VZCZCXYZ0006
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHC #0239 2402257
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O P 282238Z AUG 09
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA IMMEDIATE 0000
INFO RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 0000

S E C R E T STATE 090239 
 
SIPDIS 
GENEVA FOR JCIC 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/31/2019 
TAGS: PARM PREL KACT KTIA START JCIC US RS
SUBJECT: GUIDANCE FOR U.S. DELEGATION TO U.S./RUSSIA 
NEGOTIATIONS ON START FOLLOW-ON TREATY, GENEVA, 
SWITZERLAND, AUGUST 31-SEPTEMBER 3, 2009 
 
REFS: A. STATE 078776 (SFO-GVA-III-003) 
      ¶B. STATE 088262 (U.S.-PROPOSED TREATY TEXT PART 1) 
      ¶C. STATE 088263 (U.S.-PROPOSED TREATY TEXT PART 2) 
      ¶D. STATE 088259 (U.S.-PROPOSED DEFINITIONS ANNEX 
         PART 1) 
      ¶E. STATE 088260 (U.S.-PROPOSED DEFINITIONS ANNEX 
         PART 2) 
      ¶F. STATE 041125 (GUIDANCE FOR APRIL 2009 ROME 
         MEETING) 
      ¶G. STATE 050911 (GUIDANCE FOR MAY 2009 MOSCOW 
         MEETING) 
      ¶H. STATE 050910 (U.S. NON-PAPER ON ELEMENTS OF SFO 
         TREATY) 
      ¶I. STATE 060343 (U.S. NON-PAPER ON SNDVS AND ODSNWS) 
      ¶J. STATE 060487 (U.S.-PROPOSED JOINT UNDERSTANDING) 
      ¶K. STATE 061832 (GUIDANCE FOR JUNE 2009 MOSCOW 
         MEETING) 
      ¶L. STATE 064643 (GUIDANCE FOR JUNE 2009 SFO-GVA-II) 
      ¶M. STATE 075614 (GUIDANCE FOR JULY 2009 SFO-GVA-III) 
      ¶N. MOSCOW 01347 (20 MAY 2009 SECOND SESSION) 
      ¶O. GENEVA 00616 (SFO-GVA-III-001) 
      ¶P. GENEVA 00617 (SFO-GVA-III-002) 
      ¶Q. GENEVA 00662 (2009 CD) 
 
Classified By: Rose Gottemoeller, VCI.  Reason: 1.4(b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (U) Assistant Secretary for Verification, Compliance, 
and Implementation, Rose Gottemoeller, will head the U.S. 
delegation in continuing negotiations regarding a START 
Follow-on treaty with Russian MFA Director of Security and 
Disarmament Affairs Anatoliy Antonov, in Geneva, 
Switzerland, August 31-September 3, 2009. 
 
------------------------- 
SCHEDULE AND ORGANIZATION 
------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (S) BACKGROUND:  The U.S. and Russian delegations have 
agreed to meet in Geneva from August 31-September 3 and 
from September 21-November 20 to complete work on a START 
Follow-on treaty.  The U.S. delegation has proposed to 
establish working groups modeled on those used during the 
START negotiations (Ref A).  The Russian delegation 
indicated agreement in principle, but also indicated 
concern about how soon such groups would be able to begin 
meeting. 
 
¶3.  (S) The U.S. also proposed a stocktaking at the 
mid-way point on October 20 with a view, in particular, to 
determining which issues may need to be referred for 
higher-level review and decision (Ref A).  (FYI: 
Delegation should be aware that it is possible Presidents 
Obama and Medvedev will meet on the margins on the UNGA in 
late September; in addition, Secretary of State Clinton 
and Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov will be meeting in 
Moscow on October 13-14.  Thus, even in advance of October 
20, appropriate issues may need to be prepared for 
discussion during these meetings.)  The goal is to have 
the treaty ready for signature on or about December 1, 
¶2009. 
 
 
 
 
--------------------------------------- 
U.S. DRAFT TREATY AND DEFINITIONS ANNEX 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (S) GUIDANCE: The U.S.-proposed draft text of the 
treaty and accompanying definitions annex were provided to 
the Russian MFA on August 25, 2009 (Refs B-E).  Delegation 
should use the U.S.-proposed texts to review and explain 
the U.S. positions on the treaty.  Delegation should 
encourage Russian questions and reactions to the U.S. 
texts and seek to identify areas of agreement and 
disagreement.  Delegation also should seek the date by 
which an official Russian response to the U.S. draft texts 
will be provided.  Delegation should determine if Russia 
is willing to work from the U.S.-proposed text to begin 
developing a joint draft text (JDT) identifying issues 
that will need to be discussed and resolved.  Delegation 
may continue to draw from previous guidance and U.S. 
nonpapers (Refs F-N), and July Moscow Summit Documents, 
including the July 6, 2009, Joint Understanding (Ref M, 
para 8) to discuss and explain U.S. views relating to a 
START follow-on treaty. 
 
¶5.  (S) Following discussion of the treaty text and 
related issues by the Heads of Delegation, Delegation 
should seek to convene an introductory meeting of each 
working group so that they may begin discussion of the 
organization of their work as well as discussion of treaty 
and protocol text, consistent with the U.S. proposal 
provided on July 23 (Ref A paras 28-30).  Washington 
believes it will be important to convene at least one 
meeting of each working group so the chairs on both sides 
can be introduced and initial planning for the next 
session may begin.  Delegation should report on all 
meetings as expeditiously as possible. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
SEVEN RUSSIAN PAPERS PROVIDED ON JULY 22-23, 2009 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶6.  (S) BACKGROUND AND GUIDANCE: During meetings on July 
22-23 (Refs O and P), Russia provided seven papers with 
its positions on key issues.  Delegation is authorized to 
discuss and seek agreement on the issues raised in these 
papers as provided in Ref M and below. 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OFFENSIVE AND DEFENSIVE ARMS 
--------------------------------------------- ---- 
 
¶7.  (S) GUIDANCE: In responding to the Russian paper On 
the Interrelationship between Strategic Offensive Arms and 
Strategic Defensive Arms, dated July 22, 2009 (Ref O para 
15), Delegation should seek to clarify Russias concerns 
about the relationship between strategic offensive and 
defensive arms. 
 
------------------------------------ 
CONVENTIONALLY-ARMED ICBMS AND SLBMS 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶8.  (S) GUIDANCE:  In responding to the Russian paper On 
Strategic Missile Systems in a Non-nuclear Configuration, 
dated July 22, 2009 (Ref O para 20), Delegation should 
draw on the U.S.-proposed draft treaty text to explain 
which U.S. strategic delivery vehicles currently counted 
in START should be excluded from the new treaty. 
 
¶9.  (S) If Russia raises the proposal made by the United 
States prior to the July 6 Moscow Summit to count 
non-nuclear armed ICBMs and SLBMs toward the treaty limit 
in exchange for Russian concessions on delivery vehicle 
issues, Delegation should probe the Russian delegation for 
its views and report back to Washington any Russian 
proposal for alternate numbers for warhead or delivery 
vehicle limits and for additional limitations on 
non-nuclear ICBMs and SLBMs, or Russian questions about 
which non-nuclear warheads are to be counted. 
 
------------------------------------- 
BASING SOA OUTSIDE NATIONAL TERRITORY 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (S) GUIDANCE: In responding to the Russian paper On 
Basing and Temporary Stationing of Strategic Offensive 
Arms Outside the National Territory of Each Party, dated 
July 23, 2009 (Ref P para 6), Delegation should make clear 
that the United States believes the START Treaty 
provisions regarding the basing and stationing of heavy 
bombers outside national territory, including related 
notification provisions, should be retained.  Regarding 
the use of Meck Island as a space launch facility, 
Delegation should draw upon the response provided by the 
U.S. delegation in Ref P para 10 and make clear that the 
United States expects the provisions for space launch 
facilities outside national territory that were developed 
in the JCIC to continue to be observed under the new 
treaty. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
PREAMBLE AND CONCLUDING PROVISIONS OF TREATY 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶11.  (S) GUIDANCE: Regarding the Russian-proposed Draft 
Preamble to the New Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms 
(Proposals of the Russian Side, and Draft Concluding 
Provisions of the New Treaty on Strategic Offensive Arms, 
both dated July 23, 2009 (Ref P paras 12 and 16), the U.S. 
response is contained in the U.S.-proposed draft treaty 
text.  As provided in paragraph 4 above, Delegation should 
review and explain the U.S.-proposed text, noting that we 
have taken Russias proposals into account. 
 
------------------------ 
PROPOSED UNGA RESOLUTION 
------------------------ 
 
¶12.  (S) GUIDANCE: Regarding the Russian-proposed paper 
On a Draft Resolution Bilateral Reductions in Strategic 
Nuclear Arms and the New Framework for Strategic 
Relations, dated July 23, 2009 (Ref P para 18), 
Delegation should indicate that the U.S. concurs with what 
we understand to be Russias reassessment (Ref Q para 10) 
that it would not be wise to table such a resolution while 
the negotiations on a replacement for START are still 
under way.  Delegation should state that the U.S. 
preference is to table our traditional joint resolution in 
the UNGA Plenary once our negotiations conclude 
successfully. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
PROPOSED JOINT UNDERSTANDING REGARDING BELARUS, KAZAKHSTAN, 
AND UKRAINE 
--------------------------------------------- -------------- 
 
¶13.  (S) GUIDANCE: Washington is continuing to study the 
Russian paper On a Draft Joint Statement in Connection 
with the Expiration of the Treaty on the Reduction and 
Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms, dated July 23, 
2009 (Ref A para 21).  Delegation is authorized to 
indicate that the United States believes a joint statement 
might be issued either bilaterally or by the five START 
Parties in connection with the START Treatys expiration. 
 
End guidance. 
CLINTON