O 200747Z NOV 08
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7505
CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE
DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE IMMEDIATE
CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
DIRSSP WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO AMEMBASSY ASTANA PRIORITY
AMEMBASSY KYIV PRIORITY
AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY

S E C R E T GENEVA 000987 
 
 
DEPT FOR T, VCI AND EUR/PRA 
DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24 
CIA FOR WINPAC 
JCS FOR J5/DDGSA 
SECDEF FOR OSD(P)/STRATCAP 
NAVY FOR CNO-N5JA AND DIRSSP 
AIRFORCE FOR HQ USAF/ASX AND ASXP 
DTRA FOR OP-OS OP-OSA AND DIRECTOR 
NSC FOR HAYES 
DIA FOR LEA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 07/17/2018 
TAGS: KACT PARM START JCIC INF US RS UP BO KZ
 
SUBJECT: JCIC-XXXIII:  (U) WORKING GROUP MEETING ON 
COMPLETION OF CONTINUOUS MONITORING, NOVEMBER 13, 2008 
 
REF: A. STATE 115554 (JCIC-DIP-08-008A) 
     ¶B. STATE 115555 (JCIC-DIP-08-008B) 
     ¶C. 00 GENEVA 6828 (SVC-XXVI-022) 
     ¶D. GENEVA 602 (JCIC-XXXII-017) 
 
Classified By:  Jerry A. Taylor, United States Representative 
to the Joint Compliance and Inspection Commission. 
Reasons:  1.5(b) and (d). 
 
¶1.  (U) This is JCIC-XXXIII-009. 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  November 13, 2008 
                Time:  3:30 P.M. - 5:00 P.M. 
               Place:  U.S. Mission, Geneva 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶3.  (S) Following the introduction of the issue at a Heads of 
Delegation (HOD) Meeting, a Working Group (WG) Meeting was 
held at the U.S. Mission on November 13, 2008, to discuss the 
completion of continuous monitoring at the Votkinsk Portal 
Monitoring Facility (VPMF).  The United States, Russia, and 
Kazakhstan were represented. 
 
¶4.  (S) The U.S. Delegation provided U.S.-proposed texts of a 
draft JCIC Agreement on Principles and Procedures for 
Completion of Continuous Monitoring Activities, and draft 
Exchanges of Letters on Ground Transportation and Settlement 
of Accounts related to closing the VPMF (Refs A and B).  The 
Russian Delegation said it found the U.S. approach very 
acceptable, but had concerns about whether any documents 
signed by JCIC representatives, or within the framework of 
the JCIC, would have any legal standing once the Treaty 
expired or was superseded. 
 
--------------------------- 
INTRODUCING...COMPLETION OF 
CONTINUOUS MONITORING 
--------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (S) At a HOD Meeting at the Russian Mission on November 
13, 2008, the Parties discussed the U.S. approach to 
Completion of Continuous Monitoring Activities at Votkinsk. 
Kashirin thanked the United States for its hard work 
preparing the draft documents and highlighted the fact that 
this was a complicated issue that would require a lot of 
work.  Because the United States provided the documents so 
close to the session, and they were so voluminous, it would 
take some time before the Russian side would be ready to 
discuss the documents in any detail. 
 
¶6.  (S) Kashirin then stated that the Russian Federation 
agreed with the format of using a JCIC agreement to codify 
the requirements for completing the monitoring mission, and 
an exchange of letters to handle cost settlement and 
provision of ground transportation to facilitate the removal 
of equipment from the VPMF. 
 
¶7.  (S) Kashirin highlighted one issue that was confusing to 
the Russian side.  He asked about the legitimacy of 
signatures of the JCIC Heads of Delegation (HODs) on such 
letters.  The Russian concern was if the HODs signed as 
representatives to the JCIC, would those signatures be valid 
after the Treaty expired or was superseded by a new agreement? 
 
¶8.  (S) Kashirin opined that the parties might need as much 
as half a year to finalize the necessary agreements for 
completing monitoring at Votkinsk and another half-year to 
implement them. 
 
¶9.  (S) Taylor thanked the Russian side for its views and 
looked forward to progress on this issue in the WG. 
 
----------------------- 
THE WORKING GROUP IS 
WHERE THE MAGIC HAPPENS 
----------------------- 
 
¶10.  (S) Smith opened the WG meeting following the HOD and 
provided drafts of the U.S.-proposed draft JCIC Agreement, 
and a draft Exchange of Letters on Ground Transportation, and 
a draft Exchange of Letters on Settlement of Accounts.  Smith 
then began a review of the draft documents noting that the 
U.S. approach was modeled on the process used at the 
completion of continuous monitoring under the INF Treaty (Ref 
C).  He highlighted important differences between then and 
now.  First, the START Treaty would expire or be superseded 
and so it was necessary to have a mechanism in place to 
handle cost settlement after START no longer existed. 
Second, there was not a ground transportation-type 
arrangement in place that needed to be modified to support 
completion of INF continuous monitoring. 
 
¶11.  (S) Smith explained that the purpose of the draft JCIC 
Agreement was to add Annex 16 to the Inspection Protocol 
(IP). This new annex would establish specific procedures and 
requirements related to the completion of continuous 
monitoring at the VPMF. 
 
¶12.  (S) Smith then reviewed the Exchange of Letters on 
Settlement of Accounts which would extend the existing cost 
settlement procedures in Annex 14 of the IP beyond the date 
of expiration or supersession of the Treaty.  He explained 
that, because costs related to the completion of continuous 
monitoring would be settled after the Treaty expired or was 
superseded, a specific process would be needed to handle 
these costs. 
 
¶13.  (S) Smith then introduced the Exchange of Letters on 
Ground Transportation.  He explained the United States 
envisioned one last truck departing the VPMF after Treaty 
expiration or supersession.  This truck would transit through 
Russia and Belarus, drop off cargo in Germany, and then 
transit back through Belarus and Russia.  This process would 
take several days following the end of the Treaty.  This 
Exchange of Letters would extend the provisions of the 
existing ground transportation agreement to cover that period. 
 
¶14.  (S) Ryzhkov responded explaining that the Russian 
Federation found the U.S. approach very acceptable, 
particularly with the format of the draft JCIC Agreement and 
the Exchange of Letters.  He opined that despite the late 
receipt of the documents, the Russian Delegation would do its 
best to solve this issue during the current session.  He 
added that there was red tape and beauracracy in Russia as 
well and these things would require time to navigate through. 
 
¶15.  (S) During JCIC-XXXII the Russian Federation provided a 
paper containing questions on closing Votkinsk (Ref D). 
Ryzhkov related that the U.S. non-paper that provided the 
response to that paper (Ref A) mentioned a number of 
legally-binding documents that the United States drew from 
when developing these draft documents.  Some of these related 
to START and some to INF.  He explained that the Russian 
Federation did not believe the INF-related documents were all 
good examples because the INF Treaty had an indefinite 
duration and that theoretically the Special Verification 
Commission could meet and decide on measures related to the 
INF Treaty and put them into force anytime. 
 
¶16.  (S) Ryzhkov noted that Russia's principal concern was 
the fact the activities in the two letters would occur in a 
period of time after expiration or supersession of the Treaty 
and that JCIC representatives would have no authority to bind 
their respective governments after December 5, 2009, because 
the JCIC would not exist, and he questioned whether those 
representatives could sign such agreements.  He remarked that 
Russian legislation may pose difficulties with respect to the 
settlement of costs once START is no longer in force, 
although he admitted that he would be happy if it turned out 
that he was wrong in his assessment.  He then explained that 
Russia needed to conduct a more thorough review by its legal 
experts, but if those experts determined the U.S. approach 
was possible then Russia would support it. 
 
¶17.  (S) Ryzhkov offered an alternative option where 
officials from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs/State 
Department would sign the required documents because, in 
their normal professional role they were authorized 
representatives of their respective governments. 
 
¶18.  (S) Smith then turned over the WG to Brown who offered a 
more detailed explanation of the U.S. thought process as 
these documents were developed. 
 
----------------------- 
GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE 
----------------------- 
 
¶19.  (S) Brown explained that the concerns Russia had raised 
about the intended duration of the agreements were the same 
ones the United States had identified while developing the 
documents.  The United States recognized that a JCIC 
Agreement would only remain in force until expiration or 
supersession of the Treaty.  The remedy that the United 
States was proposing would be an Exchange of Letters, but a 
determination would need to be made regarding who would sign 
them and what the duration would be.  Brown highlighted that 
neither of the draft letters identified a signing official, 
and that was deliberate to allow the parties to discuss their 
respective practices.  He explained in any event these would 
be government-to-government agreements and that any official 
specifically authorized to sign them would be sufficient, 
even if that official at the time of signing was that 
government's representative to the JCIC. 
 
¶20.  (S) Brown concluded his remarks by saying that to be 
legally sufficient all agreements required an entry into 
force date and duration, and that the draft letters had both 
conditions clearly defined in them. 
 
¶21.  (S) Ryzhkov explained that Brown's remarks answered 
several questions the Russian Federation had and reiterated 
Russia would need more time for legal review of the 
documents, adding that the Russian lawyer would be in Geneva 
the following week and that her main task, would be to review 
the U.S.-proposed texts.  (Begin Comment:  In a side-bar, 
Ryzhkov admitted to Brown that he understood that any 
official could be authorized by his government to sign the 
letter but he had raised the issue to make certain that the 
required procedures were followed so that there was no 
question that the letters were binding after START is no 
longer in force.  End Comment.) 
 
¶22.  (S) Smith thanked Brown and then began a more detailed 
review of the draft JCIC Agreement.  He summarized the 
document, highlighting the themes of each section, and the 
specific requirements of both Parties. 
 
¶23.  (S) Ryzhkov expressed gratitude for the detailed 
explanation and explained that he had a few questions but 
would wait until the next WG. 
 
¶24.  (S) Smith closed the WG hopeful that the review of the 
draft agreement had been helpful to the members. 
 
¶25.  (U) Documents exchanged: 
 
-- U.S.: 
 
- U.S.-Proposed Text for an Agreement on Principles and 
Procedures for Completion of Continuous Monitoring 
Activities, dated November 13, 2008; 
 
- U.S.-Proposed Text for an Exchange of Letters on Ground 
Transportation, dated November 13, 2008; 
 
- U.S.-Proposed Text for an Exchange of Letters on Settlement 
of Accounts, dated November 13, 2008; and 
 
- U.S. Non-Paper on the U.S. Approach to Closing the Portal 
Monitoring Facility at Votkinsk, dated November 13, 2008. 
 
¶26.  (U) Participants: 
 
U.S. 
 
Mr. Taylor 
Mr. Smith 
Mr. Brown 
Lt Col Comeau 
Mr. DeNinno 
Mr. Dunn 
Maj Edinger 
Mr. Fortier 
Mr. Johnston 
Mr. Miller 
LTC Oppenheim 
CDR Rust 
Col Summers 
Mr. Yaguchi 
Ms. Gross (Int) 
 
Kazakhstan 
 
Col Akhmetalin 
Mr. Kasenov 
 
Russia 
Mr. Kashirin 
Col Ryzhkov 
Capt(1st Rank) Kuz'min 
Col Novikov 
Mr. Bolotov 
Mr. Gusev (Int) 
 
¶27.  (U) Taylor sends. 
TICHENOR 
 
 
NNNN 
 



End Cable Text