VZCZCXRO3872
PP RUEHAST RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSK RUEHSL
RUEHSR
DE RUEHVEN #0260/01 3241048
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 201048Z NOV 09
FM USMISSION USOSCE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6724
INFO RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDRUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUESDT/DTRA-OSES DARMSTADT GE PRIORITY
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHMCSUU/EUCOM POLAD VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMCSUU/SACEUR POLAD SHAPE BE PRIORITY

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 USOSCE 000260 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR VCI/CCA, VCI/NRRC, EUR/RPM, EUR/PRA, EUR/CARC, 
SCA/CEN, SCA/RA, PM/WRA, ISN/CPI 
NSC FOR SHERWOOD-RANDALL, HAYDEN, MCFAUL, HOVENIER, 
NILSSON, FRIEDT 
OSD FOR ISA (WALLENDER, KEHL) 
JCS, EUCOM, USAREUR AND CENTCOM: FOR J-5 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: KCFE OSCE PARM PREL RS XG
SUBJECT: FSC NOVEMBER 18:  MUCH REMAINS IN PLAY BEFORE 
MINISTERIAL, ANIMATED EXCHANGES 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  With barely a week to go before the OSCE 
Ministerial, many FSC issues under consideration for the OSCE 
Athens Ministerial Council December 1-2 remain open.  Inter 
alia, there were animated exchanges in the FSC's Working 
Group B on the draft "Issues Relevant to the FSC" and the 
draft Vienna Document 1999 Review Decision.  Russia called 
the revised Issues draft "gobbledygook," clearly angry that 
its suggestions were lost fQlowing the informal FSC 
discussion held on November 13Q The discussion on VD99 
continued to underscore the lack of consensus on Russian and 
Belarusian arguments for a separate Ministerial decision, in 
spite of Russia's attempt to placate some participating 
States (pS) with the addition of the term "assessment." 
Several pS joined the U.S. in opposition to a separate 
Ministerial decision, although many indicated their support 
for some kind of an "assessment" or review of VD99. 
Meanwhile in Working Group A, no draft decision was foQarded 
to plenary.  The Chair (UK) scheduled the two Working Groups 
to meet prior to the next FSC plenary on November 25.  End 
Summary. 
 
FSC Plenary:  SALW/SCA Draft Decision forwarded to Ministers 
 
¶2. (SBU) Russia began the meeting by reading a statement by 
CSTO member States (Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, 
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and the Russian Federation) that 
accused the OSCE of insufficient attention to "hard 
security"; supported the proposal for a legally-binding 
European Security Treaty; called for a meeting of the heads 
of CSTO, NATO, the EU, the CIS, and OSCE in 2010; a 
review/inventory of the "OSCE politico-military tools"; and a 
review of VD99 "in the interest of bringing it into line with 
the changed realities and requirements of the day." 
(COMMENT: There were no comments following the Russian 
statement, which seemed to catch everyone ) including a few 
CSTO members ) off guard.  The Kazak delegate told USDel he 
did not know the statement was coming, and Kyrgyzstan, 
Tajikistan, Uzbekistan were absent from the entire FSC 
meeting.  END COMMENT.) 
 
¶3. (SBU) The plenary ended on a positive note with agreement 
to forward for adoption by the Ministerial Council (MC) the 
FSC decision on Small Arms and light weapons and stockpiles 
of conventional armaments (MC.DD/4/09/Rev2). 
 
Working Group B: Ministerial Decisions in Search of Consensus 
 
¶4. (SBU) The UK FSC/WGB Chair (Gare) introduced Rev. 3 of the 
Draft MC Decision on Issues relevant to the FSC 
(MC.DD/8/09/Rev.3), following her attempts to consolidate 
comments made at an informal discussion on November 13.  Gare 
noted that informal consultations continued on how to 
characterize reference to discussions of the Georgia-Russia 
conflict.  After Greece referred to the Issues paper in the 
context of language built into the Corfu Process and the U.S. 
made generally supportive comments on the cleaner and more 
workable text, Russia (Ulyanov) ranted that the new language 
failed to properly reflect the results of last week's 
discussion, and accused the revision of asking Ministers to 
task the FSC to do "gobbledygook."  Though Ulyanov did not 
give any details to what particularly was absent, he did 
criticize Rev.3 as "farther removed than the original Chair's 
Draft!"  He said Russia expected the Issues paper to be 
"Helsinki-plus, but what we have is Helsinki-minus."  There 
were no other comments following Switzerland and the U.S. 
request for repairing language in the first tick of 
operational paragraph 2 on the tasks for the Security 
Dialogue. 
 
¶5. (SBU) Ukraine introduced its revised draft Ministerial 
Declaration on Non-Proliferation (FSC.DEL/199/09/Rev.1), 
requesting the document to be accepted as an FSC Decision 
document for forwarding to the MC.  Greece and the U.S. 
 
USOSCE 00000260  002 OF 003 
 
 
(Ellis) made generally supportive remarks over the positive 
direction of the draft declaration but noted it was not yet 
ready to move forward as a draft decision.  A few other 
delegations also noted they were uninstructed on the 
document, but no one was critical or had suggestions to amend 
the language.  It remains on the agenda for WGB next week. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Russia (Ulyanov) and Belarus (Krayushkin) made 
strong statements in support of their joint draft MC decision 
for review and/or "assessment" of Vienna Document 1999 
(VD99), taking note that "most" pS recognize the need to 
update the document.  They additionally argued for a separate 
decision because VD99 is a core document that needs clear, 
unambiguous guidelines.  Russia argued their draft decision 
is plain and simple.  Russia also claimed that previous 
attempts to incorporate U.S. suggestions were unsuccessful or 
diluted references to VD99.  Ulyanov stated with this draft 
decision the OSCE has an opportunity to prove that the 
European Security Dialogue was "alive and kicking," and still 
capable of making a contribution. 
 
Exchange on Russian Proposals for VD99 
 
¶7. (SBU) The U.S. (Ellis) expressed appreciation for the 
Russia-Belarus proposal because it was important to have an 
exchange of views on the topic of VD99.  The U.S. pointed out 
that there were already ongoing procedures in place for 
strengthening and improving arms control and CSBMs, of which 
VD99 is one part of a larger architecture.  The U.S. argued 
that the Russian proposal would lead us down a road where we 
would not accomplish what we think and risked reaching the 
lowest common denominator that would weaken the European 
security architecture. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Georgia, The Netherlands, Canada, Romania, and 
Latvia supported the U.S. position in opposition to a 
separate Ministerial Decision on VD99. Ukraine and Armenia 
supported the Russian position.  Greece advocated a "Corfu 
Group" of experts for hammering out ideas that would make the 
FSC relevant.  Austria argued that there was a difference 
between an assessment and a review of VD99 and suggested a 
"phased approach"; first assessment, then review (Russia 
disagreed!).  Austria also questioned why VD99 was more 
urgent for updating than the older Code of Conduct, which had 
not been updated since the mid-1990s.  France repeated its 
interest in the Russian proposal and appealed for pragmatism 
in that the Ministerial Decision was not garnering a 
consensus; therefore some other way to address improving VD99 
was needed.  Italy made a general comment of support to 
strengthen VD99.  Luxembourg remarked that there was a 
general opinion that VD99 needed updating but there was no 
consensus on how to do it, adding that without a specific 
tasking to report to the next MC, nothing will be 
accomplished.  The U.S. responded that when there are 
problems moving forward it is usually because the modalities 
are not well-defined, which is the issue with the Russian 
proposal: "the devil's in the details."  The Chair noted 
there was no consensus and kept the draft decision on the WGB 
agenda for the following week. 
 
¶9. (SBU) There was general agreement with the FSC input for 
the Athens Ministerial Council Declaration 
(MC.GAL/5/09/Rev.1).  The U.S. earlier had passed a few 
suggestions to the UK Chair for consideration in the draft. 
Russia noted in WGB that it was a "good text" but overstated 
the FSC's achievements.  Ulyanov offered some clarifying 
language for the next revision.  WGB will discuss one more 
time prior to the next FSC plenary. 
 
Working Group "A" ) no decisions yet 
 
¶10. (SBU) The Chair noted that none of the WGA draft 
decisions are critical for agreement before Athens.  Slovakia 
 
USOSCE 00000260  003 OF 003 
 
 
suggested a fix to refer to "other FSC agreed 
measures/documents (replacing Russia's inserted phrase 
"relevant OSCE instruments") in the Draft Decision on the 
Agenda and Modalities of the 20th AIAM (FSC.DD/9/09/Rev.1). 
The Chair will circulate a Rev.2 for consideration at the 
next meeting.  Turkey noted that consultations continued on 
their proposal for the use of digital cameras for VD99 
application (FSC.DEL/124/09/Rev.1).  The U.S. requested 
Turkey to consider pulling the proposal off the agenda until 
the first quarter of 2010 when it may receive more attention 
considering the pre-Ministerial schedule and the upcoming 
recess.  Turkey replied it needed instructions from its 
capital to do this.  Since Turkey is awaiting its 
instructions and the agenda is full with preparations for the 
Ministerial in Athens, the Chair decided the Turkish proposal 
would NOT be on the agenda for next week, but would return 
after that. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Ukraine noted it has received a few comments 
regarding deployment of military units during peace 
operations on its Food-for-Thought on Interpretation of some 
Provisions of the VD99, Chapter I, Annual Exchange of 
Military Information (FSC.DEL/196/09).  Ukraine requested 
additional comments from delegations and noted that if there 
were no objections it will move to transform the FFT into a 
draft decision at the December 9 WGA.  Russia said the 
Ukraine paper should be dealt with as part of the overall 
update of VD99. 
 
¶12. (SBU) There were no comments regarding the Draft Decision 
on an Update of FSC Decision 15/02 on SALW Expert Advice 
(FSC.DD/12/09).  It remains on the agenda, but will be 
forwarded to the next FSC plenary on November 25. 
FULLER