VZCZCXYZ0000
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHVEN #0142/01 1491712
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 281712Z MAY 08
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5748
INFO RUCNCFE/CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO PRIORITY 1669
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5-DDPMA-IN/CAC/DDPMA-E// PRIORITY
RUEAHQA/HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC//XONP// PRIORITY
RUEADWD/DA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAE PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L USOSCE 000142 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/RPM 
NSC FOR DOWLEY 
JCS FOR J5/COL NORWOOD 
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI) 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 05/27/2018 
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL RS
SUBJECT: CFE: MAY 27 JCG PLENARY: ALLIES CONFIRM NAC 
COMMITMENTS; BELGIUM/HUNGARY REFUSED INSPECTIONS 
 
Classified By: Chief Arms Control Delegate Hugh Neighbour, 
for reasons 1.4(b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary:  At the May 27 JCG Plenary, Russia asked 
JCG delegations from NATO to confirm the Alliance's current 
position on the 8 December 1998 NAC Statement on CFE, as well 
as the NATO-Russia Founding Act.  Germany, the U.S., the 
U.K., the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic told Russia 
that Allies continue to support commitments contained 
therein, that they had not been superseded nor renounced. 
The U.S. also noted the NAC Statement was reaffirmed in PP9 
of the CFE Final Act, observed that Allies continue to 
respect their CFE Final Act commitments, and urged Russia to 
respect its commitments, including regarding host nation 
consent.  Other delegations stressed that the NAC Statement 
on 28 March 2008 contains the key for resolution of the 
ongoing CFE impasse.  In addition, Hungary and Belgium 
announced recent rejections by Russia of their requests to 
conduct CFE inspections.  The U.S. supported these Allies and 
reminded Russia that its "suspension" had no legal basis and 
urged it to resume Treaty implementation. 
 
¶2.  (C)  At the JCG-T plus 4, some Allies expressed 
frustration at the slow pace of activities in the JCG. 
Luxembourg said it plans to urge the June 24 HLTF to allow 
the JCG to negotiate technical aspects of the definition of 
"substantial combat forces."  End Summary. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
ALLIANCE COMMITMENTS ARE UNCHANGED 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶3.  (C)   The JCG (Joint Consultative Group) met on May 27 
under Italy's Chairmanship.  As promised in the last meeting, 
Russia (Ulyanov) asked JCG delegations from NATO to reaffirm 
the Alliance's position on the 8 December 1998 NAC Statement 
on CFE, as well as the NATO-Russia Founding Act; specifically 
related to deployment of substantial combat forces.  Russia 
is seeking confirmation because it believed one delegation 
would like to revise an element of the statement.  (Note: 
during last week's meeting, Germany (Richter) immediately 
reaffirmed this statement, but other Allies were silent. 
Russia (Ulyanov) said that Moscow had reasons to believe that 
at least one State Party no longer supported these 
committments.  End Note). 
 
¶4.  (SBU)  Germany (Richter) responded by quoting passages 
from three NATO declarations; the 14 March 1997 NAC 
Statement, the 8 December 1998 NAC Statement on CFE, and the 
NATO-Russia Founding Act.  In quoting the various passages, 
Richter told Russia that the three documents are interlinked 
and are related to each other.  He said the documents 
remained valid and that each contained substance that would 
help resolve the current CFE crisis.  He specifically quoted 
paragraphs 9, and 10 in the 8 December 1998 statement that 
refer to "...substantial ground or air combat forces..." 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  The U.S. (Neighbour) reassured Russia that the 
commitments contained in the three statements have never been 
superseded or contradicted and that the Alliance stands by 
its commitments.  He added that the commitments contained in 
the 8 December 1998 statement were also reaffirmed in the CFE 
Final Act in Istanbul.  Neighbour also drew attention to 
paragraphs 9 and 10 of the 8 December 1998 NAC Statement on 
CFE pointing out that the U.S. and its Allies continue to 
honor the commitments in these paragraphs.  Neighbour stated 
that the Alliance has kept its CFE Final Act commitments and 
urged all others to do the same, in full, including those 
regarding host nation consent. 
 
¶6.  (SBU)  The U.K. (Gare) and the Netherlands (Kleinjan) 
also voiced their support for the U.S. and German 
interventions.  Gare reminded all that the 28 March NAC 
Statement added to the three documents referred to by 
Germany.  Kleinjan noted that all Allies, including those who 
have joined after the statements were made, stand by the 
 
statements. 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  Russia (Ulyanov) thanked Allies for the 
clarification of continued support on previous NAC 
statements, asserting that Germany, the UK, the U.S., and 
Netherlands spoke on behalf of all Allies.  In particular, 
Ulyanov told the JCG that the Russia was satisfied with the 
Alliance's confirmation of its support of elements in 
paragraph 10 of the 8 December 1998 NAC Statement, and that 
Russia,s concerns have been addressed. 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  The Czech Republic (Reinohlova) recalled that the 
parallel actions package is currently on the table awaiting a 
response from Russia.  The parallel actions package is the 
path out of the current CFE situation and that discussion of 
various elements couldn't go further until Russia agrees to 
the package.  Reinohlova appealed to Russia to give a 
positive concrete response to the parallel actions package. 
 
¶9.  (SBU)  Russia (Ulyanov) replied that there is a package 
of decisions made at the Sochi Summit and those decisions 
formed the basis of negotiations with US and consultations 
with others.  He claimed that there were no expectations that 
Russia will come up with a proposal.  He complained that 
while the parallel actions package had some positive aspects, 
but was not sufficient and does not cover all issues 
concerning the current crisis.  Ulyanov pointed out that 
since the Madrid Ministerial there have only been two U.S - 
Russia bilateral meetings.  He bemoaned that the dialogue has 
not been "intensive."  Ulyanov offered to work with the Czech 
Republic on a bilateral level and asked all delegations to 
continue the dialogue in all forums to resolve the current 
situation. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
RUSSIA REFUSES MORE CFE INSPECTIONS 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶10.  (SBU)  Hungary and Belgium announced the recent 
rejections by the Russian Federation of their requests to 
conduct (separate) CFE inspections.  Belgium sent their 
inspection request on 19 May and Hungary sent their 
inspection request on 23 May.  Hungary "deeply regretted" 
Russia's refusal and continue "suspension" of Treaty 
implementation.  Belgium voiced its support for the parallel 
actions package as a way out of the current impasse. 
(Comment:  the Belgian delegation was very reluctant to make 
this statement, and after initially stating last week that it 
would not do so, make this basic statement after direction 
from capital.  End comment). 
 
¶11.  (SBU)  The Netherlands, the U.K., Germany, and the U.S. 
voiced support for Hungary and Belgium's statements.  The 
U.S. (Neighbour) reminded Russia that its "suspension" had no 
legal basis and urged Russia to resume Treaty implementation. 
 Russia called for enhanced contact between Washington and 
Moscow to continue discussion of the parallel actions package 
as this was the only way for inspections to resume.  Ulyanov 
opined that if the U.S. were to accept Russia,s proposal to 
use all possible avenues to enhance contacts between our 
capitals, then the prospect of moving forward on (resuming) 
inspections would be underway. 
 
¶12.  (SBU)  As JCG Chairman, Italy proposed postponing the 
JCG meeting on June 24 (due to the HLTF meeting) to Friday, 
June 27.  This was accepted. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - 
SHOW ME THE...BRIEF! 
- - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶13.  (C)  The Czech Republic chaired the JCG-T plus 4 on May 
¶26.  The focus of the discussion was on how to respond if 
Russia brought up elements of previous NAC statements on CFE 
for discussion.  Allies reaffirmed their support for the 28 
March 2008 NAC Statement on CFE as well as all commitments in 
 
previous NAC declarations.  The group generally agreed to use 
this as basis for any response to Russia - to tell Russia 
that previous NATO commitments are still valid and that they 
support all previous NATO commitments. 
 
¶14.  (C)  Some allies (Germany, Luxembourg, and Greece) 
expressed frustration at the slow pace of the activities in 
the JCG, but acknowledged that delegations must work within 
the guidance from their capitals and NATO.  Luxembourg 
(Pilot) wants to be allowed to negotiate in the JCG and plans 
to urge the HLTF to agree to negotiation on the technical 
aspects of the term "substantial combat forces."  Germany 
swiftly replied that this would not be accepted.    He added 
that all Allies should attempt to convince Russia that the 
parallel actions package was the only way out of the current 
situation. 
 
¶15.  (C)  As in previous JCG-T and JCG, however, Germany 
(Richter) continued to suggest that the JCG could somehow 
have substantive discussions.  In the meantime, he offered to 
brief the JCG on the historical definitions of various CFE 
terminologies (e.g. headroom, temporary deployment, permanent 
stationing, and "substantial combat forces").  The U.S. and 
other delegations insisted, and Germany agreed, to allow 
Allies to preview the brief well in advance of any 
presentation in the JCG, including a full dry run in the 
JCG-T. 
 
¶16.  (U)  The next JCG-T will be on June 2.  The next JCG 
will be on June 3. 
FINLEY