragraph 2.
Continuing to subparagraph 1(b),a concern arose about the Russian
translation for SLBM storage area. After an exhaustive discussion
of English and Russian phraseology, it was agreed to use "area at a
submarine base at which non-deployed SLBMs are stored." Much of
the remaining time in the session was dedicated to this terminology
and emplacing it in subparagraph 1(b) in all places where "SLBM
storage area" had previously resided.




8. (S) Discussion transitioned to subparagraph 1(c). Trout and
Orlov discussed the issue of whether "deployed heavy bombers" or
just "heavy bombers" should be depicted on site diagrams for air
bases. Orlov asked Trout to delete "deployed," while Trout
promised to consult with his colleagues and return with an answer
as soon as he could.




9. (S) The Russian side dropped portions of its bracketed text in
subparagraphs 1(c),1(d)(i),and 1(d)(ii). Work on this section
came to a halt when the sides began to discuss the stipulation of
areas of "ten square kilometers" for special provisions. The sides
agreed to postpone the discussion until after this issue had been
resolved in other working groups which dealt with basing areas and
test ranges.




10. (S) Moving to paragraph 2, another point of contention arose
when Orlov asked Trout what the United States considered to be
absolutely necessary vocabulary in English to equate to the Russian
words for site diagram. The words "site diagram," Orlov explained,
were used in this section as general terminology while outlining
requirements which should be on simplified site diagrams, annotated
site diagrams, and coastlines and waters diagrams. Trout explained
that the United States would insist that the requirements for each
type of site diagram be spelled out, as there was no equivalent
English word that encompassed all three types of diagrams. Lobner
stated that the United States would have to take paragraph 2 and
re-work some of the text to incorporate this concept.




11. (S) Petrov continued discussion on the first subparagraphs of
paragraph 2, but Trout suggested enough work on the Annex had been
accomplished for that day's meeting, explaining that he wanted to
use some of the time remaining to discuss a few topics in Part Two
of the Protocol. Orlov agreed.



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

PART TWO OF THE PROTOCOL

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




12. (S) Trout and Orlov returned to discussing the purpose of Part
Two of the Protocol. The Russian side, Orlov explained, saw Part
Two as the source for many of the requirements throughout paragraph
1 of Part Four of the Annex on Inspection Activities. He further


opined that Part Two was authoritative, since it was signed by
presidents, and was appropriately labeled "the Database" at the
behest of the United States. Orlov closed his oration by stating
he had no idea why the United States wanted to label Part Two "The
Database" if it did not consider Part Two to be referred to
throughout the treaty as a source for specific data, in this case
the facilities for which site diagrams are required.




13. (S) Trout responded by repeating the same logic he relayed to
Orlov the day prior: Part Two contained only the categories of
data which would later be used to organize the data populated in
the electronic database. Part Two, however, did not list specific
facilities nor would specific data ever appear in the text. This
data would be contained in the electronic database, so the
electronic database should rightly be referred to throughout Part
Four to the Annex on Inspection Activities. Orlov responded by
saying the sides should then agree to call Part Two to the Protocol
"Categories of the Database on Strategic Offensive Arms," or
something similar. Trout promised to discuss the issue with his
colleagues, but agreed that Orlov's proposed title was a more
accurate title for Part Two.




14. (U) Documents provided: None.




15. (U) Participants:



UNITED STATES



Mr. Trout

Mr. Brown

LTC Litterini (RO)

LT Lobner

Mr. French (Int)



RUSSIA



Gen Orlov

Col Petrov

Mr. Pischulov

Ms. Evarovskaya (Int)




16. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
KING