VZCZCXRO0159
PP RUEHAST RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0275/01 3181515
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 131515Z NOV 08
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6041
RUCNOSC/OSCE COLLECTIVE
INFO RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE
RUEKJCS/DIA WASHDC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC
RHMFIUU/HQ USAFE RAMSTEIN AB GE//POLAD/XPXC//
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE//ECJ5-T/ECCS/ECPLAD//
RUEAHQA/HQ USAF WASHINGTON DC//XONP//
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAO
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC//J5-DDPMA-E/DDPMA-IN/CAC//

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USOSCE 000275 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, EUR/PRA, EUR/RPM, SCA/CEN 
JCS FOR COL NORWOOD 
OSD FOR ISA (PERENYI) 
NSC FOR HAYES 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL OSCE
SUBJECT: OPEN SKIES:  NOVEMBER 10 INFORMALS:  UPHILL ON 
COSTS 
 
REF: MARVIN-WRIGHT EMAIL 11/7/08 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  The Open Skies Consultative Commission 
(OSCC) Plenary met in informal session on November 10 to 
discuss the draft letter from the OSCC Chairperson to the 
Ministerial Council.  The Informal Working Group on Rules and 
Procedures (IWGRP) followed the informal Plenary and 
continued discussion on both the draft decision on alternate 
airfields and revision five of Decision Number One to the 
Treaty on Open Skies.  The Slovak delegation announced yet 
another informal meeting on November 11 to discuss recently 
proposed edits by delegations on the draft decision on 
alternative airfields.  U.S. concerns over language contained 
in Section V.2 of the draft decision on revision five of 
Decision Number One resulted in an alternate approach 
proposed by Russia, which appears in Revision 3 of the 
document.  Washington guidance requested.  Please see 
paragraphs 10 and 11.  End Summary. 
 
------- 
Plenary 
------- 
 
¶2.  (SBU) During the November 10 OSCC informal plenary 
Belarus (Pavlov), in its capacity as OSCC Chair, announced 
two changes to the text of the draft letter to the MC.  The 
first edit will add additional language to the second 
sentence of the first paragraph on page two of the draft 
letter to better characterize the aim of the draft decision 
on alternate airfields.  The sentence will be:  "At present 
time the IWGRP is continuing the discussion on the decision 
on alternative airfields which aims at ensuring flight safety 
as well as at establishing administrative and financial 
procedures in case of landings of observation aircraft at 
alternate airfields."  The second edit will correct the dates 
of the active quota distribution meeting to October 9 and 10, 
mentioned in paragraph three of page two of the letter. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Romania (Matei) gave its support to the draft 
letter and said it was a "good, well-balanced, comprehensive 
document."  Romania proposed an addition to the end of 
paragraph four on the first page of the draft letter that 
would mention the certification of Romania's Open Skies 
platform, which occurred in September 2008 with the 
assistance of Germany and the POD group.  The Chair (Pavlov) 
said it had no objection to mentioning this "important 
event."  No delegation objected.  The Chair will issue a 
revised version of the draft letter, as Revision 1, to 
reflect the Chair's and Romania's proposed edits.  Pavlov 
expects there will be agreement at the November 24 Plenary to 
send the draft letter to the MC. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Pavlov announced that his assignment had come to an 
end and he would depart Vienna on November 13.  Pavlov's 
replacement, First Secretary Dmitry Krayushkin, will continue 
as OSCC Chairman. 
 
----- 
IWGRP 
----- 
 
¶5.  (SBU) The Informal Working Group on Rules & Procedures 
(IWGRP), chaired by Russia (Kozlov), met following the 
informal Plenary.  Igor Jancovic of the Slovak delegation, 
coordinator of the draft decision on alternate airfields 
(OSCC.RP/3/08), discussed recent changes to the text and 
announced that, in light of additional proposals received by 
delegations in the last few days, an informal meeting would 
be held on November 11.  Canada (Linteau) expressed thanks to 
the Russian delegation for considering Canada's concern 
during the October 27 IWGRP wherein Canada asked the working 
group to reconsider the idea of a decision to designate 
alternate airfields.  Canada appreciated that the current 
text seems to retain the authority of the pilot to designate 
an alternate airfield during an emergency. 
¶6.  (SBU) On revision five of Decision Number One to the 
 
USOSCE 00000275  002 OF 003 
 
 
Treaty on Open Skies (OSCC.RP/17/08,Rev.2), Slovakia 
(Jancovic) suggested deleting the last two paragraphs of 
Section V as the content of these paragraphs was already 
covered in paragraph 11.  Russia (Kozlov) said it had 
considered the proposed amendment by Slovakia and agreed the 
first of the two last paragraphs of Section 5 (which begins, 
'unless otherwise agreed...') could be dropped, but cautioned 
against "overloading" paragraph 11. 
 
¶7.  (SBU)  The U.S. (Wright), per ref email, said it had 
concerns with the exclusion of 5 (D), which refers to "air 
traffic control instructions related to circumstances brought 
about by force majeure," from the last paragraph of Section 
V.2, which discusses costs attributed to factors in 
accordance with Article III, Section II, paragraphs 5 (A), 
(B), and (C).  USDel noted that the observing Party should 
not be held liable for factors related to 5 (D).  Wright 
suggested further discussion take place on the distinction 
between these paragraphs as related to costs.  Russia 
commented that language in the last paragraph of Section V.2 
had been proposed by USDel during the October 27 IWGRP and, 
therefore, if further clarification was sought we should ask 
Washington.  (NOTE:  During the October 27 working group 
USDel provided a drafting suggestion to the Russian proposed 
text in the last paragraph of Section V.2  to help clarify 
the language, which was confusing to the U.S. and other 
delegations.)  Turkey supported the U.S. comment on 5 (D). 
 
¶8.  (SBU)  After the working group concluded, Kozlov 
approached USDel and re-iterated that the USDel had not 
mentioned any concern over the exclusion of 5 (D) when USDel 
suggested edits to Section V.2 on October 27.  Kozlov 
questioned why there should be concern over 5 (D) now since 
we had not raised it previously.  USDel (Wright) said that 
the draft decision on revision five of Decision Number One 
was still under review in Washington; inputs received 
recently had raised the concern over the exclusion of 5 (D) 
to costs that would be incurred by the observing Party. 
Wright also commented that since Decision Number One was open 
for discussion in the IWGRP pending an outcome on the draft 
decision on alternate airfields, we believed it was worth 
seeking further clarification on language related to costs in 
Section V.2. 
 
--------------------------------------- 
Informal Meeting on Alternate Airfields 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶9.  (SBU)  During the informal meeting chaired by Slovakia on 
November 11, the Slovak delegation (Jancovic) gave an 
overview of the most recent changes to paragraphs 3, 6, 7, 
and 8 of the draft decision on alternate airfields, as 
suggested by the U.S., France, Slovakia, and Russia.  USDel 
briefly explained its proposed edits that sought to help 
clarify the text.  France, not represented during the 
informal, had passed on a suggestion to include text in 
paragraph 8(a) that would require the form of payment (either 
delayed payment, cash, or credit card) to be notified prior 
to the start of the mission in the remark section of OSF26. 
Jancovic stated that, as discussed during the IWGRP, the last 
two paragraphs of Section V.2 had been deleted from Decision 
Number One.  Initially there was discussion to retain the 
very last paragraph (which refers to Article III, Section II, 
paragraphs 5 (A), (B), or (C) of the Treaty) of Section V.2 
and insert it where appropriate into the draft decision on 
alternate airfields.  Later in the meeting, however, Russia 
(Kozlov) proposed deleting that paragraph from the draft 
decision on alternate airfields as well and proposed, 
instead, that new text (which it believed addressed the same 
concern) be added to Section V, paragraph 13 of Decision 
Number One. 
 
¶10.  (SBU)  Russia (Kozlov) said that the rationale behind 
its proposal for new text in Section V.13 of Decision Number 
One was that conditions in accordance with Article III, 
Section II, paragraphs 5 (A), (B), and (C) might not only 
 
USOSCE 00000275  003 OF 003 
 
 
occur during the observation mission, but also could occur 
during flights to and from the points of entry/exit.  Kozlov 
suggested that, for this reason, Russia was proposing new 
language to address costs incurred by these conditions; he 
felt that this new language fit more appropriately in Section 
V, paragraph 13 of Decision Number One.  (COMMENT:  This 
appears to be an attempt to provide another approach to 
address how conditions as set forth in 5 (A), (B), (C), and 
(D) of the Treaty may affect costs incurred by the observed 
and/or observing Party.) 
 
¶11.  (SBU)  Revised versions of both the draft decision on 
alternate airfields (OSCC.RP/13/08/Rev.4) and the draft 
decision on revision five to Decision Number One 
(OSCC.RP/17/08 Rev.3) were distributed by the respective 
chairs on November 12.  Washington guidance requested before 
the next IWGRP meeting. 
 
------------ 
Next Meeting 
------------ 
 
¶12.  (SBU) The IWGRP will meet again on November 24.  The 
next plenary also will be on November 24. 
FINLEY