Viewing cable 08USNATO102
Title: NATO/VCC: MARCH 7 VCC MEETING

IdentifierCreatedReleasedClassificationOrigin
08USNATO1022008-03-20 17:40:00 2011-08-30 01:44:00 CONFIDENTIAL//NOFORN Mission USNATO
VZCZCXRO0709
OO RUEHFL RUEHLA RUEHMRE RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHNO #0102/01 0801740
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 201740Z MAR 08
FM USMISSION USNATO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1724
INFO RUEHZG/NATO EU COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUCNOSC/OSCE COLLECTIVE PRIORITY
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW PRIORITY 5922
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE  PRIORITY 0462
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JCS WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 USNATO 000102 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
NOFORN 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/17/2018 
TAGS: KCFE PARM PREL NATO
SUBJECT: NATO/VCC: MARCH 7 VCC MEETING 
 
REF: (A) STATE 023551 
 
Classified By: Deputy Chief of Mission Richard G. Olson, reasons 1.4 (b 
 and d) 
 
¶1. (C) Summary.  In addition to the usual exchange of 
information on VDOC and CFE activities conducted and planned, 
the VCC meeting was generally successful.  No Ally 
volunteered to notify a CFE inspection in Russia in March, so 
the U.S. did so.  However, the IS Chair urged Allies to 
reconsider and if one was prepared to do so, it should notify 
the Staff and the U.S.  It was agreed that NATO will no 
longer send letters inviting partners to pair inspections. 
The NATO papers on the definition of an inspected site 
(without footnotes) and on the interpretation of the rules 
about supplementary flank inspections were agreed and will be 
sent to the JCG-T.  The U.S. and Germany resolved differences 
on the Outstanding Implementation Issues off-line and a 
revised paper will be issued by the staff under a two-week 
silence procedure.  Discussion of the AIAM, Heads of 
Verification (HOV) meetings in Vienna, and of the German 
paper on VDOC inspection scheduling tabled in the FSC led to 
agreement for the VCC and Experts to seek to identify and 
prepare agreed positions on VDOC implementation issues, and 
possibly best practices guides, before the next AIAM and HOV 
meetings.  This process will start with an experts, meeting 
the morning of April 15. 
 
¶2. (C) VDOC Evaluations and Inspections.  The U.S. reported 
on its evaluation in Austria between February 11 and 13 per 
guidance.  The U.S. also informed Allies that its VDOC 
inspection in Russia planned for the week of March 16 to 22 
will be rescheduled. 
 
-- The Chair noted that so far in 2008, of 12 VDOC 
evaluations conducted by partners, ten have been by Russia; 
and of 15 VDOC inspections so far by partners, seven have 
been by Russia.  Since ten VDOC inspections by partners have 
been in non-NATO States Parties, these represent 
opportunities lost by NATO. 
 
-- Allies reported on a number of VDOC evaluations and 
inspections that they have conducted in 2008.  None of these 
featured significant problems, and all either have been or 
will be reported in detail to all. 
 
-- Allies announced upcoming VDOC evaluations and 
inspections, both quota and in accord with bilateral 
agreements.   Changes from existing plans included:  a 
Belgian VDOC inspection to Montenegro in week 16 to replace 
an inspection lost in Serbia for the same week; a Slovenian 
VDOC inspection in Bosnia in week 20 to replace an inspection 
lost in Cyprus for week 16; and a Hungarian VDOC inspection 
in Albania in week 14 to replace an inspection lost in 
Croatia for week 12.   In addition a planned Danish VDOC 
inspection in Azerbaijan has been lost.  Finally, because 
there is also a planned evaluation by Norway in Tajikistan in 
week 15 and the Tajik verification agency is very small, 
Bulgaria will conduct its planned VDOC inspection in 
Tajikistan in week 14, vice week 15. 
 
¶3. (C) AIAM.  The chair reported and several Allies commented 
on the conduct of the AIAM and the HOV meetings in Vienna. 
There was discussion by the Chair and several Allies on the 
German paper on VDOC inspection planning that was tabled in 
Vienna.  Per guidance, the U.S. Representative noted that we 
have some concerns with it and believe that is should 
probably be further discussed among Allies in Vienna.  When 
the discussion of the German paper continued, the U.S. 
Representative (supported by Denmark) noted that the VCC and 
VCC Experts had addressed VDOC scheduling and coordination at 
length, but had not been able to reach full agreement on 
proposals, and it had always been the clear U.S. position to 
oppose any coordination at 56 or outside of Brussels.  When 
the German Representative replied that their paper tabled in 
the FSC did not contain the words "to coordinate" and was 
solely aimed at dividing up the year to reduce the quota rush 
in the early months. U.S. Representative noted that there was 
no intent to attack Germany, but the U.S. had some concerns 
on the German paper and believed that it implied a wider 
coordination.  On the margins, the German Representative 
(Eichorn) stated that General Maertens, comments at the HOV 
on coordination in Vienna were his personal extemporaneously 
voiced views and had not been cleared by their MFA, which 
does not agree with them. 
 
USNATO 00000102  002 OF 002 
 
 
 
-- The Chair noted that in Vienna, Russia had proposed that 
VDOC notifications made outside of the timeframes in VD99 
should be considered as invalid.  Russia also proposed that 
because demonstrations of new equipment were expensive, they 
should be required within a five-year period, vice a one year 
period, so that they could coincide with airbase visits. 
 
-- Norway noted that it had not produced the Nordic paper on 
changing VDOC evaluation quotas because of opposition in the 
HLTF. 
 
-- The Chair, vocally supported by several allies, suggested 
that the VCC and Experts should develop NATO positions on 
VDOC implementation issues and proposals, and possibly for 
"best practices" papers before the next AIAM and HOV 
meetings.  As a beginning, an experts meeting will be 
scheduled the morning of the April VCC to identify VDOC 
implementation issues that should be so addressed, as well as 
taskings for food for thought papers on them for future 
discussions. 
 
¶4.  (C) CFE Inspection Planning and Reports.  There were no 
reports on CFE inspections conducted.  When no Ally 
volunteered to notify a CFE inspection in Russia during 
March, the U.S. announced that it would notify the inspection 
currently scheduled in Russia in time block 24 in time block 
3, but that if the inspection was rejected as expected, it 
would revert back to time block 24.  The Chair expressed 
disappointment that no Ally had stepped up to do this, and 
stressed that it would more clearly demonstrate Allied unity 
if this were to be done by someone else other than the U.S. 
or Germany (who had already had inspections rejected by 
Russia in January and February).  He then urged Allies to 
reconsider, and if one could change its plan in order to make 
the March notification, that Ally should notify the Staff and 
the U.S. 
 
¶5. (C) Paired Inspections.  Since silence was not broken the 
VCC decision not to send partners a letter about pairing 
inspections stands, and this will not be done. 
 
¶6. (SBU) Problems Related to Flank Inspections.  Now that the 
NATO paper on this has been fully agreed in Brussels it will 
be forwarded to the JCG-T. 
 
¶7. (SBU) Outstanding CFE Implementation Issues.  Off-line, 
the U.S. and Germany agreed on acceptable changes to this 
paper to resolve the problems raised when Germany broke 
silence.  These were passed to the Staff, and a revised text 
on Russian CFE Implementation Issues (Derived Holdings of CFE 
Treaty-limited Equipment as of 1 January 2008) will be 
circulated under a two-week silence period. 
 
¶8. (SBU) Definition of a Declared Site.  It was agreed that 
this paper should be forwarded to the JCG-T without any 
footnotes. 
 
¶9. (C)  Under Any Other Business it was suggested that NATO 
states consider inviting other partners to be more active in 
inspecting NATO states and encourage them by offering to help 
by paying airfare.  Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands 
noted that they do that for bilateral inspection agreements, 
and that some of those become quota inspections if a quota is 
available at the time.  In addition, in response to a 
question, the Chair noted that the Staff is seeking a time 
for the next VCC seminar in early 2009. 
 
¶10. (SBU) The next VCC meeting will be April 15th with a 
morning Experts, meeting on VDOC implementation issues.  The 
Staff hopes to propose the VCC meeting schedule for the 
second half of 2008 at that time. 
NULAND