GOL VIEWS ON OPEN SKIES TREATY

C O N F I D E N T I A L VILNIUS 000125 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/25/2020 TAGS: OSCE PARM PREL LH SUBJECT: GOL VIEWS ON OPEN SKIES TREATY REF: SECSTATE 15591 Classified By: AMB Anne E. Derse for reasons 1.4 (b) and (d). ¶1. (C) Summary. We spoke with Dovydas Spokauskas from the MFA's Transatlantic Cooperation and Security Policy Department as well as Robertas Sapronas from MOD's International Relations and Operations Department to collect information about the GOL's views on Open Skies (OS). The GOL considers the Open Skies Treaty to be part of its national defense strategy. The MFA and MOD collaborate on key Open Skies decisions which are further vetted at the EU level. ¶2. (C) Spokauskas said that key government personnel for Open Skies decision-making remain the Transatlantic Cooperation and Security Policy Department at the MFA and the International Relations Department at MOD, specifically the Control of Arms Division and the officers going on CSBM (Confidence and Security Building Measures) missions. ¶3. (C) Spokauskas said that the Open Skies policy-making process between the two ministries is, "A combination of two interests. For defense there's a military-security interest... At the MFA, there's political interest for using Open Skies." He underscored that joint decisions evolve before EU meetings. ¶4. (C) The MFA views the Open Skies agreement as a part of other CSBMs. Spokauskas said that Open Skies remains important because the treaty is still active despite a decline in other security treaties. He cited the example of Russia's suspension of the CFE treaty in 2007. MOD's Sapronas said that the OS treaty is less important than the Vienna Document, for example. He noted that the GOL does not plan to use its active quota this year. ¶5. (C) Spokauskas characterized Lithuanian NGOs as disinterested in the Open Skies Treaty and could not identify any academics specifically interested in the Open Skies Treaty. ¶6. (U) Our contacts provided the following response to the Open Skies non-paper (reftel). ¶7. (U) Begin response. -- What topics would your government like to see included as agenda items for the RevCon? Could your delegation provide a food-for-thought paper on this subject for review in advance of the RevCon? MFA: We have consulted with the outline of topics for the agenda and found that it very thoroughly reflects the scope of issues related with the Treaty. We have no such plans (for a food-for-thought paper) at the current stage. MOD: We hope that there will be a joint Nordic-Baltic position developed and presented. --The U.S. supports the goal of a consensus political document, e.g., Final Document, at the close of the RevCon. Does your government share this goal? MFA: Yes. The Treaty on Open Skies remains the only fully functioning legal instrument on CSBMs in the OSCE area. We should reaffirm our strong support to it. -- How does your government view the contributions of Open Skies to the broader European security architecture? MFA: The very fact that the Open Skies system has now been functioning for more than eight years is a proof that states recognize it as in important tool to promote transparency. Together with the CFE treaty, Vienna Document and OSCE Code of Conduct, Open Skies Treaty form a backbone of European security architecture. --How does your government plan to continue support for the Treaty in the future, including the transition to digital sensors/media? MFA: We do not operate our own Open Skies aircraft, however transition to digital media would make the footage from the missions more attractive and easily accessible to the relevant authorities. MOD: These (technological developments) have to be somehow reflected in the revised Treaty. --Is your government considering replacing your Open Skies aircraft and/or sensors? MFA: We do not operate our own Open Skies aircraft. --Does your government plan to continue exercising Open Skies quotas missions? MFA: Due to a substantial cost of the operation, we are not planning to conduct independent Open Skies missions. We are, however, looking forward to sharing our quotas with interested states. --Does your government continue to value missions as CSBMs and as transparency measures? MFA: As mentioned, we believe that Open Skies CSBMs regime has both real and symbolic value in today's situation. MOD: As you know, Lithuania was not taking part in the preparation of the Treaty and, mainly due to the costs involved, was not very active in taking part in its implementation... The key concerns which, I believe, our countries will raise, will be related to the economic aspects of the implementation- i.e. searching for ways to make participation in OS less costly. --Is your government interested in conducting missions for other "transnational" threats (see OSCE Ministerial Decision 2/09)? MFA: We think that an initiative to conduct missions for "transnational threats" properly reflects OSCE's efforts to take a multidimensional approach to security. We are looking forward to a first overview on progress by Secretariat due by 1 April. End response. DERSE