VZCZCXRO7144
PP RUEHAST RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0233/01 2761421
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 021421Z OCT 08
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5945
INFO RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0598
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 1153
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RHMFISS/CDRUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC
RHDLCNE/CINCUSNAVEUR LONDON UK
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE
RHMFIUU/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL
RUEKJCS/JCS WASHDC
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 1093

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 USOSCE 000233 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, EUR/CARC, 
SCA/CEN, SCA/RA, PM/WRA 
JCS FOR J-5 
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI) 
NSC FOR HAYES 
USUN FOR LEGAL, POL 
EUCOM FOR J-5 
CENTCOM FOR J-5 
UNVIE FOR AC 
GENEVA FOR CD 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL KCFE OSCE RS XG
SUBJECT: FSC:RUSSIA BLASTS U.S. ON CSBM POLICY, U.S. AND 
OTHERS ON ARMING GEORGIA 
 
REF: A. USOSCE 212 
     ¶B. EMAIL WRIGHT-MEYER FROM OCTOBER 1 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary.  Russia criticized what it called the 
"depraved" U.S. policy of linking all Russian initiatives in 
the FSC to "unrelated and secondary issues" such as Georgia 
and CFE.  The U.S. position is "unreasonable," and 
"demonstrates that Washington has lost all interest in arms 
control."  The U.S. restated standing guidance on new 
Confidence and Security Building Measures (CSBM)s, noting 
that recent Russian actions have raised serious concerns over 
Russia's commitment to collective security. 
 
¶2. (SBU) In security dialogue, Russia blamed the August 
conflict in Georgia on participating States (pS) that 
contributed to systematic and unprecedented program of 
militarization by the "Saakhashvili regime."  Russia cited 
data from OSCE and CFE exchanges to support its accusations, 
and concluded by introducing a Russia proposal that would ban 
all pS from providing military assistance to Georgia.  The 
Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Turkey, Lithuania, Georgia 
and the U.S. rebutted Russian allegations with strong 
interventions in support of Georgia's legitimate right to 
develop its armed forces.  Many, including the U.S., 
questioned Russia's own culpability in arming separatist 
militias. 
¶3. (SBU) In support of the Finnish Chairmanship,s emphasis 
on SALW, three NGO,s -- Small Arms Survey, Saferworld, and 
GRIP gave presentations to the FSC.  In Working Group (WG) B, 
the Estonian-Lithuanian proposal on a cyber security workshop 
gained wide support. The decision to hold the next AIAM on 
3-4 March 2009 was agreed in WGA. See para 14 for guidance 
request.  End Summary. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Russia Blasts U.S. for "Depraved Policy on CSBMs 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶4. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) launched into the U.S. during the 1 
October FSC plenary, criticizing Washington's alleged policy 
to block all Russian proposals on new CSBMs.  Referring to 
the U.S. comments in the 10 September FSC (Ref A), Ulyanov 
characterized as "depraved" Washington's linking of Russia's 
initiatives such as its proposed Rapid Reaction Force CSBM to 
CFE and Georgia.  Ulyanov asserted that the U.S. dispenses 
its support for Russian initiatives like gifts, while it 
attempts to punish what it claims is poor behavior by 
opposing proposals.  He criticized the U.S. for failing to 
engage productively on any of three key FSC topics that 
emerged from the Madrid Ministerial--Code of Conduct, SALW 
and CSBMs.  Ulyanov characterized the U.S. approach as 
"totally unreasonable."  He concluded that the U.S. had lost 
all interest in arms control, a serious development that 
will, he claimed, result in a significant imbalance in the 
work of the OSCE. 
 
¶5. (SBU) In refuting Ulyanov's rants, the U.S. (Neighbour) 
underscored Washington's commitment to all existing CSBMs, 
which, when adhered to by all Participating States (pS), 
remain relevant to the security of Europe.  Neighbour 
reminded pS that the U.S. assesses all new CSBMs against 
three criteria--significance, balance and verifiability.  He 
pointed out, however, that recent Russian actions have raised 
 
USOSCE 00000233  002 OF 004 
 
 
serious concerns over Russia's commitment to collective 
security.  He characterized Russia's apparent belief that its 
partners should simply ignore its miscalculations as 
unrealistic.  The U.S., having great concern over Russia's 
recent decisions, is considering its position, including 
proposals for new CSBMs in the FSC. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - 
The Arming of Georgia 
- - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶6. (SBU) Ulyanov provided a multimedia presentation 
(distributed under FSC.DEL/154/08) purporting to prove that, 
with the assistance of several pS, Georgia had long engaged 
in an unprecedented military build up with the goal of 
forcibly bringing South Ossetia and Abkhazia back under 
Tbilisi's control.  In support of his allegations, Ulyanov 
cited readily available data from various OSCE and CFE 
information exchanges illustrating increases in Georgia's 
defense budget and equipment holdings.  The U.S. found itself 
among the long list of pS (Ukraine, the Czech Republic, 
Bulgaria, Poland, Lithuania, Israel, Turkey and France) that 
had provided arms and assistance to Georgia since 2002. 
Ulyanov concluded that pS which provided military assistance 
to Georgia in spite of repeated Russian warnings had 
contravened OSCE principles enshrined in documents on 
conventional arms transfers and SALW, and shared 
responsibility for the August conflict. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Russia Calls for Ban on Military Assistance 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶7. (SBU) Ulyanov said that while one could understand the 
errors of the past, it was clear that pS must act now in 
response to voices calling for a reaming of Georgia. He 
appealed to all pS to heed Russia's warning and to adherer to 
principles to which all pS have committed.  Ulyanov announced 
the distribution of a Russian proposal (FSC.DEL/155/08, 
Proposal for a Draft FSC Decision on Supplies of Conventional 
Arms and Small Arms and Light Weapons to Georgia,) which 
calls on pS to refrain from providing any military assistance 
to Georgia.  Despite Ulyanov's call for its proposal to be 
placed directly on the 15 October plenary agenda, the Chair 
(Kangaste, Finland) announced that Russia's proposal will be 
introduced in one of the working groups on 15 October in 
accordance with standard FSC rules and procedures. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Rebuttal of Russian Charges 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶8. (SBU)  Georgia (Giorgadze) responded first, noting that 
Russia's presentation was based on data distributed to all pS 
in the course of normal OSCE information exchanges.  He 
called on Russia to be equally transparent about its support 
for the separatist regions.   Gioradze also countered that 
Georgia,s increased military spending came on the wave of 
economic prosperity and a seven-fold increase in the 
government budget since the Rose Revolution.  He added that 
over 50 percent of Georgia's military expenditures had gone 
to infrastructure and quality of life improvements, salaries 
and research and development.  Finally, he referred to his 
 
USOSCE 00000233  003 OF 004 
 
 
briefing from the previous week to highlight a long list of 
Russian transgressions, and repeated Georgia's call for a 
full international investigation to determine "who is right 
and who is wrong." 
 
¶9. (SBU) The Czech Republic (Reinohlova), Ukraine 
(Velchenko), Turkey (Gungen) and Lithuania (Kalibatas) 
rebutted Ulyanov's commentary by emphasizing Georgia's right 
as a sovereign state to determine its defense needs.  They 
noted that there was no international restriction on sales of 
arms to Georgia, and that all transfers were transparent and 
in accordance with all international norms and procedures. 
Ukraine's Ambassador Velchenko noted that Ukraine had also 
provided military equipment to Russia and could not be 
certain Russia had not used Ukrainian equipment against 
Georgia.  Summing up, Velchenko quipped that if Russia 
followed its own logic, Russia should be held accountable for 
every conflict in which Russian-made arms are employed. 
 
¶10. (SBU) The U.S. (Neighbour) expressed full support for the 
previous interventions upholding Georgia's legitimate right 
to build and develop its armed forces. Turning to Russia's 
comments on U.S.-provided training, Neighbour noted that the 
U.S. had provided a summary of U.S. military assistance to 
Georgia in PC.DEL/763/08.  He recalled that the initial U.S. 
decision to train Georgian military forces was made in 
response to a Georgian request for assistance in combating 
Chechen rebels in the Pankisi Gorge, a concern of Russia. 
Neighbour explained that follow-on training programs were 
designed to prepare Georgia to participate with coalition 
forces in Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror.  He 
emphasized that these programs were fully disclosed in public 
documents and were in full compliance with international 
agreements and OSCE principles. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Neighbour then asked whether Russia could claim as 
much, noting that by all appearances, Russia had provided 
SALW and heavy weapons to separatists.  He invited Russia to 
explain how such weapons made their way into South Ossetia. 
Citing specific provisions of the OSCE documents on 
conventional arms transfers and SALW, he invited Russia to 
explain why the transfer of weapons to militias in the 
breakaway regions would not constitute a contravention of 
OSCE principles. 
 
- - - - - - - - - 
SALW Round Table 
- - - - - - - - - 
 
¶12. (SBU) In support of the Finnish Chairmanship,s emphasis 
on SALW, three NGO,s gave presentations to the FSC.  Small 
Arms Survey, Saferworld, and GRIP praised the OSCE for its 
efforts in writing Best Practice Guides that have wide 
applicability and use, while calling for more action in the 
areas of transparency in information exchanges, brokering, 
stockpile management (including both destruction of surpluses 
and improvement of storage practices), marking and tracing, 
and greater implementation of existing agreements in general, 
and of the UN PoA in particular.  The Chairman of the OSCE 
Informal Group of Friends of SALW (Schweizer, Germany) 
reported on the Group,s recent meeting, noting the 
possibility of greater emphasis in the FSC on brokering, end 
user certificates, tracing and potential integration of 
 
USOSCE 00000233  004 OF 004 
 
 
elements of SCA and SALW.  Presentations for Small Arms 
Survey, Safer World and GRIP were distributed under 
FSC.NGO/3/08, FSC.NGO/1/08, and FSC.NGO/2 and 4/08 
respectively. 
 
- - - - - - - - 
Cyber Security 
- - - - - - - - 
 
¶13. (SBU) The Estonian-Lithuanian proposal on a Cyber 
Security workshop found wide support in WGB.  The U.S. 
(Meyer) requested two minor clarifying edits (changing 
"comprehensive approach" to read, "comprehensive OSCE 
approach(" throughout the proposal, and replacing 
"counter-measures" with "defensive measures" in the third 
point in the draft  Annex.  Canada (Gosal) suggested 
increasing the workshop from two to three days in order to 
accommodate more discussion.  This proposal found no support. 
 The draft will remain in the WG while drafters finalize 
coordination on dates in March.  The Chair expects to move 
for a Chairman's Draft Decision at the next WG, October 8. 
On the margins, Meyer discussed additional edits (Ref B) with 
Estonia (Tiigimae).  Tiigimae indicated Estonia could support 
changing the emphasis of the first point in the Annex from 
"potential threats to cyber security" to "concrete steps to 
strengthen cyber security." Tiigimae will issue a Rev.4 
before the next WGB. USDel will engage other missions to 
rally support for this change. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - 
AIAM Dates and HOV? 
- - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶14. (SBU) WGA agreed on the proposed dates, 3-4 March 2009, 
for the next Annual Implementation and Assessment Meeting 
(AIAM).  FSC.DD/11/08 will be presented to the Plenary next 
week for adoption.  Discussion will begin soon afterwards on 
modalities and agenda, including discussion on whether to 
hold a Heads of Verification meeting in conjunction with or 
sequentially to the AIAM. Mission requests guidance on 
Washington's position on a HOV meeting. 
SCOTT