CFE/VCC: RFG - EXPERTS RECONSIDER IMPLEMENTATION

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 USNATO 000051 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/02/2020 TAGS: KCFE NATO PARM PREL MCAP MASS MARR SUBJECT: CFE/VCC: RFG - EXPERTS RECONSIDER IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATION WHILE VCC PREPARES TO DISCUSS NEW EXPERT TASKER REF: STATE 4628 Classified By: D/POLAD Alejandro "Hoot" Baez for reasons 1.4(B)&(D). ¶1. (U) This is a request for guidance. Please see para 6 below. ¶2. (C) Summary. Verification Coordination Committee (VCC) Experts initiated a discussion on a draft review of implementation coordination procedures during their January 22 meeting. Proposals to improve Allied coordination include a controversial Franco-German suggestion to introduce a mathematical formula for allocating Vienna Document 1999 activities more equitably (in the view of the proponents). The U.S. delegation will require guidance on this proposal prior to the next meeting. The International Staff (IS) has published a draft revision of coordination procedures that will form the basis for future discussions. Experts also deconflicted the CFE inspection calendar for the 15th residual period. ¶3. (SBU) Summary, cont'd. In the VCC, Germany explained its rationale for breaking silence on the IS draft tasker for VCC Experts to review VD99 implementation. Following an extended discussion, the IS announced that it would revise the tasker and re-issue it for comment before the next VCC. ¶4. (C) Summary, cont'd. Additionally, the IS will draft a paper outlining issues associated with Allies accepting invitations from partners to participate in activities when such verification activities are likely to preempt like NATO activities. End Summary. -------------- --- REVIEWING IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATION PROCEDURES -------------- --- ¶5. (C) At their 22 January meeting, VCC Experts began reviewing Alliance procedures for coordinating the allocation of VD99 verification activities as called for in AC/319-D(2009)0001, "Implementation Coordination Procedures." The January discussion focused on a draft revision of the 2009 decision, which the International Staff circulated at the beginning of the meeting. ¶6. (C) Of note, the IS draft included a German/French proposal, first raised after the deconfliction meeting in December. The Franco-German proposal is intended to minimize inter-alliance conflict during the coordination process by prescribing a formula for allocating activities in cases where Allies fail to reach an agreement on allocating activities to specific countries during the first round of negotiations. The revision gives priority for conducting a given activity in a given target country to Allies that have not recently conducted a like activity in that country. (For example, if five Allies remain in competition for the two evaluation quotas in the Russian Federation after the first round of discussions, then priority would be given to the two Allies with the longest periods since last conducting an evaluation in Russia.) (RFG: The US Delegation will need explicit guidance on this proposal for the next meeting. End RFG.) ¶7. (C) Another proposal would require an Ally that had lost an opportunity to conduct an activity in a given target country due to an uncoordinated activity by a partner to submit that target country as its primary bid for a like activity if it wishes to be given priority during the allocation process. Under the 2009 agreement, Allies are not required to submit the country in which it lost an activity as a primary bid, which in effect gives that Ally two primary bids. ¶8. (C) Since the IS had not circulated their draft in advance of the meeting, there was limited discussion among Experts. Belgium supported the German/French proposal, while Norway voiced its skepticism of a formulaic approach. U.S. Rep Meyer cautioned that the U.S. also might find a mathematical formulation problematic. Further discussion resulted in a few additional edits and the revised paper was published on 23 January under AC/319-WP(2010)0003,"Vienna Document 1999 USNATO 00000051 002 OF 003 Implementation Coordination Review." USDel expects the Experts Chair (Wiederholtz) to include this paper on the February agenda for Experts. ¶9. (C) In other business, Experts deconflicted CFE quotas for the 15th residual year. The revised schedule was published as AC/319-WP(2010)0001-REV 1 (CFE). Bulgaria announced it was returning its CFE inspection quota to Ukraine citing budgetary considerations. With Allied consent, Belgium picked up this inspection. Germany reported that Ukraine announced to Germany during a bilateral meeting that it would add additional CFE Points of Entry (POE)s in Dnepropetrovsk and Kharkov in March. -------------- TASKING THE EXPERTS TO REVIEW VD99 -------------- ¶10. (C) At the request of the VCC Chair (Parker) Germany explained the rationale for its break of silence with regard to AC/319-N(2009)0038, "Experts Tasking VD99." As described in the German e-mail, delivered 15 December 2009 and distributed through NATO missions, Germany said it would prefer that proposals related to reviewing or improving VD99, as stipulated in the OSCE Ministerial Council Decision 16/09 of 2 December 2009, be worked in Vienna rather than Brussels. ¶11. (C) During the subsequent discussion, various revisions to the original tasker were suggested, including a proposal for experts to consider problems in implementing VD99 as a first step in any review process. While Germany would not agree to specific proposals, it did intimate that it would be flexible in finding an appropriate role for VCC Experts. U.S. Rep Meyer asked Allies to consider how such a tasker would be substantively different from the work conducted by VCC Experts in preparation for the 2008 AIAM. Meyer also noted that any work on VD99 should compliment Alliance efforts in Vienna, and he asked Allies to consider how the work of the VCC and Experts could be structured to keep pace with events in the FSC. The Chair announced that the IS would issue a revision to the tasker, first for comment, and then, as appropriate, under silence. ¶12. (C) On the margins, US Rep Meyer delivered points per REFTEL regarding the procedures followed by the IS in issuing the original Experts tasker. In response, Parker admitted that, in hindsight, he had let his staff talk him into inappropriately issuing the original tasker under silence. (Comment. It is likely that Parker's announcement that the IS would circulate the next draft tasker for Experts initially for comment and only then under silence, as appropriate, was the result of his conversation with USDel. End Comment.) -------------- RESPONDING TO INVITATIONS FROM PARTNERS -------------- ¶13. (C) Denmark reported receiving an invitation from Bosnia for a guest inspector to participate in an inspection in FYROM. Denmark's announcement triggered a discussion on whether Allies should accept or reject invitations from partners when the activity in question would result in the loss of an opportunity for a NATO Ally. Of those Allies that intervened, most (Denmark, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech Republic, and Lithuania) supported a position that Allies should accept invitations from partners since NATO would lose the opportunity and one Ally on a partner's inspection team would be better than a lost Allied opportunity. In contrast, others (Turkey) felt that as a matter of principle, Allies should reject such invitations. The IS is expected to prepare a paper on this topic for discussion at the February VCC. Norway announced that it had informally approached Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland to coordinate VD99 activities. According to Norway, none of these countries intend to conduct activities before summer 2010. Norway said that some had indicated flexibility in their scheduling if they were to be offered a guest position on a NATO team. (Comment. If Allies receive indications that these countries intend to conduct activities, thereby preempting a NATO-led activity, Allies might want to consider offering a guest slot on a NATO team. End Comment.) USNATO 00000051 003 OF 003 ¶14. (C) The VCC Experts Chair, during the VCC, asked whether Spain or France intended to demonstrate the Tiger helicopter in the coming year. France responded that, according to VD99 para (31),since Spain announced the fielding of the Tiger first, it was Spain's responsibility to demonstrate the new equipment. The Spanish representative said he would pass the Chair's inquiry to Madrid. HEFFERN