VZCZCXRO1147
PP RUEHAST RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0132/01 1421435
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 221435Z MAY 09
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6396
INFO RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0755
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA 1312
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 1250

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 USOSCE 000132 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, EUR/CARC, 
SCA/CEN, SCA/RA, PM/WRA, ISN/CPI 
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 MD RS XG
SUBJECT: FSC MAY 20: RUSSIA RETURNS TO NAVAL CSBMS 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  Russia again proposed naval CSBMs and 
asked that they be included on the June 3 working group 
agenda.  Code of Conduct expert Alexander Lambert praised the 
updated Code questionnaire but lamented the "imbalance" 
caused by additional questions related to terrorism.  The 
decision on FSC contributions to the 2009 Annual Security 
Review Conference (ASRC) was adopted.  Moldova charged that 
Russian peacekeeping forces in Transnistria lacked any legal 
basis and host nation consent, and violated Moldovan 
neutrality.  Russia reminded that Moldova recently signed a 
joint declaration with Russia and the Transnistrian leader 
that supported a continuing Russian military presence. 
Russia also asserted that Moldova never withdrew from the 
1992 agreement that authorized stationing of Russian 
peacekeeping forces in the Transnistrian conflict area. 
 
¶2. (SBU) In the working groups, Azerbaijan and France 
disagreed on one of the political-military elements from the 
list the Forum is preparing for the ASRC.  Support is 
widening for a meeting of heads of verification agencies on 
December 14 in conjunction with the annual information 
exchange.  Several delegations expressed support for the 
guidelines proposed by Germany for Vienna Document inspection 
and evaluation briefings.  Several delegations recommended 
that the review of the OSCE Document on Small Arms and Light 
Weapons, required by a 2008 ministerial decision, be linked 
to UN activities and consider new norm-setting.  A 2007 
proposal to hold an annual review of Code of Conduct 
implementation will be reconsidered.  Germany, the original 
sponsor, claimed that review in the Annual Implementation 
Assessment Meeting was too little and too late, coming almost 
a year after the annual replies to the Code questionnaire. 
End summary. 
 
Russian Naval CSBMs Resurface 
----------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) returned to its proposal at the 
2009 Annual Implementation Assessment Meeting for a series of 
naval CSBMs that would include an information exchange on 
naval personnel and major weapons, prior notice of planned 
naval activities and provision for their observation, 
exchange of annual calendars, and contact visits with naval 
forces.  Ulyanov said these proposals should be a priority 
for the FSC and would contribute to the security and 
stability of the OSCE area by extending the  transparency of 
the CSBM regime to naval forces whose influence on strategic 
and regional stability is increasing. Ulyanov said these 
measures would apply "within the limited maritime space 
around Europe." 
 
¶4. (SBU) Ulyanov noted that, as part of the Global Exchange 
of Military Information, participating States (pS) already 
provide information on the total number of surface combatants 
greater  than 400 tons displacement and submarines over 50 
tons.  While his proposals would not change the displacement 
criteria, Ulyanov said additional information would be 
required for each warship and auxiliary vessel: 
 
- designation and subordination 
- type 
- displacement and major dimensions 
- designation of the naval base where ship is based 
- peacetime authorized personnel strength 
 
USOSCE 00000132  002 OF 006 
 
 
 
Information would also be required on the total number of 
warships and auxiliaries in naval formations.  The 
information would be submitted by December 15 to be valid as 
of the following January 1.  Ulyanov noted the provenance of 
these proposals in the Vienna Document.  He requested 
discussion of the proposals at the June 3 working group. 
(FSC.DEL/118/09/Corr.1) 
 
Praise for New Code Questionnaire 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (SBU) Alexander Lambert, an academic expert on the Code of 
Conduct at the Geneva Center for Democratic Control of the 
Armed Forces, praised the recently adopted technical update 
to the Code of Conduct (FSC.DD/2/09).  Lambert reviewed the 
changes to the 2003 version of the questionnaire, finding 
most of them improved the organization and were likely to 
enhance the responses from pS.  Lambert welcomed the 
differentiation among the different components of the 
"security sector" (Code para 20) now found in question I.1.3, 
which refers to military, paramilitary, and security forces 
and police.  He regretted the expansion of the question on 
counter-terrorism efforts, finding they distracted from 
attention to the intrastate elements of the Code addressing 
democratic control of the armed forces. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Lambert supported the inclusion of a new question 
dealing with arms control, disarmament, and CSBMs (I.3) and 
said it added an "entirely new dimension" to the 
questionnaire.  He found the inclusion of "conscripts" in the 
question on rights protection in the military (II.3.3) 
constituted a "significant expansion" of the questionnaire's 
coverage of human rights. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Lambert recommended specifically identifying 
"intelligence services" in questions pertaining to terrorism. 
 He also, in response to a question from Finland, recommended 
addressing the increasing role of private military and 
security companies, perhaps through question II.4.1 on the 
provision of training in international humanitarian law.  As 
to the interface between international and domestic law and 
the military (Code paras 34-37) sections, Lambert said 
questions found in under II.4 of the 2009 questionnaire 
constituted a "small revolution" in politico-military affairs 
and "will help set new standards of conduct." 
(FSC.DEL/114/09) 
 
¶8. (SBU) The EU, through the Czech presidency (Reinohlova), 
supported the updated questionnaire, but regretted the 
omission of a question soliciting information on the 
promotion of gender equality in security affairs as described 
in UN Security Council Resolution 1325.  Turkey (Begec) and 
the U.S. (Neighbour) noted the questionnaire is derived from 
the Code and should not contain elements not found in the 
Code.  Begec said it was not wise to question, as Lambert 
had, the added value of the questions on counter-terrorism 
given the many changes in the security environment since the 
Code was adopted in 1994.  Neighbour, concurring, said the 
Code can be applied to new problems such as the struggle with 
terrorism and make the world safer without sacrificing 
fundamental principles. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) said the update of the 
 
USOSCE 00000132  003 OF 006 
 
 
questionnaire had been useful. The update, he said, helped to 
correct an imbalance between, on the one hand, arms control 
and CSBMs, and, on the other, the democratic control of armed 
forces on the other.  He noted with approval the questions on 
implementation of arms control measures and on taking account 
of the security needs of other states.  In a larger context, 
Ulyanov asserted, the Code is not the only priority of the 
FSC: arms control and CSBMs are also important. 
 
FSC Input to ASRC 
----------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) The Forum adopted without discussion the decision 
on FSC contributions to the 2009 Annual Security Review 
Conference (FSC.DEC/3/09).  These are: a written and oral 
report on FSC activities by the FSC chair; an FSC Troika 
representative or the director of the Conflict Prevention 
Center will chair a working session; and a list of 
politico-military elements for discussion at the conference. 
 
List of Pol-Mil Elements 
------------------------ 
 
¶11. (SBU) In the working group, Russia (Ulyanov) suggested 
the list of politico-military elements for discussion at the 
ASRC (FSC.DEL/115/09) include "modernization" of the Vienna 
Document.  France (Fournier) requested that "interstate 
conflicts and border security," presently listed under 
working session III on terrorism and related threats, be 
moved to working session I on conflict prevention. 
Azerbaijan (Jafarova), in response to France, reported 
"concern about the process" by which the list had been 
created and noted it had proposed the topic and believed it 
should remain in the terrorism session, as it had in 2007. 
The chair (Georgia, Giorgadze) noted the list was not a 
consensus document but promised to consider delegations' 
suggestions. 
 
Contacts BPG 
------------ 
 
¶12. (SBU) The UK (Gare) and Russia (Ulyanov), the co-sponsors 
of the draft Best Practices Guide on Vienna Document contact 
visits (FSC.AIAM/8/09), reported they were incorporating 
comments received from other delegations and will issue a 
revised draft.  Switzerland and Sweden expressed support for 
the guide. 
 
HOV Meeting 
----------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) Denmark (Petersen), author of a draft decision to 
hold a meeting of heads of verifications agencies on December 
14, 2009, in conjunction with the Annual Exchange of Military 
Information, reported wide support for the decision 
(FSC.DEL/107/09).  Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Russia, 
Greece and Norway announced support.  Portugal said it would 
prefer the HOV meeting be held in conjunction with the Annual 
Implementation Assessment Meeting but would not block any 
consensus for a December meeting.  The paper is now a chair's 
draft decision (FSC.DD/3/09). 
 
VD99 Inspection Briefing Guide 
------------------------------ 
 
USOSCE 00000132  004 OF 006 
 
 
 
¶14. (SBU) Germany (Schweizer), the author of a draft decision 
on guidelines for Vienna Document inspection and evaluation 
briefings (FSC.DEL/103/09), reported wide support based on 
informal conversations.  Switzerland and Sweden announced 
support.  Norway also reported support; it had even used the 
guidelines during a recent Russian inspection in Norway. 
 
¶15. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) supported efforts to improve 
implementation, noting it "had done that too," and believed 
the draft was moving in the right direction.  Ulyanov 
expected comments from Moscow in about three weeks.  He was 
surprised, however, that the draft decision used the words 
"decides to encourage": that sounds, he said, more like a 
chair's statement than a decision.  Something stronger will 
be needed, he said. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Greece (Pediotis) proposed adding to guidelines 
para 1.1 "activity, time schedule, and transport plan." 
Greece also, in tic 3 of para 1.3, proposed substituting 
"designation and subordination of units" for "organization 
and deployment of the subordinate units."  Schweizer said a 
revision will be prepared. 
 
SALW Review 
----------- 
 
¶17. (SBU) The chair of the Informal Group of Friends (IGOF) 
of Small Arms and Light Weapons (Germany, Schweizer) 
acknowledged comments from the U.S. and the CPC on his 
Food-for-Thought paper on implementing the 2008 ministerial 
decision to conduct a review of the OSCE Document on SALW 
(FSC.DEL/104/09).  Switzerland supported the paper and 
recommended a decision be adopted before the summer recess at 
the end of July.  France proposed UNIDIR be added to the list 
of other organizations to be included in the review process. 
Greece supported the thematic approach discussed in the 
paper. 
 
¶18. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) expected detailed comments from 
Moscow at the end of June, but found it strange that the 
paper did not mention the "main" problem in SALW in recent 
years: the failure to prevent the transfer of arms to 
conflict regions.  This must be the main focus of the review, 
Ulyanov said. 
 
¶19. (SBU) Ireland (Donagh) said delegations would have to 
quickly develop a concrete agenda for the special meeting 
described in the paper.  He suggested a series of briefings 
in the working group over the remaining weeks in the 
spring-summer session to address the OSCE concept of SALW, 
parallel efforts by other organizations, and the current 
effectiveness of implementation. 
 
¶20. (SBU) Finland (Kangaste) recommended a pragmatic 
approach, aligned with the UN Program of Action on SALW, and 
that would consider brokering, marking and tracing, stockpile 
surpluses, and illicit air transport of SALW.  A special 
meeting should consider the next steps on implementation, 
alignment with UN programs, and norm-setting. 
 
¶21. (SBU) The UK (Hartnell) agreed that realistic goals were 
important given the limited time.  The major aim of the 
review should be to assess implementation of the SALW 
 
USOSCE 00000132  005 OF 006 
 
 
document while avoiding the creation of additional burdens 
not based on the document.  Schweizer, responding to 
Hartnell, replied that the ministerial mandate was to "review 
the document, not implementation."  He supported Ireland's 
suggestion of a series of briefing, and volunteered to 
provide the first, on the OSCE concept of SALW, as early as 
May 27.  He preferred use of the working group at 56 to 
explore the various proposals rather than smaller informal 
meetings. 
 
¶22. (SBU) Schweizer noted that, as IGOF chair, he could not 
propose a draft decision: it was for the delegations to 
develop concrete proposals that could respond to identified 
needs.  In an oblique response to U.S. comments on his paper, 
Schweizer noted that his "Way Ahead" section called for new 
norms on stockpile management, marking and tracing, export 
controls, and even end-use certificates; OSCE Best Practices 
Guides were not sufficient as they were not politically 
binding decisions.  In response to requests from some 
delegations, Schweizer called on the CPC to develop a list of 
relevant documents needed for the review. 
 
Code of Conduct 
--------------- 
 
¶23. (SBU) Germany (Schweizer) proposed returning to its 2007 
paper on an annual assessment of implementation of the Code 
of Conduct (FSC.DEL/434/07/Corr.1).  Schweizer said 
assessment of the Code by the AIAM, normally held in March, 
had been inadequate and came too long after the annual 
responses to the Code questionnaire in April. 
 
¶24. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) countered that a better approach 
would be a new review conference as the last was in 1999. 
While Russia will consider the proposal, it struck Ulyanov as 
strange to focus on the Code of Conduct when there were so 
many other areas of stagnation.  Here was, he concluded, too 
much focus on the Code.  Schweizer recalled that the 2005 
review of the Code could not reach agreement o hold a review 
conference but recommended that review of its implementation 
could take place "at other meetings."   While the Code 
routinely appeared on the AIAM agenda, it was usually 
eclipsed by the Vienna Document. 
 
Moldova Objects to Russian PKF 
------------------------------ 
 
¶25. (SBU) Moldova (Cuc), referring to the Russia response to 
the Code of Conduct questionnaire on forces stationed abroad, 
denied that the 1992 agreement on peaceful settlement of the 
Transnistrian conflict or the 1994 agreements on the legal 
status and withdrawal of Russian forces in Moldova provide a 
legal basis for the continued Russian military presence.  The 
1992 agreement concerned the cease-fire but did not envisage 
any status for Russian forces and the two 1994 agreements 
never entered into force.  Russia's continuing presence 
violates the neutrality of Moldova, which never consented to 
the Russian military presence. 
 
¶26. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) noted that Moldova never withdrew 
from the 1992 agreement, which includes provisions for 
Russian peacekeeping forces (PKF).  Under a 1992 protocol, 
Russia has the right to station up to six battalions of PKF 
in the conflict area, although Russian actual presence is 
 
USOSCE 00000132  006 OF 006 
 
 
considerably less.  Ulyanov closed by recalling that only 
three months ago Moldova's president, Voronin, had signed a 
joint declaration with Russian president Medvedev and 
Transnistrian leader Smirnov that stressed the stabilizing 
role of the PKF.  Ulyanov said Cuc's comments were perplexing 
and subject to doubt as they were contradicted by Voronin's 
actions. 
 
Next Meeting 
------------ 
 
¶27. (SBU) The FSC will next meet on May 27. 
Scott