VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0225/01 0591646
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O R 281646Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RHEFBIM/DIA IMADS WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
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 0615
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0363
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0433
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0437
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0433

S E C R E T GENEVA 000225 
 
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: 2020/02/28 
TAGS: PARM KACT MARR PREL RS US
SUBJECT: SFO-GVA-VIII: (U) NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP MEETING, 
FEBRUARY 25, 2010 
 
REF: 10 GENEVA 223 (SFO-GVA-VIII-082) 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Rose E. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department 
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B), (D) 
 
¶1.  (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-087. 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  February 25, 2010 
 
                Time:  3:30 P.M. to 4:30 P.M. 
 
               Place:  Russian Mission, Geneva 
 
 
 
------- 
 
SUMMARY 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶3.  (S) During a meeting of the Notifications Working Group held at 
the Russian Mission on February 25, issues arising from the 
bracketed text of Part Four of the Protocol were discussed.  It was 
agreed at the end of the meeting to send Sections I, IV, V and VIII 
to conforming.  End summary. 
 
 
¶4.  (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Section VI:  Inspection and Exhibition 
Notifications; Section VIII:  BCC Notifications; Section I: 
General Provisions; and What to Send to Conforming. 
 
 
 
--------------------------- 
 
SECTION VI:  INSPECTION AND 
 
EXHIBITION NOTIFICATIONS 
 
--------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶5.  (S) Col Ryzhkov provided a copy of the description of 
notifications in Russian.  He noted this proposal was based on the 
discussions held in the previous day's meeting (Reftel), and would 
show all of the text that had been agreed in that session. 
 
 
 
¶6.  (S) Mr. Siemon and Ryzhkov then turned their attention to 
completing a review of Section VI Paragraph 15, which outlines the 
process by which the inspecting team chief provides notification to 
a member of the in-country escort for the designation of the site 
and type of inspection to be conducted.  Ryzhkov explained that 
following an internal discussion with the Russian delegation, it 
was agreed to accept the U.S.-proposed text for sub-paragraph 
15(a).  It was also agreed that notification would be made within 4 
hours of the inspecting Party's arriving at the point of entry 
(POE) whether it was the initial entry into the country or whether 
the inspection team was returning to the POE from a previous 
inspection and intended to conduct a sequential inspection. 
 
 
¶7.  (S) For sub-paragraph 15(b), Ryzhkov thought there was some 
confusion concerning the intent of this provision.  He noted how 
the U.S. version, with its requirement for a notification of a 
sequential inspection before the completion of pre-inspection 
procedures, mirrored the provisions found in START.  He then 
explained the rationale for the Russian proposal to only declare 
the intent to conduct a sequential inspection at the POE at the 
same time that notification was given for the first inspection 
site.  If the inspected Party knew in advance the intent to conduct 
a sequential inspection, the Party would be able to ensure the 
appropriate escorts with technical background would be on the 
escort team, thus obviating the need for a return to the POE solely 
to swap out escort team members. 
 
 
 
¶8.  (S) Maj Johnson asked how the Russian proposal would work if 
the inspected Party was aware of the sequential inspection but not 
the type and location.  Ryzhkov replied, this scenario would allow 
the inspected Party to bring a more robust escort team who could 
anticipate possible venues and be able to proceed directly to the 
sequential site.  If the escort team knew there was not going to be 
a sequential inspection, the team would bring only the experts 
required for the inspection of the one site.  Siemon took the 
proposal for further thought, and he and Smirnov agreed to discuss 
the matter further with their counterparts in the Inspection 
Protocol Working Group and report back their findings. 
 
 
 
¶9.  (S) For subparagraph 15(c), Ryzkov dropped the Russian 
formulation, and both sides accepted the draft text containing 
U.S.-proposed language addressing cancellations of inspections at 
the POE or the inspection site in those cases when the inspection 
may not be conducted. 
 
 
 
-------------------------------- 
 
SECTION VIII:  BCC NOTIFICATIONS 
 
-------------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶10.  (S) The sides agreed to the Russian addition of "activities 
of" to the title of the Bilateral Consultative Commission messages. 
Siemon thought the Conforming Group might further modify the title. 
Ryzhkov was open to suggestions, though he indicated the original 
construction of the title without the addition of "activities of" 
sounded odd in Russian. 
 
 
 
------------------------------ 
 
SECTION I:  GENERAL PROVISIONS 
 
------------------------------ 
 
 
¶11.  (S) Paragraph 1 was not addressed.  Paragraph 2 elicited a 
lengthy discussion on the need for two times and dates to record 
the effective date of a notification.  Ryzhkov argued there could 
be a circumstance in which a notification could be sent on one date 
and be acknowledged on another date.  Such a situation would arise 
if a notification were sent 1-2 minutes before midnight and 
received after midnight.  He conceded that, in the 15 years of 
START, such an event may have taken place one or two times.  In the 
end, both sides agreed to shorten the bracketed text to state the 
effective date of the notification was the date of receipt. 
 
 
 
¶12.  (S) Paragraph 3, agreement on an annex regarding the content 
and format of notifications, was provisionally agreed.  Ryzhkov 
wanted to complete a legal review to ensure the wording matched 
similar formulations elsewhere in the protocol.  He and Siemon 
agreed, however, that the text could be sent to the Conforming 
Group. 
 
 
 
-------------------------- 
 
WHAT TO SEND TO CONFORMING 
 
-------------------------- 
 
 
 
¶13.  (S) Having completed the review of the remaining text of the 
Notifications Part of the Protocol, Siemon discussed, and Ryzhkov 
agreed, to the following disposition of the various sections: 
 
 
 
Section I.  Sent to conforming. 
 
 
 
Section II.  Held for further discussion, although Ryzhkov thought 
the remaining differences could be resolved at the next meeting. 
 
 
 
Section III.  Held for further discussion, since Ryzhkov had a 
number of questions on the notifications for bomber movements. 
Ryzhkov offered to discuss this section in the next meeting. 
 
 
 
Section IV.  Sent to conforming with brackets on the use of the 
term flight test or launch. 
 
 
 
Section V.  Sent to conforming. 
 
 
 
Section VI.  Held for further discussion.  Ryzhkov offered to 
provide a new formulation for the bracketed text in paragraph 7 
 
 
concerning objections to inspectors or crew members that he thought 
would satisfy both U.S. and Russian concerns. 
 
 
 
Section VII.  The telemetry section was not addressed. 
 
 
 
Section VIII.  Sent to conforming. 
 
 
 
¶14.  (U) Documents provided: 
 
 
 
- Russia: 
 
 
 
-- Description of Notifications, dated February 25, 2010, in 
Russian. 
 
 
 
¶15.  (U) Participants: 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES 
 
 
 
Mr. Siemon 
 
Mr. Connell (RO) 
 
Mr. Dean 
 
Mr. Dwyer 
 
Maj Johnson 
 
Mr. Stickney 
 
Ms. Smith (Int) 
 
 
 
RUSSIA 
 
 
 
Col Ryzhkov 
 
Mr. Smirnov 
 
Mr. Voloskov 
 
Ms. Komshilova (Int) 
 
 
¶16.  (U) Gottemoeller sends. 
KING