ANATOMY OF THE CFE TREATY

Text and Declarations

The CFE Treaty contained 23 articles that spelled out treaty definitions and requirements in terms of equipment, quantities, locations, and time periods. The treaty outlined requirements for exchanges of information, reductions (elimination or conversion of TLE), and on-site inspections. It also authorized the formation of a Joint Consultative Group (JCG) of all signatory nations to resolve issues that might arise during the life of the treaty. Eight protocols provided detailed procedural guidance on the requirements outlined in the 23 articles. Finally, three important declarations were included in the treaty.28

The first declaration defined and limited the number of land-based naval aircraft and attack helicopters. This declaration was but one element of a larger problem that treaty negotiators faced. Combat aircraft had been a particularly difficult issue during treaty negotiations. The Eastern group of states held an advantage of more than 2,000 land-based combat aircraft over the NATO nations' air forces. The Soviet Union wanted the CFE Treaty limits to codify that advantage. If the NATO nations wanted an equal number of combat aircraft, the Soviet negotiators argued, they would have to build up to the Eastern group of states' treaty-authorized totals. NATO representatives countered that the goal should be to achieve a treaty-authorized end-strength figure that would put the two groups of states on an equal footing in regard to the final number of combat aircraft. NATO's proposal would require the Soviets to eliminate thousands of combat-ready aircraft. This was unacceptable to the Soviet High Command.29

  

 

Several issues concerning combat aircraft, like the MiG-29, were contentious in negotiations.

   Another aspect of the same problem was how to define a combat aircraft. The NATO states offered a definition that focused on the capability of the aircraft. If an aircraft could fly and deliver munitions, they argued, it was a combat aircraft and should be limited by the treaty. The Eastern group of states, however, preferred a definition that categorized military aircraft by mission. Using this definition, they recommended excluding aircraft such as defensive fighter interceptors and combat aircraft used as trainers. These aircraft, they asserted, did not have offensive missions-they did not support ground forces-therefore they should not be limited by the treaty. In addition, the Soviets had reassigned 500 land-based aircraft from ground to naval units, and they wanted to exclude them from consideration arguing that the treaty did not apply to naval forces. These aircraft were important to the Soviet High Command because they constituted a counterbalance to NATO's carrier-based aircraft, which were not limited by the treaty. The NATO states were concerned that any treaty exclusion of combat aircraft based on mission would sanction a legal hiding place. Further, they were troubled by the Soviets' reassigning ground-based combat aircraft to naval forces. What would limit the Soviet military from simply assigning an increasing number of aircraft to naval forces? Painting a fighter's tail and wings with naval unit insignia, NATO negotiators argued, offered little evidence that the fighter would not be used for offensive operations within the treaty area.30

 

The issue became so contentious that as late as September 1990, Secretary of State James A. Baker, III, commented in a news interview that combat aircraft might not be an element of the treaty. He suggested that these aircraft might become a consideration for subsequent CFE negotiations. Secretary Baker and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze met in New York City in late September to consider the final items of the treaty. By early October, they had worked out a compromise agreement on 5,150 as the total number of combat aircraft a single country could possess in the treaty area. This ceiling reflected the Soviet High Command's minimum needs. Concurrently with the Baker and Shevardnadze discussions in New York City, NATO's High Level Task Force continued to review the issue in Brussels. Once Baker and Shevardnadze had reached an agreement, they presented it to each group of states. In Vienna, after treaty negotiators approved the single-nation limit, they moved forward on October 15, 1990, to agree on a ceiling of 6,800 combat aircraft per group of state parties.31


This 6,800 combat aircraft limit left the Eastern group of states with a 900 aircraft advantage. However, the new limits meant that the Soviet Armed Forces would have to eliminate 1,295 aircraft, and the remaining members of its group of states, 277 aircraft. The treaty limits included interceptor aircraft and Soviet Backfire bombers. Mission was not the basis for inclusion. Treaty limits excluded primary flight training aircraft, whereas combat aircraft trainers were included because of their offensive capabilities. The inclusion of combat aircraft trainers affected the Eastern group of states' totals, primarily the Soviet Union's. The NATO states, however, were not affected because their holdings were approximately 900 aircraft below the treaty ceiling. To compensate the Eastern group for agreeing to the lower combat aircraft ceiling, the NATO negotiators acceded to a treaty provision that allowed the reclassification of up to 550 unarmed training aircraft. Seven models of combat training aircraft could be reclassified. Key systems could be removed to render the aircraft useless for offensive operations. Reclassification of the MiG-25U fighters was limited to 130 aircraft. Once modified and certified by on-site inspectors, these reclassified aircraft would not count against the 6,800 aircraft ceiling.

  

U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker, III.

Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze.






Soviet delegates were adamant on the issue of excluding their land-based naval aircraft.

 

...the 22 nations declared an aggregated total of 201,005 pieces of treaty-limited equipment.

   In the final negotiations, the Soviet delegates were adamant on the issue of excluding their land-based naval aircraft from consideration. Ultimately, negotiators could not resolve the problem within the structure of the legally binding treaty. Instead, they inserted into the treaty a political declaration that allowed each group of states, although in reality it applied only to the Soviet Union, to possess a certain number of land-based naval aircraft that did not count against the 6,800 ceiling for combat aircraft.

The CFE Treaty did contain some limits, however. The total number of land-based naval aircraft was limited to 430 per group of states, with no nation allowed more than 400. This declaration recognized the initial Soviet advantage in combat aircraft going into treaty negotiations, but it limited the number of Soviet land-based naval aircraft to 400, and, most important, it sealed for the future the issue of combat aircraft being assigned to naval forces and being outside the treaty. Naval combat aircraft did not present the only unresolved issue as the time for treaty signature approached. The complex issue of setting and verifying limits on national military personnel could not be solved in the weeks leading up to treaty signature, and produced another treaty declaration.

By inserting this second declaration into the CFE Treaty, negotiators stated that limits on national military personnel were an aspect of the CFE Treaty, but that such limits required further negotiations to reach agreement on specific figures and verification protocols.32 Verification was the major stumbling point. U.S. negotiators believed that while counting CFE military equipment would be challenging, counting military personnel could become impossible, particularly during periods of extensive military reorganizations, massive force reductions, and especially during rapid military expansions. There were other difficult issues associated with tracking military manpower. Just who would be counted: military reserves? naval infantry? military transients? In the end, negotiators agreed to continue manpower negotiations with a goal of reaching agreement by the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe to be held in Helsinki in July 1992.33 Consequently, they included in this second CFE Treaty declaration a statement that all signatory states would not increase their current levels of peacetime personnel. Germany was the only state that made a treaty declaration to limit its military forces. Its pledge to limit its military forces to not more than 370,000 constituted the third declaration of the CFE Treaty.34

 

Scope

The scope of the treaty in terms of nations, military equipment, and geography was enormous. In November 1990, 22 nations with military forces stationed over 2.3 million square miles had committed themselves to the CFE Treaty. The TLE fell into five major categories: tanks, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, armored combat vehicles, and artillery. Further, in each of those categories there were many types of equipment: 24 types of tanks, 55 types of combat aircraft, 17 types of attack helicopters, and more than 50 types of armored combat vehicles (ACVs). Armored combat vehicles, a term coined for the treaty, grouped armored personnel carriers (APCs), armored infantry fighting vehicles (AIFVs), and heavy armament combat vehicles into a single category. Heavy armament combat vehicles included vehicles that were not tanks, APCs, or AIFVs but had an integral gun of at least 75 millimeter (mm) caliber and weighed at least 6 tons. Artillery included guns, howitzers, mortars, multiple launch rocket systems, and artillery pieces that combined the characteristics of guns and howitzers. There were more than 100 types of artillery and all were of at least 100mm caliber. The five categories of TLE contained more than 240 different types of equipment. The combined holdings of TLE for both groups of states surpassed 200,000 pieces.

The treaty also had provisions for reporting conventional armaments and equipment that were inventoried but not limited by the treaty. The Protocol on Existing Types of Conventional Armaments and Equipment listed all conventional armaments and equipment subject to the treaty. Known by its acronym, CAEST, this equipment included the five categories of TLE, plus combat support helicopters, unarmed transport helicopters, and Mi-24R and Mi-24K helicopters; primary trainer aircraft; armored-vehicle-launched bridges; and armored personnel carrier and armored infantry fighting vehicle "look-alikes." Armored look-alikes were vehicles built on ACV chassis that were similar in appearance to an APC or an AIFV, except that they could not transport a combat infantry squad. They also did not have guns or cannons of 20 millimeter (mm) or greater caliber. There were 21 types of look-alikes for the M-113 APC chassis alone, and these were not limited by the treaty. In deference to the Geneva Convention of 1949, armored ambulances were not considered ACVs or look-alikes under the CFE Treaty. Thus, they were not reportable.

    

Table 1-1. CFE Treaty Ceilings

  ---Sufficiency Rule---
  TLE in ATTU* In Each Alliance In One Country Percent in ATTU
Tanks 40,000 20,000 13,300 33%
Artillery 40,000 20,000 13,700 34%
ACVs 60,000 30,000 20,000 33%
Aircraft 13,600 6,800 5,150 38%
Helicopters 4,000 2,000 1,500 38%

* Atlantic to the Urals.
Source: Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, November 1990, Articles IV, V, VI.

 

Table 1-2. NATO Declared Holdings and Liabilities
TLE CFE Limit Declared Liability* Percentage of Holdings
Tanks 20,000 25,091 5,949 24%
Artillery 20,000 20,620 2,334 11%
ACVs 30,000 34, 453 4,631 13%
Aircraft 6,800 5,939 0 0%
Helicopters 2,000 1,736 0 0%
*Collectively, NATO nations set their CFE limits below the treaty limits. All figures as of November 19, 1990, the CFE Treaty initial data exchange.
Source: CFE Treaty Declarations and Residual Ceilings, United Kingdom, Ministry of Defense, November 1990.

 

    Armored vehicle launched bridges were also subject to the CFE Treaty. Although they were not considered TLE, limits were placed on them. The treaty allowed each group of states to have 740 armored bridges in use with their active forces. Any bridges in excess of this limit had to remain in storage. The treaty contained specific guidelines both for storing them and for removing them during an emergency.

In the first official treaty information exchange, held in Vienna on November 18, 1990, the 22 nations declared an aggregated total of 201,005 pieces of TLE. By category, there were 58,282 tanks, 77,402 ACVs, 47,573 artillery, 14,311 aircraft, and 3,437 helicopters within the treaty area, from the Atlantic to the Urals.35 By November 1995, the total number of TLE within the area had to be below the treaty ceiling of 157,600 pieces. This final figure is the total of the five categories of offensive weapons: 40,000 battle tanks, 60,000 armored combat vehicles, 40,000 pieces of artillery, 13,600 combat aircraft, and 4,000 attack helicopters (see table 1-1). These totals included a subtotal designating the maximum amount of equipment that active units could hold collectively, with the remainder stored in designated permanent storage sites. These maximum equipment figures, again one-half for each group of states, permitted active units to hold 33,000 tanks, 54,600 ACVs, and 34,000 pieces of artillery.

To lessen the possibility of any one nation's becoming too dominant or unilaterally launching a massive surprise attack, the treaty stipulated limits on the amount of equipment that any one nation could have within the treaty area. Known as the "sufficiency rule," this provision allowed a nation sufficient forces to defend itself, but limited its forces and offensive equipment to approximately one-third of the total amount permitted for its group of states. As the Warsaw Pact disintegrated, this provision, which was originally a NATO proposal, took on an additional importance as the Central European nations sought to minimize the strength of the neighboring Soviet Union.

 

Table 1-3. WTO Holdings and Liabilities*

TLE CFE Limit Declared Liability Percentage of Holdings
Tanks 20,000 33,191 13,191 40%
Artillery 20,000 26, 953 6,953 26%
ACVs 30,000 42, 949 12, 949 30%
Aircraft 6,800 8,372 1,572 19%
Helicopters 2,000 1,701 0 0%

*All figures as of November 19,1990, the CFE Treaty initial data exchange.
Source: SIPRI Yearbook 1991, World Armaments and Disarmament, p. 426.

Area

The treaty's area of application encompassed the territory of the European signatory nations stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains. Known as the ATTU (Atlantic to the Urals), the area consisted of four zones, three of which were concentric rings centered on Germany, and one that defined the flanks of a European theater (see map). These four zones defined the areas in which the signatories agreed to limit the number of TLE for stationed ground forces. Because of their mobility and range, combat aircraft and attack helicopters were not subject to zone restrictions. The smallest zone encircled Central Europe, a focal point of the Cold War. It encompassed Germany, Belgium, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, and designated European island territories. Military forces in this zone could not exceed 15,000 battle tanks, 22,500 ACVs, and 10,000 pieces of artillery.

The next, larger concentric zone extended beyond Central Europe and included additional nations. At treaty signature, the second zone included Denmark and the Faroe Islands, France, Italy, United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and Soviet territory encompassing the Byelorussian, Carpathian, Kiev, and Baltic Military Districts. By the time of treaty ratification and entry into force in July 1992, the Soviet Union had dissolved and these military districts were located in the independent states of Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, and the Baltic nations. Equipment allowed in this zone totaled 20,600 battle tanks, 38,520 ACVs, and 18,200 pieces of artillery. Put another way, this larger zone, which included the smaller zone, could hold the equipment authorized in the smaller zone plus an additional 5,600 battle tanks, 16,020 ACVs, and 8,200 pieces of artillery.

    

 

    The largest of the three zones at treaty signature encompassed the two smaller zones plus Portugal with the Azores and Madeira Islands, Spain and the Canary Islands, and the Soviet territories west of the Ural mountains encompassing the Moscow and Volga-Ural Military Districts. When the treaty entered into force, this expanded area, which stretched literally from the Atlantic to the Urals, included the independent states of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, and portions of Kazakstan. This zone allowed for 10,000 more battle tanks, 9,680 more ACVs, and 9,800 pieces of artillery for a total of 30,600, 48,200, and 28,000 pieces of equipment in their respective categories. The remaining pieces of TLE were authorized in the flank areas.

The original treaty defined the flank areas as Bulgaria, Greece, Iceland, Norway, Romania, Turkey west of the Urals, and the Soviet territory encompassing the Leningrad, Odessa, Northern Caucasus, and Transcaucasus Military Districts. By July 1992, when the treaty entered into force, portions of these former Soviet military districts were located in the new nations of Moldova, Russia, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, and Azerbaijan. Other portions encompassed the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, nations that chose not to be CFE Treaty participants. Although the Baltic states were not subject to inspection, the Russian forces stationed there were, and Russia's reduction liability included the equipment not yet removed from the Baltic states. The total military equipment allowed under the treaty for the flank areas was 9,400 battle tanks, 11,800 ACVs, and 12,000 pieces of artillery.

 

 

Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section