CFE/VCC: GUIDANCE FOR THE 25 FEBRUARY 2010 VCC

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 STATE 016796

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/25/10
TAGS: OSCE KCFE NATO PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/VCC: GUIDANCE FOR THE 25 FEBRUARY 2010 VCC
AND EXPERTS MEETINGS AND THE USOSCE 2010 AIAM

REF: (A)AC/319-WP(2010)0003, (B)AC/319-N(2009) 0038-REV1
(EXPERTS TASKING)

Classified by: Richard A. Davis, VCI/CCA Office Director
for Reasons 1.4 (B) and (D).


1. (SBU) This is an action message. USNATO, see
paragraphs 2-11; USOSCE see paragraph 6-9.

- - - - - -
OBJECTIVES
- - - - - -


2. (C) U.S. objectives for the February 25, 2010
meetings of the NATO Verification Coordinating Committee
(VCC) and VCC Experts are as follows:

-- To oppose any revision to Vienna Document 1999 (VD99)
Implementation Coordination procedures that would
subordinate national priorities and prerogatives to an
automatic and formulaic mechanism for allocating
verification activity quotas.

-- To agree to the remaining proposed edits included in
Reference A with minor changes.

--To propose that the VCC discuss the Annual
Implemenation Assessment Meeting (AIAM) and ongoing VD99
work in Vienna before tasking the VCC Experts to do any
work related to VD99.

-- To announce to Allies Washington's intent to raise
questions at the 2010 AIAM related to the fall 2009
inspections in Belarus and Kazakhstan with the aim of
discouraging the practice of a pS inspecting a country
holding an exercise in which the inspecting pS is an
exercise participant.

-- To encourage Allies to share information on potential
notifiable military activities in the current calendar
year that are of interest for the deconflicted VD99
inspection schedule.

-- To update Allies on completed verification
activities.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Implementation Coordination
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -


3. (SBU) Washington has reviewed the IS draft revision
(REF) to AC/319-D(2009)0001 and is generally content
with the proposed edits, with the exception of those
offered in paragraph 2. USDel should make clear that
the U.S. opposes both proposals to paragraph 2, which
both attempt to specify how Allies will resolve
conflicts that arise during the coordination process.
Washington's view is that the only acceptable solution
to resolving conflicts encountered during the
coordination process is through negotiation among the
affected Allies. USDel may draw from the following
during the meeting of VCC Experts:

-- Washington opposes both proposed revisions to
paragraph 2, which advocate giving priority for
allocation of verification activity quotas in high-
interest countries to Allies based on how recently they
have conducted like activities in the country in
question.

-- The U.S. views any such mechanism or formula as
prejudicial to individual national interests and
prerogatives.

-- Allies have successfully negotiated solutions to all
the coordination conflicts over the past two years and

STATE 00016796 002 OF 003


we see no reason to alter the process that has led to
consensus while preserving individual Allies' rights and
interests.

-- In this light, the U.S. would also note that, in our
view, the phrase, "...taking into consideration
alternative bids," as found at the end of paragraph 2
does not equate to an automatic forfeiture of an Ally's
primary bid if its alternate bid is still available.

-- The remaining edits to Ref A are generally
acceptable. The U.S. would prefer a review of the
procedures in the spring and proposes deleting the word
"summer" in para 11.


4. (SBU) USDel should also ask Allies to consider, for
the purposes of clarity, reviewing the paper to correct
minor grammatical errors and awkward constructions.
USDel may suggest and accept such edits at the table as
long as they do not change the substantive content of
the paper. USDel should encourage Allies to share
information about potential notifiable military
activities in the current calendar year that could be of
interest for the deconflicted VD99 inspection schedule.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Experts Tasking on VD99
- - - - - - - - - - - -


5. (C/ REL NATO) On February 16, 2010 the International
Staff (IS) issued under silence procedures a revision
one to its tasker for Experts "...to review VD99 with
the intent of identifying possible technical
adjustments..." (Ref B). On February 23 the U.S. broke
silence, noting its preference to continue a discussion
on the proposed tasker within the 25 February VCC.
USDel should draw from the following to explain the
rationale for Washington's break.

-- In December, Ministers called on the FSC in 2010 to
"explore ways in which to strengthen the OSCE's
political-military toolbox, with particular attention to
strengthening current arms control and CSBM instruments,
including strengthening the Vienna Document 1999" (MC.
DEC/16/09). In Vienna, a number of proposals are under
consideration, including two proposals aimed at moving
forward on improving VD99 that have been recently tabled
by Allies. In addition, we understand that Allies
intend to table at the upcoming AIAM a number of
proposals for improving VD99 that VCC Experts have
discussed at great length in the past.

-- Washington sees value in exploring whether there is a
way for the work of the VCC and its Experts to
complement VD99 work already ongoing in Vienna. Thus,
we are not in favor of an open-ended review of VD99 by
the VCC Experts. We would welcome a discussion about
how to maximize the ability of the VCC to make a
positive contribution to VD99 discussions, but first
must have a better understanding of the pace and scope
of related work in Vienna.

- - -
AIAM
- - -


6. (C/REL NATO) Estonia and Portugal inspected Belarus
the second and third weeks of March respectively. The
Russian Federation conducted an inspection in Belarus
during the first week of September that exhausted the
last inspection quota in Belarus for 2009 as well as
preceded the joint Russian-Belarus exercise, "West-
2009," in which 12,529 personnel, including 6,820 from
Belarus, 5,680 from Russia and 29 from Kazakhstan
participated. In 2009, the Netherlands conducted a
VD99 inspection in February and Germany conducted a VD99
inspection in August in Kazakhstan. Then, in October,
Kyrgyzstan conducted an inspection in Kazakhstan, which
coincided with the CSTO exercise "Interoperability-2009"
and which exhausted the last quota in 2009 for
Kazakhstan. In both the Russia and Kyrgyzstan cases,

STATE 00016796 003 OF 003


these inspections conducted by non-NATO states preempted
planned Allied inspections of notified significant
military activities. The U.S. is concerned that this
unprecedented practice, if continued, will undermine the
transparency that VD99 inspections are intended to
provide.


7. (SBU) U.S. VCC Del should notify Allies in the VCC
and/or VCC Experts meetings, drawing from the points in
paragraph 9, as appropriate, of our intention to raise
this issue for discussion at the upcoming Annual
Implementation Assessment Meeting (AIAM) under Working
Session 1. We also request that Allies planning to
table papers or raise issues at the upcoming AIAM share
such information. As always, we would welcome an
exchange of views on papers that are going to be tabled
at the AIAM.


8. (SBU) U.S. OSCE Del should coordinate in advance
with Allies and draw from the points in paragraph eight
to raise questions at the AIAM under working Session 1.
Del should avoid criticism of individual pS and their
past practices, focusing on broader themes of
transparency and implementation.


9. (SBU) USDels may draw from the following as
necessary:

-- The U.S. intends to raise at this year's AIAM the
issue of pS conducting inspections in countries that
host military activities in which the inspecting pS is a
participant.

-- (For the VCC only) We are raising this issue in
response to the inspections that Russia and Kyrgyzstan
conducted last year in Belarus and Kazakhstan
respectively.

-- In both cases, an OSCE pS conducted an inspection in
a country in which it was a participant in a significant
military exercise that was notified in accordance with
VD99. In both cases a pS involved in the exercise
exhausted the last quota available and thus, precluded
any other pS from inspecting the exercise.

-- We are interested in soliciting pS views and
potential ways to avoid a repetition of this situation.

-- Our intent is not to criticize particular states, but
to shed light on an implementation concern that has
impacted transparency within the zone of application.

-- (For the VCC only) VCC coordination procedures were
designed to permit Allies to revise the deconflicted
schedule as appropriate. We encourage Allies to share
information about potential and notifiable military
activities in the current calendar year that could be of
interest for the VD99 inspection schedule.


10. (C/REL NATO) The United States conducted a CFE
flank supplementary inspection in Ukraine during
timeblock 48 (8-14 February) and will report on the
results of this inspection at the next VCC meeting in
April.


11. (C/REL NATO) The United States would like to
announce two changes to its CFE Schedule. The U.S. paid
CFE inspection in Ukraine that currently is scheduled in
timeblock 15 has been moved to timeblock 6 (19-25 April
2010) and the U.S. CFE inspection in Azerbaijan has been
moved from timeblock 7 to timeblock 10 (17-23 May 2010).
The Allies who have guest inspectors who are slated to
participate in those inspections should be aware that
the inspectors are still assigned to those inspections;
only the timeblocks have changed.
CLINTON