VZCZCXRO5404
OO RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHROV RUEHSL RUEHSR
DE RUEHNO #0051/01 0341541
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 031541Z FEB 10
FM USMISSION USNATO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3832
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUCNOSC/ORG FOR SECURITY CO OP IN EUR COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 6594
RUEAIIA/CIA  PRIORITY
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUDKSR/EUCOM PLANS AND ANALYSIS STUTTGART GE PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JCS WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEHNO/USDELMC BRUSSELS BE PRIORITY
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 0627
RHMFISS/USNMR SHAPE BE PRIORITY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 USNATO 000051 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/02/2020 
TAGS: KCFE NATO PARM PREL MCAP MASS MARR
SUBJECT: CFE/VCC: RFG - EXPERTS RECONSIDER IMPLEMENTATION 
COORDINATION WHILE VCC PREPARES TO DISCUSS NEW EXPERT TASKER 
 
REF: STATE 4628 
 
Classified By: D/POLAD Alejandro "Hoot" Baez for reasons 1.4(B)&(D). 
 
¶1. (U) This is a request for guidance. Please see para 6 
below. 
 
¶2. (C) Summary. Verification Coordination Committee (VCC) 
Experts initiated a discussion on a draft review of 
implementation coordination procedures during their January 
22 meeting.  Proposals to improve Allied coordination include 
a controversial Franco-German suggestion to introduce a 
mathematical formula for allocating Vienna Document 1999 
activities more equitably (in the view of the proponents). 
The U.S. delegation will require guidance on this proposal 
prior to the next meeting. The International Staff (IS) has 
published a draft revision of coordination procedures that 
will form the basis for future discussions.  Experts also 
deconflicted the CFE inspection calendar for the 15th 
residual period. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Summary, cont'd. In the VCC, Germany explained its 
rationale for breaking silence on the IS draft tasker for VCC 
Experts to review VD99 implementation.  Following an extended 
discussion, the IS announced that it would revise the tasker 
and re-issue it for comment before the next VCC. 
 
¶4. (C) Summary, cont'd.  Additionally, the IS will draft a 
paper outlining issues associated with Allies accepting 
invitations from partners to participate in activities when 
such verification activities are likely to preempt like NATO 
activities. End Summary. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
REVIEWING IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATION PROCEDURES 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶5. (C) At their 22 January meeting, VCC Experts began 
reviewing Alliance procedures for coordinating the allocation 
of VD99 verification activities as called for in 
AC/319-D(2009)0001, "Implementation Coordination Procedures." 
 The January discussion focused on a draft revision of the 
2009 decision, which the International Staff circulated at 
the beginning of the meeting. 
 
¶6. (C) Of note, the IS draft included a German/French 
proposal, first raised after the deconfliction meeting in 
December.  The Franco-German proposal is intended to minimize 
inter-alliance conflict during the coordination process by 
prescribing a formula for allocating activities in cases 
where Allies fail to reach an agreement on allocating 
activities to specific countries during the first round of 
negotiations.  The revision gives priority for conducting a 
given activity in a given target country to Allies that have 
not recently conducted a like activity in that country.  (For 
example, if five Allies remain in competition for the two 
evaluation quotas in the Russian Federation after the first 
round of discussions, then priority would be given to the two 
Allies with the longest periods since last conducting an 
evaluation in Russia.)  (RFG:  The US Delegation will need 
explicit guidance on this proposal for the next meeting. End 
RFG.) 
 
¶7. (C) Another proposal would require an Ally that had lost 
an opportunity to conduct an activity in a given target 
country due to an uncoordinated activity by a partner to 
submit that target country as its primary bid for a like 
activity if it wishes to be given priority during the 
allocation process. Under the 2009 agreement, Allies are not 
required to submit the country in which it lost an activity 
as a primary bid, which in effect gives that Ally two primary 
bids. 
 
¶8. (C) Since the IS had not circulated their draft in advance 
of the meeting, there was limited discussion among Experts. 
Belgium supported the German/French proposal, while Norway 
voiced its skepticism of a formulaic approach.  U.S. Rep 
Meyer cautioned that the U.S. also might find a mathematical 
formulation problematic.  Further discussion resulted in a 
few additional edits and the revised paper was published on 
23 January under AC/319-WP(2010)0003,"Vienna Document 1999 
 
USNATO 00000051  002 OF 003 
 
 
Implementation Coordination Review." USDel expects the 
Experts Chair (Wiederholtz) to include this paper on the 
February agenda for Experts. 
 
¶9. (C) In other business, Experts deconflicted CFE quotas for 
the 15th residual year. The revised schedule was published as 
AC/319-WP(2010)0001-REV 1 (CFE).  Bulgaria announced it was 
returning its CFE inspection quota to Ukraine citing 
budgetary considerations.  With Allied consent, Belgium 
picked up this inspection.  Germany reported that Ukraine 
announced to Germany during a bilateral meeting that it would 
add additional CFE Points of Entry (POE)s in Dnepropetrovsk 
and Kharkov in March. 
 
---------------------------------- 
TASKING THE EXPERTS TO REVIEW VD99 
---------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (C) At the request of the VCC Chair (Parker) Germany 
explained the rationale for its break of silence with regard 
to AC/319-N(2009)0038, "Experts Tasking VD99."  As described 
in the German e-mail, delivered 15 December 2009 and 
distributed through NATO missions, Germany said it would 
prefer that proposals related to reviewing or improving VD99, 
as stipulated in the OSCE Ministerial Council Decision 16/09 
of 2 December 2009, be worked in Vienna rather than Brussels. 
 
¶11. (C) During the subsequent discussion, various revisions 
to the original tasker were suggested, including a proposal 
for experts to consider problems in implementing VD99 as a 
first step in any review process.  While Germany would not 
agree to specific proposals, it did intimate that it would be 
flexible in finding an appropriate role for VCC Experts. 
U.S. Rep Meyer asked Allies to consider how such a tasker 
would be substantively different from the work conducted by 
VCC Experts in preparation for the 2008 AIAM. Meyer also 
noted that any work on VD99 should compliment Alliance 
efforts in Vienna, and he asked Allies to consider how the 
work of the VCC and Experts could be structured to keep pace 
with events in the FSC. The Chair announced that the IS would 
issue a revision to the tasker, first for comment, and then, 
as appropriate, under silence. 
 
¶12. (C) On the margins, US Rep Meyer delivered points per 
REFTEL regarding the procedures followed by the IS in issuing 
the original Experts tasker.  In response, Parker admitted 
that, in hindsight, he had let his staff talk him into 
inappropriately issuing the original tasker under silence. 
(Comment. It is likely that Parker's announcement that the IS 
would circulate the next draft tasker for Experts initially 
for comment and only then under silence, as appropriate, was 
the result of his conversation with USDel. End Comment.) 
 
--------------------------------------- 
RESPONDING TO INVITATIONS FROM PARTNERS 
--------------------------------------- 
 
¶13. (C) Denmark reported receiving an invitation from Bosnia 
for a guest inspector to participate in an inspection in 
FYROM. Denmark's announcement triggered a discussion on 
whether Allies should accept or reject invitations from 
partners when the activity in question would result in the 
loss of an opportunity for a NATO Ally.  Of those Allies that 
intervened, most (Denmark, Belgium, Croatia, the Czech 
Republic, and Lithuania) supported a position that Allies 
should accept invitations from partners since NATO would lose 
the opportunity and one Ally on a partner's inspection team 
would be better than a lost Allied opportunity.  In contrast, 
others (Turkey) felt that as a matter of principle, Allies 
should reject such invitations. The IS is expected to prepare 
a paper on this topic for discussion at the February VCC. 
Norway announced that it had informally approached Sweden, 
Finland, Austria and Switzerland to coordinate VD99 
activities.  According to Norway, none of these countries 
intend to conduct activities before summer 2010. Norway said 
that some had indicated flexibility in their scheduling if 
they were to be offered a guest position on a NATO team. 
(Comment. If Allies receive indications that these countries 
intend to conduct activities, thereby preempting a NATO-led 
activity, Allies might want to consider offering a guest slot 
on a NATO team. End Comment.) 
 
USNATO 00000051  003 OF 003 
 
 
 
¶14. (C) The VCC Experts Chair, during the VCC, asked whether 
Spain or France intended to demonstrate the Tiger helicopter 
in the coming year.  France responded that, according to VD99 
para (31), since Spain announced the fielding of the Tiger 
first, it was Spain's responsibility to demonstrate the new 
equipment.  The Spanish representative said he would pass the 
Chair's inquiry to Madrid. 
HEFFERN