VZCZCXYZ0008
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0185/01 0581349
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O R 271349Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RHEHAAA/NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CJCS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/CNO WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RHMFISS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0505
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0308
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0378
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0382
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0378

S E C R E T GENEVA 000185 
 
SIPDIS 
DEPT FOR T, VCI AND EUR/PRA 
DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24 
CIA FOR WINPAC 
JSCS 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 LOOK 
DIA FOR LEA 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 2020/02/27 
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING, 
FEBRUARY 22, 2010 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Rose E. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department 
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B), (D) 
 
¶1.  (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-073. 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  February 22, 2010 
 
                Time:  3:30 P.M. to 5:00 P.M. 
 
               Place:  U.S. Mission, Geneva 
 
 
 
------- 
 
SUMMARY 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶3.  (S) During a meeting of the Notifications Working Group held at 
the U.S. Mission on February 22, issues concerning Section IQ 
General Provisions paragraphs 2 and 3, and Section II, 
Notifications Concerning the Database paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 were 
discussed.  The major issues were the effective date of a 
notification as opposed to the date of its provision, notifications 
regarding the transfer of items to or from a third state and 
notifications related to the development of a new kind of strategic 
offensive arm (SOA).  End summary. 
 
 
¶4.  (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Section I:  General Provisions; Section 
II:  Notifications Concerning the Database; and Development of New 
Kinds of SOA. 
 
 
 
------------------------------ 
 
SECTION I:  GENERAL PROVISIONS 
 
------------------------------ 
 
 
 
¶5.  (S) Mr. Siemon stated that it had been difficult to track 
changes in the documents the Russian side provided during the last 
meeting and that he had asked Mr. Dwyer to put together a single 
joint draft text (JDT) that included the agreed text and all 
brackets of both sides.  Col Ryzhkov agreed and proposed that he 
and Siemon go through the text together.  Before reviewing the 
text, Siemon clarified that his objective was to have conformed 
text for the Notifications section of the Protocol before the 
session ended.  Additionally, Siemon planned to provide the Russian 
side with a U.S.-proposed concept for an Annex document to support 
the Protocol text.  Ryzhkov indicated that receiving the 
U.S.-proposed Tier Three Annex before the break would be helpful 
and he reminded Siemon that his team had also been thinking about 
the structure of the Annex document for the past several months. 
 
 
 
¶6.  (S) Siemon noted that the first sentence in paragraph 2 was 
cleared per discussion with Mr. Stickney and that the United States 
had bracketed the second sentence for clarification.  Ryzhkov 
 
 
clarified that the first bracketed sentence indicated that the date 
of provision of a notification would be the date of its 
transmission or receipt.  He conceded that at the end of a 24-hour 
period this date could be different, but in most cases, it would be 
the same.  The second sentence was acceptable, but should remain 
bracketed until the Russian delegation could discuss further. 
 
 
 
¶7.  (S) Siemon explained that the text in paragraph 3 was an 
attempt to provide a link to the Annex. 
 
 
 
Begin text: 
 
 
 
The PartiesQhall agree to an Annex containing additional 
information regarding the content and format of Notifications. 
 
 
 
End text. 
 
 
 
Ryzhkov acknowledged the need for a link, but wanted to ensure the 
text was consistent with the approach implemented in the treaty 
text and other parts of the Protocol.  Siemon replied this text was 
requested by the U.S. lawyers but agreed to verify its consistency. 
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------ 
 
SECTION II:  NOTIFICATION CONCERNING 
 
THE MOVEMENT OF NEW ITEMS 
 
------------------------------------ 
 
 
 
¶8.  (S) Ryzhkov recommended replacing "but shall not be limited to" 
with "inter alia" in the last sentence in the chapeau of paragraph 
¶3.  Siemon agreed and he recommended deletion of the 
Russian-proposed text "the notification shall include the place at 
which an exhibition or exhibitions occur" in subparagraph (b) of 
this paragraph since such details would be in the Annex document. 
Ryzhkov agreed. 
 
 
 
 
 
¶9.  (S) Siemon reminded Ryzhkov that the notification in paragraph 
4, "Notification pertaining to transfer of items to a third state 
in conjunction with an existing Pattern of Cooperation," was 
applicable only to the U.S. side because it referred to the pattern 
of cooperation between the United States and United Kingdom. 
Additionally, he noted that the notification concerning movement of 
items to the territory of a third state contained in paragraph 5 
was applicable only to the Russian side. 
 
 
¶10.  (S) Ryzhkov agreed but believed the concepts were quite 
different.  He compared the transfer of items to Kazakhstan to the 
movement of U.S. heavy bombers to the territory of another country. 
Siemon acknowledged the difference between the U.S. side's transfer 
to the United Kingdom and the Russian side's transfer to 
Kazakhstan, and he proposed accepting the Russian-proposed language 
in paragraph 5 if the Russian side accepted the U.S.-proposed 
language in paragraph 4. 
 
 
 
¶11.  (S) Ryzhkov did not respond to Siemon's proposal.  Instead, he 
asked Siemon to clarify the meaning of "items" in paragraph 4. 
Siemon replied that many items were covered by the agreement, but 
that typically only SLBMs would be transferred to the United 
Kingdom.  Ryzhkov recommended that, in that case, "items" be 
replaced with "SLBMs."  He recalled a special agreed statement 
under START that specified that SLBMs were the item of transfer 
under the existing Pattern of Cooperation.  Siemon accepted 
Ryzhkov's proposal pending agreement with the rest of the U.S. 
delegation. 
 
 
 
¶12.  (S) The Russian side then proposed additional changes to 
paragraph 5. 
 
 
 
Begin text: 
 
 
 
"5.  Notification no later than five days after the completion of 
the movement of ICBMs to the territory of a third State." 
 
 
 
End text. 
 
 
 
¶13. (S) Ryzhkov proposed that the remaining text regarding flight 
tests and return of ICBMs to Russia could be captured by other 
existing notifications; they included the flight test notification 
in Section IV and the transit of SOA notification in Section III. 
Siemon acknowledged the Russian concept but reminded Ryzhkov 
discussions were ongoing regarding the Leninsk Agreed Statement.  A 
final decision concerning the notification could not be made until 
those discussions resolved the issue.  Ryzhkov agreed that this 
notification may not be needed if the issue was resolved through an 
Agreed Statement.  He then reiterated the similarity between 
Russia's movement of ICBMs to Leninsk to the United States' moving 
heavy bombers to other countries. 
 
 
 
------------------------------- 
 
DEVELOPMENT OF NEW KINDS OF SOA 
 
------------------------------- 
 
 
¶14.  (S) Siemon explained the U.S. position regarding development 
of new kinds of SOA was to include two notifications.  The first 
was a notification to discuss the topic in the Bilateral 
Consultative Commission (BCC).  This was a Russian-proposed 
notification that tracked the agreed language in Article V of the 
treaty.  The second notification was needed when one side was 
preparing to deploy a new kind of SOA for which the BCC should 
resolve issues relating to the applicability of treaty provisions 
for that new kind of SOA.  This was a U.S.-proposed notification 
that corresponded to the agreed language in Article XIV, 
subparagraph (c) of the treaty. 
 
 
 
¶15.  (S) Ryzhkov acknowledged the U.S. concept and countered with a 
single notification, "Notification on the development of a new kind 
of SOA."  He stated the first notification to discuss the new SOA 
in the BCC should be handled as it was under the Joint Compliance 
and Inspection Commission (JCIC) process of START.  The 
notification would contain all issues proposed for discussion.  He 
said that this language would be simpler and would capture the 
proposed texts of both sides.  Each Party would have the right to 
raise the new kinds issue using this language. 
 
 
 
¶16.  (S) Siemon noted that much discussion had occurred at the Head 
of Delegation level regarding this topic and that the language in 
Articles V and XIV were attempts to address the new kinds issue. 
He said the U.S. approach was to separate the steps covered by 
these two Articles.  He then reiterated the need for two distinct 
notifications.  He further noted that it was unclear under START 
when an item became a treaty accountable SOA--when the SOA was 
flight tested or when said SOA was deployed?  The intention of this 
text was to provide more openness and transparency on each side and 
to avoid confusion. 
 
 
 
¶17.  (S) Ryzhkov pointed out that it was unlikely either side would 
have a new kind of SOA during this treaty and said significant time 
should not be expended on this issue.  He also said the text in 
Articles V and XIV was adequate, and text should not be repeated in 
this part of the Protocol or elsewhere in the treaty.  He stated 
the U.S. side's concerns could be addressed in the Annex.  Siemon 
indicated he understood Ryzhkov's point and said he would take it 
to the U.S. delegation for consideration. 
 
 
 
¶18.  (U) Documents provided:  None 
 
 
 
¶19.  (U) Participants: 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES 
 
 
Mr. Siemon 
 
Mr. Dean 
 
Mr. Dwyer 
 
Dr. Fraley 
 
Mr. Hanchett 
 
Maj Johnson 
 
LT Sicks 
 
Mr. Stickney (RO) 
 
Ms. Smith (Int) 
 
 
 
RUSSIA 
 
 
 
Col Ryzhkov 
 
Mr. Ivanov 
 
Mr. Smirnov 
 
Mr. Voloskov 
 
Ms. Komshilova (Int) 
 
 
 
¶20.  (U) Gottemoeller sends. 
KING