SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) MEETING OF THE NOTIFICATIONS PROTOCOL

S E C R E T GENEVA 000049

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: 2020/02/17
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) MEETING OF THE NOTIFICATIONS PROTOCOL
WORKING GROUP, FEBRUARY 05, 2010

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


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-022.




2. (U) Meeting Date: February 05, 2010

Time: 3:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M.

Place: Russian Mission, Geneva



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

SUMMARY

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




3. (S) During a meeting of the Notifications Working Group (WG)
held at the Russian Mission on February 5, the U.S. side delivered
its latest proposed Joint Draft Text (JDT) of Part Four of the
Protocol to the treaty, dated February 5, 2010. The United States
provided an explanation of significant changes, section-by-section,
in addition to justification for accepting or rejecting Russian
text in specific paragraphs. The Russian side said it would review
the U.S. draft text and provide comments at the next WG meeting.
End summary.




4. (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Section-By-Section; and Homework.



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

SECTION-BY-SECTION

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




5. (S) The two sides discussed all seven sections of Part Four of
the Protocol. Mr. Siemon stated the U.S. side had prepared a new
JDT based on the December 15, 2009, U.S.-proposed text and the
December 31, 2009, Russian-proposed text; he handed over copies of
the English and unofficial Russian translation to Col Ryzhkov.
Following a cursory review, Ryzhkov noted the updates to the new
text were well done and it looked as if the text was becoming
simpler and easier to follow. He requested the U.S. side provide
an overview of its draft text.




6. (S) Comments and responses on each section of the text are as
follows:



-- (S) Section I. General Provisions: No changes were made to the
agreed text in Section I. It was noted by Dr. Fraley that
paragraph 2 duplicated Article VIII language and that perhaps it


could be eliminated in this document. Ryzhkov replied that the
Russian side would review this part of the section.



-- (S) Section II. Notifications Concerning the Database: Mr.
Dwyer noted that previous references to format numbers used under
START were removed throughout the document. Ryzhkov indicated his
agreement with this. A notification covering the transfer of
strategic offensive arms (SOA) to/from a third state under an
existing pattern of cooperation was added to paragraph 3,
"Notification of change in MOU data." Dwyer noted that the U.S.
version contained a notification on the change in status from
deployed to non-deployed and vice-versa. Ryzhkov agreed that this
was necessary based on the recent discussions in Moscow between
CJCS Adm Mullen and General Makarov. Dwyer indicated the need may
arise for a notification capturing the transfer of items to and
from the Leninsk Test Range in Kazakhstan. Ryzhkov countered that
these transfers should be handled through the standard notification
of change in MOU data and should not have a separate notification.



-- (S) Section III. Notifications Concerning the Movement of SOA:
Much of the Russian-proposed text from December 31, 2009, was
accepted. Dwyer and Fraley questioned the need for the two
notifications associated with major strategic exercises, paragraphs
5 and 6, since those were already covered in the September 23,
1989, Agreement on Major Strategic Exercises. Ryzhkov responded
that the reduced timeline introduced in this treaty justified
retaining these notifications. He also referenced additional
restrictions currently being discussed in the Inspections Protocol
Working Group (IPWG) that could restrict activities or inspections
at a specific base.



-- (S) Section IV. Notifications Concerning Flight Tests of ICBMs
and SLBMs: No changes were made to the text in this section.
Siemon noted that this section could not be changed until decisions
were made in the Telemetry Working Group. Ryzhkov concurred.



-- (S) Section V. Notifications Concerning Conversion or
Elimination (C or E) of Items and Facilities Subject to the Treaty:
LT Sicks indicated that a placeholder for a C or E batch inspection
notification was added in the event the IPWG and C or E Working
Group determined it was necessary. Ryzhkov replied that such a
notification could be provided using the "Notification of
Completion of Conversion or Elimination," currently paragraph 3.
He agreed, however, to await the outcome from ongoing decision
making in the other working groups. Sicks further noted the
U.S.-proposed text, paragraph 2, retained the notification
requesting the annual schedule of C or E activities. Ryzhkov
agreed to retain the U.S.-proposed text, but argued for the use of
the term "plan" vice "schedule." The U.S. side agreed to this
change.



-- (S) Section VI. Notifications Concerning Inspections and
Exhibitions: The list of notifications was reordered to reflect
the Russian-proposed text. LTC Leyde discussed the U.S. desire to


retain a mechanism in the new treaty to object to an inspector or
aircrew member already on the approved list. Ryzhkov recommended
utilizing an existing notification, to be determined at a later
time. Additionally, time periods in paragraphs 11 and 12 were
replaced with "XX" so that both sides would have the opportunity in
the future to propose appropriate time periods. A subsection
covering paragraphs 14-18 entitled "Additional Information provided
by the Inspection Team Leader in Writing During On-Site
Inspections" was also discussed. Leyde highlighted the importance
of clarifying that these "notifications" were not submitted through
the respective Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers (NRRC),but were in
reality written information that the inspection team chief provided
and received during on-site inspections. Sequential inspection
notifications were included in this sub-section, and Leyde gave a
brief explanation of the U.S.-proposed sequential inspection
concept.



-- (S) Section VII. Notifications Concerning Additional Messages
and the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC): No changes were
made to the text. Siemon indicated that while the first section
concerning notifications relevant to the BCC had been agreed in
principle, the section retained other subsections on notifications
concerning new types and new kinds (Begin comment: These
definitions continue to be worked by the Definitions WG. End
Comment.),mobile launchers of ICBMs, throw weight and flight
tests, cooperative measures, and exchange of telemetric data. Both
Siemon and Ryzhkov agreed that these subsections would be discussed
after high-level political decisions were made concerning these
issues.



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

HOMEWORK

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




7. (S) Ryzhkov told the U.S. side that he would be traveling back
to Moscow in the evening and would be away from Geneva the
following week. He indicated the Russian side planned to translate
the U.S.-proposed JDT and review it so that discussion could
continue in his absence. (Begin comment: Mr. Smirnov will lead
the WG in Ryzhkov's absence. End comment.) Ryzhkov mentioned he
wanted to begin considering the substance and layout of the format
for the change in database notification to which Siemon replied the
U.S. side would do the same.




8. (U) Documents provided:



- United States:



-- JDT of Part IV to the Protocol, dated February 05, 2010;
and


-- Unofficial Russian Translation of the U.S.-proposed JDT of
Part IV to the Protocol, dated February 05, 2010.




9. (U) Participants:



UNITED STATES



Mr. Siemon

Mr. Dwyer

Dr. Fraley

Maj Johnson

LTC Leyde

Mr. McConnell

LT Sicks (RO)

Ms. Smith (Int)



RUSSIA



Mr. Ryzhkov

Mr. Smirnov

Mr. Voloskov

Ms. Komshilova (Int)




10. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS