VZCZCXYZ0002
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0245/01 0591744
ZNY SSSSS ZZH
O R 281744Z 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 0673
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 0421
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC IMMEDIATE
INFO RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA
RUEHKV/AMEMBASSY KYIV 0491
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 0495
RUEHTA/AMEMBASSY ASTANA 0491

S E C R E T GENEVA 000245 
 
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) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WORKING GROUP 
MEETING, FEBRUARY 24, 2010 
 
CLASSIFIED BY: Rose E. Gottemoeller, Assistant Secretary, Department 
of State, VCI; REASON: 1.4(B), (D) 
 
¶1.  (U) This is SFO-GVA-VIII-080. 
 
 
 
¶2.  (U) Meeting Date:  February 24, 2010 
 
                Time:  10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. 
 
               Place:  U.S. Mission, Geneva 
 
 
 
------- 
 
SUMMARY 
 
------- 
 
 
 
¶3.  (S) During a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group 
meeting held at the U.S. Mission on February 24, the sides 
discussed Part Four to the Annex on Inspection Activities, 
specifically, the provisions and requirements for site diagrams and 
references to Part Two of the Protocol.  End summary. 
 
¶4.  (S) SUBJECT SUMMARY:  Site Diagrams; and Part Two of the 
Protocol. 
 
 
 
------------- 
 
SITE DIAGRAMS 
 
------------- 
 
 
 
¶5.  (S) Mr. Trout asked General Orlov about his intent to return to 
Moscow the weekend of February 27.  Orlov, in a departure from the 
Russian delegation's recent talking points, admitted that he would 
not know whether the Russians would be returning to Moscow until 
later in the afternoon when Russian Head of Delegation, Ambassador 
Antonov, returned from his Moscow trip. 
 
 
 
¶6.  (S) Continuing the work begun the previous day, Orlov suggested 
to Trout that the group begin with the last section of paragraph 1 
of Part Four to the Annex on Inspection Activities.  Colonel Petrov 
made a brief intervention, suggesting that since the group had 
worked from the U.S. proposal yesterday, the group should logically 
work from the Russian proposal today.  Orlov stated that Petrov's 
proposal made no sense and that the group should continue to work 
from a single proposal, and in this case it would be the U.S. 
proposal.  LT Lobner offered that since the Russian side had 
already pointed out some errors in the Joint Draft Text (JDT), 
perhaps, as the two sides continued their discussions, Petrov could 
point out missing text. 
 
 
 
¶7.  (S) Trout deleted U.S.-proposed text at the bottom of 
subparagraph 1(a) that dealt with provisions for simplified site 
 
 
diagrams and moved the concept into the chapeau for paragraph 2. 
Continuing to subparagraph 1(b), a concern arose about the Russian 
translation for SLBM storage area.  After an exhaustive discussion 
of English and Russian phraseology, it was agreed to use "area at a 
submarine base at which non-deployed SLBMs are stored."  Much of 
the remaining time in the session was dedicated to this terminology 
and emplacing it in subparagraph 1(b) in all places where "SLBM 
storage area" had previously resided. 
 
 
 
¶8.  (S) Discussion transitioned to subparagraph 1(c).  Trout and 
Orlov discussed the issue of whether "deployed heavy bombers" or 
just "heavy bombers" should be depicted on site diagrams for air 
bases.  Orlov asked Trout to delete "deployed," while Trout 
promised to consult with his colleagues and return with an answer 
as soon as he could. 
 
 
 
¶9.  (S) The Russian side dropped portions of its bracketed text in 
subparagraphs 1(c), 1(d)(i), and 1(d)(ii).  Work on this section 
came to a halt when the sides began to discuss the stipulation of 
areas of "ten square kilometers" for special provisions.  The sides 
agreed to postpone the discussion until after this issue had been 
resolved in other working groups which dealt with basing areas and 
test ranges. 
 
 
 
¶10.  (S) Moving to paragraph 2, another point of contention arose 
when Orlov asked Trout what the United States considered to be 
absolutely necessary vocabulary in English to equate to the Russian 
words for site diagram.  The words "site diagram," Orlov explained, 
were used in this section as general terminology while outlining 
requirements which should be on simplified site diagrams, annotated 
site diagrams, and coastlines and waters diagrams.  Trout explained 
that the United States would insist that the requirements for each 
type of site diagram be spelled out, as there was no equivalent 
English word that encompassed all three types of diagrams.  Lobner 
stated that the United States would have to take paragraph 2 and 
re-work some of the text to incorporate this concept. 
 
 
 
¶11.  (S) Petrov continued discussion on the first subparagraphs of 
paragraph 2, but Trout suggested enough work on the Annex had been 
accomplished for that day's meeting, explaining that he wanted to 
use some of the time remaining to discuss a few topics in Part Two 
of the Protocol.  Orlov agreed. 
 
 
 
------------------------ 
 
PART TWO OF THE PROTOCOL 
 
------------------------ 
 
 
 
¶12.  (S) Trout and Orlov returned to discussing the purpose of Part 
Two of the Protocol.  The Russian side, Orlov explained, saw Part 
Two as the source for many of the requirements throughout paragraph 
1 of Part Four of the Annex on Inspection Activities.  He further 
 
 
opined that Part Two was authoritative, since it was signed by 
presidents, and was appropriately labeled "the Database" at the 
behest of the United States.  Orlov closed his oration by stating 
he had no idea why the United States wanted to label Part Two "The 
Database" if it did not consider Part Two to be referred to 
throughout the treaty as a source for specific data, in this case 
the facilities for which site diagrams are required. 
 
 
 
¶13.  (S) Trout responded by repeating the same logic he relayed to 
Orlov the day prior:  Part Two contained only the categories of 
data which would later be used to organize the data populated in 
the electronic database.  Part Two, however, did not list specific 
facilities nor would specific data ever appear in the text.  This 
data would be contained in the electronic database, so the 
electronic database should rightly be referred to throughout Part 
Four to the Annex on Inspection Activities.  Orlov responded by 
saying the sides should then agree to call Part Two to the Protocol 
"Categories of the Database on Strategic Offensive Arms," or 
something similar.  Trout promised to discuss the issue with his 
colleagues, but agreed that Orlov's proposed title was a more 
accurate title for Part Two. 
 
 
 
¶14.  (U) Documents provided:  None. 
 
 
 
¶15.  (U) Participants: 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES 
 
 
 
Mr. Trout 
 
Mr. Brown 
 
LTC Litterini (RO) 
 
LT  Lobner 
 
Mr. French (Int) 
 
 
 
RUSSIA 
 
 
 
Gen Orlov 
 
Col Petrov 
 
Mr. Pischulov 
 
Ms. Evarovskaya (Int) 
 
 
 
¶16.  (U) Gottemoeller sends. 
KING