VZCZCXRO1465
OO RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHSR
DE RUEHC #6796/01 0550312
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O P 240309Z FEB 10
FM SECSTATE WASHDC
TO RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO IMMEDIATE 7758
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 7733
INFO CONVENTIONAL ARMED FORCES IN EUROPE COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUESDT/DTRA OSES DARMSTADT GE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/HQ USCENTCOM MACDILL AFB FL PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDR USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE PRIORITY
RHMFISS/CDRUSAREUR HEIDELBERG GE//POLAD// PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 STATE 016796 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/25/10 
TAGS: OSCE KCFE NATO PARM PREL
SUBJECT: CFE/VCC: GUIDANCE FOR THE 25 FEBRUARY 2010 VCC 
AND EXPERTS MEETINGS AND THE USOSCE 2010 AIAM 
 
REF: (A)AC/319-WP(2010)0003, (B)AC/319-N(2009) 0038-REV1 
(EXPERTS TASKING) 
 
Classified by: Richard A. Davis, VCI/CCA Office Director 
for Reasons 1.4 (B) and (D). 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  This is an action message. USNATO, see 
paragraphs 2-11; USOSCE see paragraph 6-9. 
 
- - - - - - 
OBJECTIVES 
- - - - - - 
 
¶2.  (C) U.S. objectives for the February 25, 2010 
meetings of the NATO Verification Coordinating Committee 
(VCC) and VCC Experts are as follows: 
 
-- To oppose any revision to Vienna Document 1999 (VD99) 
Implementation Coordination procedures that would 
subordinate national priorities and prerogatives to an 
automatic and formulaic mechanism for allocating 
verification activity quotas. 
 
-- To agree to the remaining proposed edits included in 
Reference A with minor changes. 
 
--To propose that the VCC discuss the Annual 
Implemenation Assessment Meeting (AIAM) and ongoing VD99 
work in Vienna before tasking the VCC Experts to do any 
work related to VD99. 
 
-- To announce to Allies Washington's intent to raise 
questions at the 2010 AIAM related to the fall 2009 
inspections in Belarus and Kazakhstan with the aim of 
discouraging the practice of a pS inspecting a country 
holding an exercise in which the inspecting pS is an 
exercise participant. 
 
-- To encourage Allies to share information on potential 
notifiable military activities in the current calendar 
year that are of interest for the deconflicted VD99 
inspection schedule. 
 
-- To update Allies on completed verification 
activities. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
Implementation Coordination 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Washington has reviewed the IS draft revision 
(REF) to AC/319-D(2009)0001 and is generally content 
with the proposed edits, with the exception of those 
offered in paragraph 2.   USDel should make clear that 
the U.S. opposes both proposals to paragraph 2, which 
both attempt to specify how Allies will resolve 
conflicts that arise during the coordination process. 
Washington's view is that the only acceptable solution 
to resolving conflicts encountered during the 
coordination process is through negotiation among the 
affected Allies.  USDel may draw from the following 
during the meeting of VCC Experts: 
 
-- Washington opposes both proposed revisions to 
paragraph 2, which advocate giving priority for 
allocation of verification activity quotas in high- 
interest countries to Allies based on how recently they 
have conducted like activities in the country in 
question. 
 
-- The U.S. views any such mechanism or formula as 
prejudicial to individual national interests and 
prerogatives. 
 
-- Allies have successfully negotiated solutions to all 
the coordination conflicts over the past two years and 
 
STATE 00016796  002 OF 003 
 
 
we see no reason to alter the process that has led to 
consensus while preserving individual Allies' rights and 
interests. 
 
-- In this light, the U.S. would also note that, in our 
view, the phrase, "...taking into consideration 
alternative bids," as found at the end of paragraph 2 
does not equate to an automatic forfeiture of an Ally's 
primary bid if its alternate bid is still available. 
 
-- The remaining edits to Ref A are generally 
acceptable.  The U.S. would prefer a review of the 
procedures in the spring and proposes deleting the word 
"summer" in para 11. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) USDel should also ask Allies to consider, for 
the purposes of clarity, reviewing the paper to correct 
minor grammatical errors and awkward constructions. 
USDel may suggest and accept such edits at the table as 
long as they do not change the substantive content of 
the paper.  USDel should encourage Allies to share 
information about potential notifiable military 
activities in the current calendar year that could be of 
interest for the deconflicted VD99 inspection schedule. 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 
Experts Tasking on VD99 
- - - - - - - - - - - - 
 
¶5.  (C/ REL NATO) On February 16, 2010 the International 
Staff (IS) issued under silence procedures a revision 
one to its tasker for Experts "...to review VD99 with 
the intent of identifying possible technical 
adjustments..." (Ref B).  On February 23 the U.S. broke 
silence, noting its preference to continue a discussion 
on the proposed tasker within the 25 February VCC. 
USDel should draw from the following to explain the 
rationale for Washington's break. 
 
-- In December, Ministers called on the FSC in 2010 to 
"explore ways in which to strengthen the OSCE's 
political-military toolbox, with particular attention to 
strengthening current arms control and CSBM instruments, 
including strengthening the Vienna Document 1999" (MC. 
DEC/16/09).  In Vienna, a number of proposals are under 
consideration, including two proposals aimed at moving 
forward on improving VD99 that have been recently tabled 
by Allies.  In addition, we understand that Allies 
intend to table at the upcoming AIAM a number of 
proposals for improving VD99 that VCC Experts have 
discussed at great length in the past. 
 
-- Washington sees value in exploring whether there is a 
way for the work of the VCC and its Experts to 
complement VD99 work already ongoing in Vienna.  Thus, 
we are not in favor of an open-ended review of VD99 by 
the VCC Experts.  We would welcome a discussion about 
how to maximize the ability of the VCC to make a 
positive contribution to VD99 discussions, but first 
must have a better understanding of the pace and scope 
of related work in Vienna. 
 
- - - 
AIAM 
- - - 
 
¶6.  (C/REL NATO) Estonia and Portugal inspected Belarus 
the second and third weeks of March respectively. The 
Russian Federation conducted an inspection in Belarus 
during the first week of September that exhausted the 
last inspection quota in Belarus for 2009  as well as 
preceded the joint Russian-Belarus exercise, "West- 
2009," in which 12,529 personnel, including 6,820 from 
Belarus, 5,680 from Russia and 29 from Kazakhstan 
participated.   In 2009, the Netherlands conducted a 
VD99 inspection in February and Germany conducted a VD99 
inspection in August in Kazakhstan.  Then, in October, 
Kyrgyzstan conducted an inspection in Kazakhstan, which 
coincided with the CSTO exercise "Interoperability-2009" 
and which exhausted the last quota in 2009 for 
Kazakhstan.  In both the Russia and Kyrgyzstan cases, 
 
STATE 00016796  003 OF 003 
 
 
these inspections conducted by non-NATO states preempted 
planned Allied inspections of notified significant 
military activities.   The U.S. is concerned that this 
unprecedented practice, if continued, will undermine the 
transparency that VD99 inspections are intended to 
provide. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) U.S. VCC Del should notify Allies in the VCC 
and/or VCC Experts meetings, drawing from the points in 
paragraph 9, as appropriate, of our intention to raise 
this issue for discussion at the upcoming Annual 
Implementation Assessment Meeting (AIAM) under Working 
Session 1.   We also request that Allies planning to 
table papers or raise issues at the upcoming AIAM share 
such information.  As always, we would welcome an 
exchange of views on papers that are going to be tabled 
at the AIAM. 
 
¶8.  (SBU) U.S. OSCE Del should coordinate in advance 
with Allies and draw from the points in paragraph eight 
to raise questions at the AIAM under working Session 1. 
Del should avoid criticism of individual pS and their 
past practices, focusing on broader themes of 
transparency and implementation. 
 
¶9.  (SBU) USDels may draw from the following as 
necessary: 
 
-- The U.S. intends to raise at this year's AIAM the 
issue of pS conducting inspections in countries that 
host military activities in which the inspecting pS is a 
participant. 
 
-- (For the VCC only) We are raising this issue in 
response to the inspections that Russia and Kyrgyzstan 
conducted last year in Belarus and Kazakhstan 
respectively. 
 
-- In both cases, an OSCE pS conducted an inspection in 
a country in which it was a participant in a significant 
military exercise that was notified in accordance with 
VD99.  In both cases a pS involved in the exercise 
exhausted the last quota available and thus, precluded 
any other pS from inspecting the exercise. 
 
-- We are interested in soliciting pS views and 
potential ways to avoid a repetition of this situation. 
 
-- Our intent is not to criticize particular states, but 
to shed light on an implementation concern that has 
impacted transparency within the zone of application. 
 
-- (For the VCC only) VCC coordination procedures were 
designed to permit Allies to revise the deconflicted 
schedule as appropriate.  We encourage Allies to share 
information about potential and notifiable military 
activities in the current calendar year that could be of 
interest for the VD99 inspection schedule. 
 
¶10.  (C/REL NATO) The United States conducted a CFE 
flank supplementary inspection in Ukraine during 
timeblock 48 (8-14 February) and will report on the 
results of this inspection at the next VCC meeting in 
April. 
 
¶11.  (C/REL NATO) The United States would like to 
announce two changes to its CFE Schedule.  The U.S. paid 
CFE inspection in Ukraine that currently is scheduled in 
timeblock 15 has been moved to timeblock 6 (19-25 April 
2010) and the U.S. CFE inspection in Azerbaijan has been 
moved from timeblock 7 to timeblock 10 (17-23 May 2010). 
The Allies who have guest inspectors who are slated to 
participate in those inspections should be aware that 
the inspectors are still assigned to those inspections; 
only the timeblocks have changed. 
CLINTON