THE WHITE HOUSE, JULY 9,1991.
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit herewith, for the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). The Treaty includes the following documents, which are integral parts thereof: the Protocol on Existing Types (with an Annex thereto), the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification, the Protocol on Reduction, the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization, the Protocol on Information Exchange (with an Annex on Format), the Protocol on Inspection, the Protocol on the Joint Consultative Group, and the Protocol on Provisional Application. The Treaty, together with the Protocols, was signed at Paris on November 19, 1990. I transmit also, for the information of the Senate, the Report of the Department of State on the Treaty.

In addition, I transmit herewith, for the information of the Senate, six documents associated with, but not part of, the Treaty that are relevant to the Senate's consideration of the Treaty: Statement by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, dated June 14, 1991; Statement by the Government of the United States of America, dated June 14, 1991, responding to the Statement by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (Statements identical in content were made by the 20 other signatory states on the same date. Copies of these Statements are also transmitted.); Declaration by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on the Personnel Strength of German Armed Forces, dated November 19, 1990; Declaration of the States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe With Respect to Personnel Strength, dated November 19, 1990; Declaration of the States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe With Respect to Land-Based Naval Aircraft, dated November 19, 1990; and Statement by the Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Joint Consultative Group, dated June 14, 1991. The first two Statements are legally binding and constitute a separate international agreement, while the latter four documents represent political commitments.

The CFE Treaty is the most ambitious arms control agreement ever concluded. The complexities of negotiating a treaty involving 22 nations and tens of thousands of armaments spread over an area of more than two and a half million square miles were immense. Difficult technical issues such as definitions, counting rules, methods for destroying reduced equipment, and inspection rights were painstakingly negotiated.

The Treaty is the first conventional arms control agreement since World War II. It marks the first time in history that European nations, together with the United States and Canada, have agreed to reduce and numerically limit their land-based conventional military equipment, especially equipment necessary to conduct offensive operations. Significantly, the reductions will eliminate the overwhelming Soviet numerical advantage in conventional armaments that has existed in Europe for more than 40 years. The Treaty's limits enhance stability by ending force disparities, and they limit the capability for launching surprise attack and initiating large-scale offensive action in Europe.

The Treaty contains a wide-ranging verification regime. Under this regime, in which intrusive on-site inspection complements national technical means to monitor compliance, ground and air forces of the participating states in the area of application of the Treaty will be subject to inspection, either at declared sites or with challenge inspections. The Treaty also provides for a detailed information exchange on the command organization of each participating state's land, air, and air defense forces as well as information about the number and location of each participating state's military equipment, subject to the limitations and other provisions of the Treaty. This information will be updated periodically and as significant changes to such data and reductions of equipment take place.

The military equipment to be reduced and limited consists of battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, attack helicopters, and combat aircraft in service with the conventional armed forces of the States Parties in Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. Inclusion of the Baltic military district within the area of application of the Treaty ensures that the Treaty's limits apply comprehensively to all Soviet forces within the area. This does not represent any change in the long-standing U.S. policy of nonrecognition of the forcible incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union. At the conclusion of the 40-month reduction period, the numerical limits on this equipment in the area of application for each group of participating states will be as follows: 20,000 battle tanks, 30,000 armored combat vehicles, 20,000 pieces of artillery, 2,000 attack helicopters, and 6,800 combat aircraft. All military equipment subject to and in excess of these limits that was in the area of application at the time of Treaty signature or entry into force (whichever amount is greater) must be destroyed or, within specified limits, converted to nonmilitary or other purposes. Subceilings are established for specific geographical zones within the area of application, the purpose of these being to thin out forces on the central front while forestalling buildups in the flank areas. Under the so-called "sufficiency rule" of the Treaty, no State Party may hold more than approximately one-third of the total amount of equipment in these five categories permitted within the area of application as a whole.

Above and beyond eliminating force disparities and limiting the capability for launching large-scale offensive action, the CFE Treaty will be of major importance in laying the indispensable foundation for the post-Cold War security architecture in Europe.

Only with this foundation in place can we move from a European security order based on confrontation to one based on cooperation. I believe that the CFE Treaty is in the best interests of the United States and represents an important step in defining the new security regime in Europe. It achieves unprecedented arms reductions that strengthen U.S., Canadian, and European security. Therefore, I urge the Senate to give early and favorable consideration to the Treaty and its related Protocols and Annexes, and to give advice and consent to its ratification.

GEORGE BUSH.
THE WHITE HOUSE, July 9,1991

Return to Table of Contents

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, July 2,1991.

The PRESIDENT,
The White House.

THE PRESIDENT: I have the honor to submit to you the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) signed at Paris on November 19, 1990, by the United States of America and the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Iceland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Turkey, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the States Parties).

The Treaty includes the following documents, which are integral parts thereof: the Protocol on Existing Types (with an Annex thereto), the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification, the Protocol on Reduction, the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization, the Protocol on Information Exchange (with an Annex on Format), the Protocol on Inspection, the Protocol on the Joint Consultative Group, and the Protocol on Provisional Application. I recommend that you transmit the Treaty to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification.

Also enclosed, for the information of the Senate, are the following six documents associated with, but not part of, the Treaty: Statement by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, dated June 14, 1991; Statement by the Government of the United States of America, dated June 14, 1991, responding to the Statement by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, (Statements identical in content were made by the 20 other signatory states on the same date. Copies of these statements are also transmitted.); Declaration by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on the Personnel Strength of German Armed Forces, dated November 19, 1990; Declaration of the States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe With Respect to Personnel Strength, dated November 19, 1990; Declaration of the States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe With respect to Land-Based Naval Aircraft, dated November 19, 1990 and Statement by the Representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to the Joint Consultative Group, dated June 14, 1991.

The first two Statements are legally binding and constitute a separate international agreement, while the latter four documents represent political commitments.

Although not submitted for the, advice and consent of the Senate to ratification, these six documents are relevant to consideration of the Treaty by the Senate.

The Treaty is the most far-reaching and complex arms control agreement ever negotiated. It will eliminate the enormous conventional forces disparity that has existed between East and West since World War II. The force reductions mandated by the CFE Treaty will significantly enhance stability by eliminating the capability for surprise attack and large-scale offensive action. Combined with other changes in Europe, the Treaty will impede the Soviet Union's ability to conduct large-scale offensive action on short notice. More broadly, the Treaty will lay the essential foundation for a new security architecture in Europe.

The Treaty places numerical limits on five categories of conventional armaments and equipment-battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters-from the Atlantic to the Urals. The Treaty also places geographical limits on battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery. It requires the States Parties to reduce their holdings of the armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty as necessary to meet these limits. It also establishes a wide-ranging verification regime, including on-site inspections, to complement national technical means to monitor compliance with the provisions of the Treaty.

The Treaty was negotiated in Vienna and at ministerial meetings elsewhere between March 9, 1989, and November 19, 1990, when it was signed at ceremonies attendant to the 1990 Paris meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. In addition to the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the Department of State, representatives of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the On-Site Inspection Agency all played important roles in its development.

Throughout the negotiating process, the United States consulted and worked extensively with its NATO allies in the development of common NATO negotiating positions on all aspects of the Treaty.

For some two decades, the United States has pursued effective limits on conventional armed forces in Europe, a goal that has proved elusive, particularly given the continuing buildup of conventional armed forces in Eastern Europe by the Soviet Union and its former allies. Efforts such as the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction Talks in Vienna, which took place over a period of approximately 15 years and ended in February 1989, addressed the complexities of limits on manpower in conventional armed forces in Europe but were unsuccessful in creating workable and verifiable limits.

In 1987, NATO proposed new negotiations between the members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact to establish limits on conventional armed forces throughout Europe. Extensive verification measures also were proposed. On January 10, 1989, the members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact agreed upon a mandate for a new negotiation on conventional armed forces in Europe that led, after 20 months, to this Treaty.

The Mandate set forth overall objectives for the negotiations: to strengthen stability and security in Europe through the establishment of a stable and secure balance of conventional armed forces at lower levels; to eliminate disparities in conventional armaments and equipment prejudicial to stability and security; and to eliminate the capability for launching surprise attack and for initiating large-scale offensive action. It also called for an effective verification regime and for exchanges of information in sufficient detail to provide a basis for the verification of compliance.

The first of seven rounds of negotiations began on March 9, 1989, in Vienna. Limits on personnel were at one time discussed, but the participating States ultimately decided to leave the negotiation of personnel measures, as well as specific aspects of aerial inspection measures, to the CFR 1A follow-on negotiations, which have now begun. In August 1990, shortly before, and in con 'junction with, the unification of Germany, representatives of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic jointly pledged that the personnel strength of the ground, air, and naval armed forces of the united Germany would not exceed 370,000 personnel (with not more than 345,000 personnel to belong to the ground and air forces), and this pledge was confirmed by the Federal Republic of Germany in a Declaration issued at the same time as the signing of the Treaty. With the unification of Germany on October 3, 1990, the negotiations continued among the 22 remaining participating States. At ministerial meetings in September, October, and November of 1990, key details were resolved, and the Treaty was signed on November 19 at Paris by the heads of state of government of each of the 22 signatories to the Treaty.

The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe consists of a Preamble 23 Treaty Articles, the Protocol on Existing Types (with an Annex thereto), the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification, the Protocol on Reduction, the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization, the Protocol on Information Exchange (with an Annex on Format), the Protocol on Inspection, the Protocol on the Joint Consultative Group, and the Protocol on Provisional Application. The geographic area to which the Treaty applies is the entire land territory of the States Parties in Europe, from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains, including all European island territories of the States Parties and specified portions of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Turkey. Within this area of application, the Treaty establishes numerical limits on battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters, collectively referred to as the conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty. There are also related geographical limits on battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery. Inclusion of the Baltic Military District within the area of application of the Treaty ensures that the Treaty's limits apply comprehensively to all Soviet forces within the area. This does not represent any change in the long-standing U.S. policy of nonrecognition of the forcible incorporation of the Baltic States into the Soviet Union.

The numerical and related geographical limits on conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty are expressed in terms of limits on the States comprising each of the two groups of States Parties to the Treaty. One group consists of the States Parties to the Treaty that also signed the Treaty of Warsaw of 1955 (the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, Romania, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, i.e., the members of the Warsaw Pact). The other group consists of the States Parties to the Treaty that also signed or acceded to the Treaty of Brussels of 1948 and/or the Treaty of Washington of 1949 (the United States of America and the Kingdom of Belgium, Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Iceland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Portuguese Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Turkey, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, i.e., the members of NATO).

LIMITS

The fundamental numerical limits of the Treaty require each State Party to limit and, as necessary, reduce its conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty so that, 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty and thereafter, its group of States Parties will have in the aggregate no more than 20,000 battle tanks, 30,000 armored combat vehicles, 20,000 pieces of artillery, 6,800 combat aircraft, and 2,000 attack helicopters within the area of application. There are also sub-limits on different types of armored combat vehicles and further requirements that the permitted battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery in excess of specified limits on equipment in active units be kept in designated permanent storage sites. There are also geographical restrictions on designated permanent storage sites.

Geographical limits on battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery exist for four geographic sub-zones within the area of application. The sub-zone limits are designed to prevent concentration of the conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty in the central part of Europe and the "flank" regions bordering this central zone. As an exception to these sub-zone limits, to permit reinforcement of flank States Parties without exceeding Treaty limits, there are provisions for temporary deployments of battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery into the flank regions.

The Treaty also prevents any one State Party from possessing more than approximately one-third of the conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty within the area of application. This one-third limit, referred to as the "sufficiency rule," is applied to the total of the limits for the States comprising both groups of States Parties (e.g., 40,000 tanks); thus, no one State Party may possess, 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty and thereafter, more than 13,300 battle tanks, 20,000 armored vehicles, 13,700 pieces of artillery, 5,150 combat aircraft, or 1,500 attack helicopters within the area of application. In practice, this restriction will affect only the Soviet Union, whose conventional armed forces in the area of application have historically far exceeded all of these limits, with the exception of that on attack helicopters.

The numerical limits apply to all battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters of the States Parties within the area of application, with certain limited exceptions, including exceptions for those in the manufacturing process, in historical collections, in transit through the area of application, awaiting disposal after having been decommissioned from service, awaiting export, and certain armored combat vehicles and helicopters held by internal security organizations. The numerical limits also apply to battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters that are developed in the future.

The Treaty contemplates that each group of States Parties will consult internally on the individual maximum levels for holdings for each member of the group, such that the cumulative total of the individual maximum levels does not exceed the overall limits for the group. Each individual State Party, however, is responsible only for ensuring that its individual maximum levels, once determined within the group and declared at signing to the other States Parties, are not exceeded.

The States Parties are permitted to change their individual maximum levels, but if such a change would cause a group of States Parties to exceed a numerical limit for the group set forth in the Treaty, another member or members of the group must first or concurrently reduce its or their own maximum levels accordingly. Article VII of the Treaty distinguishes between a decrease in actual holdings and a decrease in the permitted maximum levels of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty. The simple fact that actual holdings are decreased, unless accompanied by a similar reduction in a State Party's permitted maximum levels, does not authorize another State Party to increase its own permitted maximum levels for holdings.

The Treaty provides several different ways for the States Parties to make any reductions in their conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty that may be necessary to comply with the applicable limits.

The Protocol on Reduction sets forth various procedures for reduction of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty, including destruction by severing, destruction by explosive demolition, destruction by deformation, and destruction by smashing. The Protocol also sets forth procedures for reduction of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty by means of static display and procedures to be followed in the event of destruction by accident. Reductions may also be accomplished by conversion of certain numbers and types of battle tanks and armored combat vehicles to certain specified nonmilitary uses. A limited number of battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and self-propelled artillery may be used as ground targets, and a certain number of combat aircraft and attack helicopters may be used for ground instructional purposes or as aerial target drones in the case of combat aircraft. In both instances, these uses count as reductions.

The Treaty also provides other ways of accomplishing reductions, including: (i) reclassifying a limited number of certain models or versions of combat-capable trainer aircraft otherwise limited by the Treaty into unarmed trainer aircraft; (ii) recategorizing multipurpose attack helicopters into combat support helicopters not limited by the Treaty; and (iii) using specified procedures modifying a certain type of armored personnel carrier.

No later than 30 days after entry into force of the Treaty, each State Party is required to notify all other States Parties of the numbers of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty that it is obligated to reduce in order for it to comply with the applicable limits established by the Treaty. Each State Party is required to notify the other States Parties of the locations at which its reduction activities will take place, and such activities are subject to inspection by the other States Parties, without right of refusal by the State Party undertaking the reductions.

Reductions are to be completed no later than 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty, with interim requirements that 25 percent of required reductions be completed within 16 months of entry into force and 60 percent within 28 months after entry into force.

As discussed in "MAXIMUM NATIONAL LEVELS FOR HOLDINGS," each State Party, upon signature of the Treaty, was required to notify all other States Parties of its share of the permitted holdings for the group of States Parties to which it belongs. Notification of individual maximum levels for each sub-zone are required 90 days before the completion of the reduction period, and notice of any change in maximum levels of holdings must be given 90 days in advance of the effective date of the change.

The Protocol on Existing Types lists the existing types of battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters limited by the Treaty and specifies various technical data and photographs that the States Parties were required to exchange upon signature of the Treaty. In addition, the Protocol on Existing Types lists existing types of conventional armaments and equipment that, while subject to the Treaty, are not limited by the Treaty, including various "look-alikes." The States Parties are obligated to update the lists periodically.

The Treaty provides for numerous other exchanges of information, both upon signature and thereafter. Information is to be exchanged on the structure of each State Party's land, air, and air defense aviation forces within the area of application, along with each State Party's aggregate actual holdings for each category of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty. Other information to be exchanged includes information on the location, numbers, and types (broken down by formations and units) of each State Party's conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty, both in service and not in service, and information on the location of designated permanent storage sites, military storage sites, and sites at which reduction of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty will take place.

The States Parties are also required to exchange information on the declared sites at which objects of verification are located. Other exchanges include information on sites from which conventional armaments and equipment have been removed, on entry into and removal from service of conventional armaments and equipment, on changes of 10 percent or more in reported unit holdings in conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty, on permanent changes in the reported organizational structure of forces, and, annually, on entry into and exit from the area of application of conventional armaments and equipment, with the exception of equipment in transit through the area of application.

The States Parties had 90 days from the date of signature of the Treaty (i.e., until February 17, 1991) to make any necessary corrections to information exchanged upon signature. Updates of previously provided information are due 30 days following entry into force of the Treaty and annually thereafter. An additional update is due upon completion of the reduction period (which is 40 months following entry into force of the Treaty).

To assist in verifying compliance with the provisions of the Treaty, the States Parties have the right to conduct - and are obligated to accept a substantial number of on-site inspections within the area of application. The Treaty contemplates that there will be four types of inspections. Two of these, inspection of reduction and inspection of the certification of recategorization of certain helicopters and of reclassification of certain combat - capable trainer aircraft, involve monitoring specific reduction activities. The State Party conducting these activities must give prior notice of them to all other States Parties, and the other States Parties have the right to inspect those activities without quota limitations or right of refusal by the State Party conducting those activities.

The other two types of inspections, declared site inspections and challenge inspections within specified areas, involve inspections to help monitor the numerical and related geographical limits on conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty. Declared sites are places or locations within the area of application at which there are one or more objects of verification, a term which comprises, for each State Party: (i) military formations and units at specified levels that hold conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty; (ii) its various storage sites, military training establishments, military airfields; and (iii) its reduction sites. (The States Parties are required to identify their declared sites upon signature of the Treaty and at specified times thereafter.) Specified areas come into being only when a State Party conducting a challenge inspection identifies to the State Party to be inspected such a territorial area that would be the subject of the challenge inspection. Challenge inspections may be conducted only against State Parties with territory within the area of application. However, equipment and materiel belonging to a State Party that has stationed them within the specified area are subject to challenge inspection.

The Protocol on Inspection places quota limits on how many declared site and challenge (specified area) inspections each State Party is obligated to receive. These quota limits are to be calculated as a percentage of each State Party's objects of verification. These percentages vary between 10 and 20 percent, depending on which of four periods of inspection is involved. The four periods of inspection are the baseline verification period (the first 120 days following entry into force of the Treaty) the three-year reduction period, the 120-day period of inspections to validate residual levels, and thereafter for the duration of the Treaty, during which the agreed ceilings are to be maintained.

The number of inspections each State Party is permitted to conduct is determined within its group of States Parties. No State Party may conduct more than five declared site or challenge inspections per year of any other State Party belonging to its own group of States Parties, and no State Party is obligated to accept from any single State Party, on an annual basis, more than 50 percent of the declared site or challenge inspections that it is obligated to accept under the Treaty.

Notwithstanding the general obligation to receive challenge inspections within the applicable quota limits, the State Party on whose territory the inspection is being conducted has the right to refuse a challenge inspection of a specified area. If it so refuses, it must provide all reasonable assurance to the State Party requesting the inspection that the specified area does not contain conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty. Stationing States Parties may deny access during such a challenge inspection to their own equipment and materiel at structures and premises used by them, where they may exercise all of the rights and obligations in the Protocol on Inspection of the State Party on whose territory the inspection is being conducted, such as escort duty, access control, and sensitive point declaration.

The Protocol on Inspection establishes ways and means by which inspections are to be conducted. Inspectors must be pre-approved by the State Party being inspected, and approval may be revoked. Inspectors, and the crew transporting them to and from the previously designated entry and exit points in the territory of the State Party being inspected, are accorded certain privileges and immunities equivalent to those enjoyed by diplomatic agents.

A State Party conducting an inspection must give advance notice of its intention to do so to the State Party to be inspected and to all stationing States Parties if their conventional armed forces are to be inspected. The notice must specify, among other things, date, time, and place of the proposed initial entry into the territory of the State Party being inspected. The Protocol on Inspection provides special rules for inspections of conventional armaments and equipment stationed by one State Party outside of its own territory and within the territory of another State Party. In such cases, the stationing State Party has the rights and obligations of the inspected State Party, and territorial references in the Protocol are to the territory of the State Party within which the applicable conventional armaments and equipment are stationed.

For declared site and challenge inspections, only after arrival at the previously-designated entry point into the country must the inspecting State Party specify the declared site or specified area where the inspection will take place. At that point, it becomes the Responsibility of the inspected State Party to transport the inspecting State Party to the appropriate location in a timely manner. Within certain limits, the inspecting State Party has the right to specify, upon arrival at the entry point, when the inspection is to commence, although the inspected State Party may, if it so chooses, impose a delay while it prepares for the inspection. The host State Party is responsible for transporting the inspecting State Party to and from the site.

Declared site and challenge inspections must be completed within specified time periods. The State Party conducting the inspection may conduct a limited number of immediately sequential inspections within the territory of the inspected State Party by so notifying the inspected State Party no later than the completion of an inspection (or sequential inspection) without first having to leave the territory of the inspected State Party.

The inspected State Party has the right to escort the inspectors whenever the inspectors are within the territory of the State Party being inspected. In addition, stationing States Parties have the right to provide escorts during any inspections of their conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty and structures and premises they utilize by agreement with the host State Party. Within certain limits, the inspectors have wide latitude in terms of what they may examine during inspections, with exceptions for such things as structures with doors less than two meters in width, small containers, shrouded objects, and equipment, structures, or locations that the inspected State Party has designated as sensitive. In such circumstances, the inspected State Party must either declare that no conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty are present, or else declare the numbers that are present and take steps to satisfy the inspecting State Party that no conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty in excess of those declared are, present.

Before completing an inspection, the inspectors must furnish the State Party being inspected with a standardized written report setting forth certain required information about the inspection.

SPECIAL PROVISIONS FOR ARMORED VEHICLE
LAUNCHED BRIDGES AND ARMORED INFANTRY FIGHTING VEHICLES

The Treaty places special numerical limits on armored vehicle launched bridges in active units, as well as restrictions on the removal of armored vehicle launched bridges from designated permanent storage sites. There is also a special, narrowly drawn exemption from the otherwise applicable Treaty limits for certain armored infantry fighting vehicles that are held by organizations of the States Parties that are designed and structured to perform peacetime internal security functions and not structured and organized for ground combat against an external enemy, e.g., paramilitary units.

The Treaty establishes the Joint Consultative Group, composed of representatives of each State Party, scheduled to meet twice a year in regular session and in special sessions if so requested by any State Party. The Joint Consultative Group may make decisions or recommendations only by consensus, meaning the absence of any objection by a State to the making of the decision or recommendation in question. Among other matters, the Joint Consultative Group is empowered to address questions of Treaty compliance, to work out measures that would improve the viability and effectiveness of the Treaty regime, to standardize implementation practices, and to help resolve disputes in implementation. With regard to viability and effectiveness improvements affecting the Treaty's provisions, these will be treated as amendments unless they are minor matters of an administrative or technical nature. In addition to using the Joint Consultative Group, any State Party may raise any compliance concern in any other forum as well.

If all States Parties agree, the Treaty may be amended, subject to ratification in accordance with each State Party's constitutional provisions.

The States Parties have agreed to continue the negotiations that led to the Treaty, with the objective of concluding an agreement on additional measures aimed at further strengthening security and stability in Europe. Included in such follow-on (CFE 1A) negotiations will be measures concerning the personnel strength of the States Parties' conventional armed forces within the area of application and measures on aerial inspection. The States Parties will seek to conclude these negotiations no later than the 1992 follow-up meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe to be held in Helsinki.

The Treaty is of unlimited duration. In the exercise of its nation- al sovereignty, a State Party may withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events related to the subject matter of the Treaty have jeopardized its supreme interests, including, particularly, increases in any other State Party's battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, or attack helicopters outside the scope of the Treaty in such proportions as to pose an obvious threat to the balance of forces within the area of application.

The Treaty provides for periodic conferences to review the operation of the Treaty and extraordinary conferences to consider amendments to and withdrawals from the Treaty, as well as to consider announced intentions by any State Party to leave the group of States Parties to which it belongs or to join the other group of States Parties.

The Treaty will enter into force 10 days after instruments of ratification have been deposited with the Treaty Depositary (the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) by all of the signatories to the Treaty.

Accompanying this Report is an Article-by-Article Analysis of the Treaty, including its Protocols and Annexes, as well as of the six documents associated with the Treaty and sent for the information of the Senate.

I believe that this Treaty, by significantly limiting conventional armed forces in Europe in the manner described above, will enhance the national security of the United States and its NATO allies and will contribute to stability throughout Europe. I therefore recommend that the Treaty be submitted to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification at the earliest possible date.

Respectfully submitted,
JAMES A. BAKER III.

Attachments: As stated.

Return to Table of Contents

The Treaty consists of a Preamble, 23 Treaty Articles, and eight Protocols with two Annexes. The Protocols and Annexes are integral parts of the Treaty.

Also, there are two legally binding statements and four political documents associated with the Treaty. One of the legally binding statements is a Statement by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with respect to a number of legal obligations it will assume outside of the framework of the Treaty regarding battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, and artillery subordinated to its naval infantry, coastal defense forces, and Strategic Rocket Forces located within the area of application of the Treaty. The second legally binding statement consists of a response by the other 21 States Parties that accepts the Soviet legal Statement and also obligates them to proceed toward ratification of the Treaty. Taken together, these legally binding statements constitute a separate international agreement that is associated with, but not part of, the Treaty.

The four political documents consist of a declaration by the States Parties with respect to their land-based naval aircraft in Europe, a declaration by the States Parties with respect to the personnel strength of their conventional armed forces in Europe, a declaration by Germany with respect to the personnel strength of its Armed Forces, and a statement by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics regarding a number of actions it will undertake with respect to its conventional armaments and equipment located east of the Urals. As with the legally binding statements, none of the political documents constitutes a part of the Treaty.

The Preamble consists of 12 paragraphs. The first paragraph lists the 22 signatory States that will become Parties to the Treaty once it enters into force: the United States of America, the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic Hungary, the Republic of Iceland, the Italian Republic, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Republic of Poland, the Portuguese Republic, Romania, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Turkey, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. These 22 States Parties include all 16 members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as well as the six members of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, which ceased to exist as a military alliance on March 31, 1991. Originally, the States involved in the negotiation included the German Democratic Republic (GDR). However, with the unification of Germany on October 3, 1990, the GDR ceased to exist and its participation in the negotiation was terminated accordingly.

The second paragraph of the Preamble notes that the Mandate for the Negotiation on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) of January 10, 1989 (the CFE Mandate), "guided" the negotiation of the Treaty. This paragraph also notes that the negotiation of the Treaty took place in Vienna, Austria, beginning on March 9, 1989. Since the Treaty was initialed in Vienna, Austria, on November 18, 1990, and was signed in Paris, France, on November 19, 1990, this means that the negotiation occurred over a period of approximately 20 months.

Paragraphs three through seven of the Preamble are generally exhortatory in nature.

The eighth paragraph of the Preamble sets forth the three primary objectives of the Treaty. These objectives are to: (a) establish a secure and stable balance of conventional armed forces in Europe at lower levels, (b) eliminate disparities prejudicial to stability and security, and (C) as a matter of high priority, eliminate the capability of a State of States for launching a surprise attack or for initiating large-scale offensive action in Europe. The three objectives were originally agreed among the States Parties as part of the CFE Mandate. Given the fact that these objectives were agreed under the Mandate and are highlighted in the Preamble to the Treaty, they represent the yardstick by which the successful implementation of the Treaty should be measured

The ninth paragraph of the Preamble recalls that the States Parties signed or acceded to the Treaty of Brussels of 1948, the Treaty of Washington of 1949, or the Treaty of Warsaw of 1955 and that they have the right to be or not to be a party to treaties of alliance. This somewhat Shakespearean pro, con was added at the insistence of Hungary and Poland. It is intended to reflect their desire to be recognized as sovereign States that have the right to choose freely their treaty affiliations (e.g., their right not to be members of a treaty of alliance, namely, the Warsaw Treaty Organization).

The tenth paragraph of the Preamble notes that the States Parties are committed to the objectives of ensuring that the numbers of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty within the area of application of the Treaty do not exceed 40,000 battle tanks, 60,000 armored combat vehicles, 40,000 pieces of artillery, 13,600 combat aircraft, and 4,000 attack helicopters. At the outset of the negotiation, it had been intended that this provision be drafted as a legally binding provision and placed in an article of the Treaty. However, such a provision would have required each and every State Party to be legally and collectively responsible for ensuring that, for example, the overall limit of 40,000 battle tanks was not breached. Put another way, under such a provision, if a State Party were to deploy an extra battle tank in the area of application that caused the 40,000 limit to be breached, then all 22 States Parties, including the United States, would have been in violation of the Treaty. In order to avoid such a problem, a compromise solution was achieved in which such a provision on overall, area-wide limits would be redrafted in an exhortatory form and placed in the Preamble.

The tenth paragraph, even in its exhortatory form, nevertheless is a significant provision because it sets forth the numerical basis on which the "sufficiency rule" in Article VI of the Treaty is calculated. The sufficiency rule provides that no State Party shall possess more than approximately one-third of the conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty within the area of application. The numbers used to calculate the one-third rule are those set forth in the tenth paragraph. For example, one-third of 40,000 battle tanks is 13,333, which closely approximately the limit of 13,300 on battle tanks established in subparagraph (A) of Article VI.

The eleventh and twelfth paragraphs of the Preamble are generally exhortatory in nature.

It should be noted that each of the Treaty Articles in this Article-by-Article Analysis is given a title, even though such headings are not provided in the Treaty itself. Throughout the negotiation, the working draft Treaty Articles were provided with the titles used in this Analysis. However, they were removed in the final Treaty draft in order to avoid another possible source of last minute disputes. Given the usefulness of such hearings, they are reinstated for purposes of this Analysis.

Return to Table of Contents

Article I consists of three paragraphs. This Article sets forth the general obligations that each State Party will undertake under the Treaty. The Article also lists the Protocols and Annexes that are incorporated in and integral to the Treaty.

Paragraph I of Article I provides that each State Party shall carry out the obligations set forth in the Treaty and singles out, in particular, those obligations relating to the following five categories of conventional armed forces: battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and combat helicopters. The purpose of this paragraph is to emphasize that those provisions pertaining to the five listed categories of conventional forces are the principal provisions of the Treaty.

Paragraph 2 of Article I provides that each State Party also shall carry out the measures set forth in the Treaty designed to ensure security and stability both during the 40-month period of reductions and thereafter. The purpose of this provision is to make clear that each State Party is obligated to observe those other provisions of the Treaty not relating to the five categories of conventional arms listed in paragraph 1 to the same extent.

Paragraph 3 of Article I lists the eight Protocols and their Annexes that are incorporated in and integral to the Treaty. The long title and short form for each Protocol and Annex are provided. The Protocols are listed in the order in which they are first referred to in the Treaty Articles. The Protocols, with their Annexes, are as follows (titles are given in short form only for the purposes of this Analysis):

The purpose of paragraph 3 is to underscore that the Treaty consists not only of the Preamble and the 23 Treaty Articles, but also of the eight listed Protocols and their Annexes. This point is important because it makes clear, for example, that the definitions listed in paragraph 1 of Article II of the Treaty are integral to the Protocol and Annexes as well as to the Preamble and Treaty Articles. Similarly, paragraph 3 ensures that the definitions in Section I of the Protocol on Inspection are also integral to the rest of the Treaty, including the Treaty articles. Finally, the absence of any mention of the two legally binding statements associated with the Treaty, the four political documents associated with the Treaty, or the CFE Mandate makes clear that these items are not integral parts of the Treaty.

Return to Table of Contents

Article II consists of three paragraphs. The bulk of the Article is devoted to paragraph 1 in which definitions are provided for 25 terms used throughout the Treaty, including its Protocols and Annexes.

Paragraph 1 of Article II provides definitions for the following terms: "group of States Parties," "area of application," "battle tank," "armored combat vehicle," armored personnel carrier," "armored infantry fighting vehicle," "heavy armament combat vehicle," "unladen weight," "artillery," "stationed conventional armed forces," "designated permanent storage site," "armored vehicle launched bridge," "conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty," "combat aircraft," "combat helicopter," "attack helicopter," "specialized attack helicopter," "multipurpose attack helicopter," "combat support helicopter," "conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty," "in service," "armored personnel carrier look-alike," "armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alike," "reduction site," and "reduction liability." These definitions are not listed in paragraph 1 in any particular order of precedence, although it was generally recognized by the negotiators that the definition of "group of States Parties," "area of application," and those definitions relating to the five categories of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty were particularly important. Section I of the Protocol on Inspection also provides definitions for an additional 27 terms that, while applicable throughout the Treaty, are used primarily in that Protocol.

Subparagraph (A) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "group of States Parties" as the group of States Parties that signed the Treaty of Warsaw I of 1955 consisting of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, Romania and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or the group of States Parties that signed or acceded to the Treaty of Brussels² of 1948 or the Treaty of Washington³ of 1949 consisting of the Kingdom of Belgium, Canada, the Kingdom of Denmark, the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Hellenic Republic, the Republic of Iceland, the Italian Republic, and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Norway, the Portuguese Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Turkey, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America.

The first group defined consists of the six remaining members of the Warsaw Pact. Prior to the unification of Germany on October 3, 1990, this group also included the German Democratic Republic. During the negotiation, the group was known as the Group of 7 and then, after German unification, as the Group of 6. The second group defined in subparagraph (A) consists of the 16 members of the NATO Alliance. This group was known during the negotiation as the Group of 16.

The most important point about the term "group of States Parties" is that it is defined so that neither the Warsaw Treaty Organization nor the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a party to the Treaty; rather, the individual States that comprise those two alliances are the parties to the Treaty. This means that the legal rights and obligations created by the Treaty relate to the individual States Parties and not to the two alliances or to the groups of States Parties, as groups.

This result is particularly significant in two respects. First, since the term "group of States Parties" is not linked to or dependent upon the two alliances, the provisions of the treaty will apply to each State Party even if membership in the alliances changes or the alliances themselves cease to exist. This point has some relevance given the demise of the Warsaw Pact's military alliance on March 31, 1991. Second, even though the legal rights and obligations provided for in the Treaty run to the individual States Parties and not the alliances, many of the principal substantive provisions of the Treaty, such as Articles IV and V, are stated in terms of aggregate numerical limitations applying to the two groups, rather than as limitations on each State Party. Article VII of the Treaty was specifically drafted to deal with this unique legal circumstance by establishing a legal framework in which each State Party is responsible only for its share of its group limit.

Subparagraph (B) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "area of application" as the entire land territory of the States Parties in Europe from the Atlantic Ocean to the Ural Mountains, which includes all the European island territories of the States Parties, including the Faroe Islands of the Kingdom of Denmark, Svalbard including Bear Island of the Kingdom of Norway, the islands of the Azores and Madeira of the Portuguese Republic, the Canary Islands of the Kingdom of Spain and Franz Josef Land and Novaya Zemlya of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In the case of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the area of application includes essentially all territory lying west of the Ural River and the Caspian Sea. In the case of the Republic of Turkey, the area of application includes the territory of the Republic of Turkey, north and west of a line extending from the point of intersection of the Turkish border with the 39th parallel to Muradiye, Patnos, Karayazi, Tekman, Kemaliye, Fekle, Ceyhan, Dogankent, Gozne and thence to the sea.

The definition of the term "area of application" tracks closely with the one used in the CFE Mandate. Prior to the initialing of the Treaty on November 18, 1990, the Soviet Union, on a unilateral basis, provided a map of that part of the eastern edge of the area of application that runs through its territory, and deposited that map with the Depositary. The map also depicts the borders of Soviet military districts within the area of application. The Soviet Union has stated that its map provides an accurate depiction of such Treaty-related borders. The United States has not objected to the accuracy of this map.

Subparagraph (C) of paragraph 1 of Article II provides, in two paragraphs, a three-part, hierarchical definition of the term "battle tank." First, a general definition is provided in the first paragraph of subparagraph (C), in which a "battle tank" is defined as a self- propelled armored fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armored and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. This part of the definition adds that such armored vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armored formations.

Second, specific characteristics of battle tanks are described in terms of certain technical parameters. The first sentence of the second paragraph of subparagraph (C) provides that battle tanks are tracked armored fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tons unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters caliber.

Third, a special provision is provided for wheeled battle tanks that might be developed in the future. The second sentence of the second paragraph of subparagraph (C) notes that any wheeled armored fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the criteria stated in the first two parts of the definition shall also be deemed battle tanks.

The definition of "battle tank" is structured in order to make clear that the general definition provided in the first paragraph takes precedence over the second and third parts of the definition set forth in the second paragraph. It is for this reason that the second paragraph is indented and placed under the first paragraph. The "battle tank" definition was drafted in this way in order to provide a procedural mechanism for addressing, in the Joint Consultative Group (in accordance with Article XVI of the Treaty) or in conferences (in accordance with Article XXI of the Treaty), the deployment of new weapons technologies. Thus, if a State Party were to field a new armored fighting vehicle designed to accomplish the mission described in the general criteria for battle tanks set forth in the first paragraph of the definition, but did not meet the specific criteria for current battle tanks set forth in the second paragraph of the definition (e.g., an armored combat vehicle with a smaller - less than 75 millimeters in caliber - but more capable main armament), such a vehicle might very well be deemed a battle tank. In such a case, the Joint Consultative Group could address the issue, and, if a consensus were reached to do so, change the specific criteria to capture such armored fighting vehicles as battle tanks.

The second part of the battle tank definition was specifically developed in order to provide technical parameters for the negotiators to use to determine which current armored fighting vehicles would be deemed battle tanks for purposes of paragraph 1 of Section I of the Protocol on Existing Types. As such, the list of existing types of battle tanks is keyed directly to the battle tank definition. Paragraph 2 of Article II emphasizes this point. Thus, all types of battle tanks listed in paragraph 1 of Section I of the Protocol on Existing Types, as of November 19, 1990, meet the technical criteria set forth in the second part of the definition.

The third part of the battle tank definition, which deals with wheeled tanks, was included because of agreement that a specific wheeled armored fighting vehicle under development, the Italian Centauro, would be deemed a battle tank when it entered into service with Italian conventional armed forces.

Subparagraph (D) of paragraph 1 of Article 11 provides definitions for the terms "armored combat vehicle," "armored personnel carrier," "armored infantry fighting vehicle," and "heavy armament combat vehicle."

Subparagraph (D) defines "armored combat vehicle" as a self-propelled vehicle with armored protection and cross-country capability. The definition further specifies that armored combat vehicles include armored personnel carriers, armored infantry fighting vehicles, and heavy armament combat vehicles.

Subparagraph (D) defines "armored personnel carrier" as an armored combat vehicle which is designed and equipped to transport a combat infantry squad and which, as a rule, is armed with an integral or organic weapon of less than 20 millimeters caliber.

Subparagraph (D) defines "armored infantry fighting vehicle" as an armored combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, which normally provides the capability for the troops to deliver fire from inside the vehicle under armored protection, and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters caliber and sometimes an antitank missile launcher. The definition adds that armored infantry fighting vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of armored infantry or mechanized infantry or motorized infantry formations and units of ground forces.

Subparagraph (D) defines "heavy armament combat vehicle" as an armored combat vehicle with an integral or organic direct fire gun of at least 75 millimeters caliber, weighing at least 6.0 metric tons unladen weight, which does not fall within the definitions of an armored personnel carrier, an armored infantry fighting vehicle, or a battle tank.

Subparagraph (D) of Article II is structured in order to make clear that the general definition of armored combat vehicle takes precedence over the specific definitions for the subcategories of armored personnel carrier, armored infantry fighting vehicle, and heavy armament combat vehicle. It is for this reason that those three subcategory definitions are indented and placed under the general definition of armored combat vehicle.

The existing types of armored combat vehicles, as of November 19, 1990, are listed in paragraph 2 of Section I of the Protocol on Existing Types, with the existing types of armored personnel carriers specified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph 2, armored infantry fighting vehicles listed in subparagraph (B), and heavy armament combat vehicles specified in subparagraph (C). As in the case of the definition of the term battle tank, the lists relating to the existing types of armored personnel carrier, armored infantry fighting vehicle, and heavy armament combat vehicle are keyed directly to each respective definition.

Subparagraph (E) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "unladen weight" as the weight of a vehicle excluding the weight of ammunition; fuel, oil and lubricants; removable reactive armor; spare parts, tools and accessories; removable snorkeling equipment; and crew and their personal kit. This definition is intended to be used in conjunction with the definition of battle tank in subparagraph (C) and the definition of heavy armament combat vehicle in subparagraph (D).

Subparagraph (F) of paragraph 1 of Article II provides, in two paragraphs, a three-part, hierarchical definition of the term "artillery." First, a general definition is provided in the first paragraph of subparagraph (F), in which artillery is defined as large caliber systems capable of engaging ground targets by delivering primarily indirect fire. This part of the definition adds that such artillery systems provide the essential indirect fire support to combined arms formations.

Second, artillery are specifically characterized in terms of certain technical parameters. The first sentence of the second paragraph provides that large caliber artillery systems are: (a) guns, (b) howitzers, (c) artillery pieces combining the characteristics of guns and howitzers, (d) mortars, and (e) multiple launch rocket systems, having a caliber of 100 millimeters and above.

Third, a special provision is provided for future artillery systems. The second sentence of the second paragraph of subparagraph (F) notes that any future large caliber direct fire system which has a secondary effective indirect fire capability shall be counted against the artillery ceilings (i.e., the numerical limitations set forty in Articles IV, V, and VI of the Treaty). This sentence is designed to include direct fire gun systems, such as antitank or antiaircraft guns, that also have an indirect fire capability comparable to artillery pieces. While no such systems exist today, this provision would preclude circumvention of the Treaty's provisions by the development of new types of direct fire guns in the future. However, it should be noted that the second sentence does reflect a compromise that excludes the Soviet T-10 100 millimeter antitank gun. While this weapon does have an indirect fire capability, it is relatively inaccurate in that fire mode. Because of its inaccuracy, the T-10 was not included on the list of existing types of artillery.

The existing types of artillery, as of November 19, 1990, are listed in paragraph 3 of Section I of the Protocol on Existing Types. The existing types of guns, howitzers, and artillery pieces combining the characteristics of guns and howitzers are specified in subparagraph (A) of paragraph 3, the existing types of mortars are listed in subparagraph (B), and the existing types of multiple launch rocket systems are specified in subparagraph (C) of that paragraph. The lists of existing types of artillery are keyed directly to the definition of the term artillery.

Subparagraph (G) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "stationed conventional armed forces" as a conventional armed forces of a State Party that are stationed within the area of application on the territory of another State Party.

Subparagraph (H) of paragraph I of Article II defines "designated permanent storage site" as a place with a clearly defined physical boundary containing conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty, which are counted within overall ceilings (i.e., the numerical limitations set forth in paragraph 1 of Article IV and in Article VI) but which are not subject to limitations on conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty in active units (i.e., the numerical limitations set forth in paragraphs 2 through 4 of Article IV and in Article V). In this regard, the Treaty does not provide a definition of the term "active unit." However, a definition of the term is, in effect, provided in paragraph 4 of Article X, whereby all conventional armaments and equipment limited by the treaty not in designated permanent storage sites are counted as being in active units. The substantive provisions of the Treaty relating to designated permanent storage sites are set forth in Article X.

Subparagraph (I) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "armored vehicle launched bridge" as a self-propelled armored transporter-launcher vehicle capable of carrying and, through built-in mechanisms, of emplacing and retrieving a bridge structure. The definition adds that such a vehicle with bridge structure operates as an integrated system.

This definition is understood to mean that any self-propelled armored transporter-launcher vehicle capable of carrying and, through built-in mechanisms, of emplacing and retrieving a bridge structure shall be deemed to be an armored vehicle launched bridge, even if such a vehicle is not actually equipped with a bridge structure or if the bridge structure is not located with the armored transporter-launcher vehicle. The substantive provisions of the Treaty relating to armored vehicle launched bridges are set forth in Article XI. Existing type of armored vehicle launched bridges, as of November 19, 1990, are listed in paragraph 6 of Section 11 of the Protocol on Existing Types. The list of existing types of armored vehicle launched bridges is keyed directly to the definition of the term armored vehicle launched bridge.

Subparagraph (J) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty" as battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, and attack helicopters subject to the numerical limitations set forth in Articles IV, IV, and VI of the Treaty. Conventional armaments and equipment of a type limited by the Treaty are counted against the numerical limitations set forth in Articles IV, V, and VI in accordance with the counting rules set forth in Article III of the Treaty.

Subparagraph (K) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "combat aircraft," as a fixed-wing or variable geometry wing aircraft armed and equipped to engage targets by employing guided missiles, unguided rockets, bombs, guns cannons, or other weapons of destruction, as well as any model or version of such an aircraft which performs other military functions such as reconnaissance or electronic warfare. The definition adds that the term "combat aircraft" does not include primary trainer aircraft.

Although the term "primary trainer aircraft" is not formally defined in the Treaty, the chapeau of paragraph 3 of Section 11 of the Protocol on Existing Types does provide a working definition of that term. The existing types of primary trainer aircraft, as of November 19, 1990, are also listed in paragraph 3 of Section II.

The phrase "other weapons of destruction" used in the combat aircraft definition is understood to encompass weapons that do not involve projectiles, such as future types of weapons systems. The existing types of combat aircraft, as of November 19, 1992, are listed in paragraph 4 of Section I of the Protocol on Existing Types. The list of existing types of combat aircraft is keyed directly to the definition of the term combat aircraft.

Subparagraph (L) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "combat helicopter" as a rotary wing aircraft armed and equipped to engage targets or equipped to perform other military functions. The definition adds that the term "combat helicopters" comprises attack helicopters and combat support helicopters. The definition further notes that the term "combat helicopter" does not include unarmed transport helicopters. Although the term "unarmed transport helicopter" is not formally defined in the Treaty, the chapeau of paragraph 5 of Section II of the Protocol on Existing Types provides a working definition of that term. The existing types of such helicopters, as of November 19, 1990, are listed in paragraph 5 of Subsection II of the Protocol on Existing Types.

Subparagraph (M) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "attack helicopter" as a combat helicopter equipped to employ anti-armor, air-to-ground, or air-to-air guided weapons and equipped with an integrated fire control and aiming system for these weapons. The definitions adds that the term "attack helicopter" comprises specialized attack helicopters and multipurpose attack helicopters.

Subparagraph (N) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "specialized attack helicopter" as an attack helicopter that is designed primarily to employ guided weapons. The existing types of specialized attack helicopters, as of November 19, 1990, are listed in subparagraph (A) of paragraph 5 of Section I of the Protocol on Existing Types. The list of existing types of specialized attack helicopters is keyed directly to the definition of the term specialized attack helicopter.

Subparagraph (O) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "multipurpose attack helicopter" as an attack helicopter designed to perform multiple military functions and equipped to employ guided weapons. Existing types of multipurpose attack helicopters, as November 19, 1990, are listed in subparagraph (B) of paragraph 5 of Section I of the Protocol on Existing Types. Multipurpose attack helicopters may be recategorized, after removal of their guided weapons capability in accordance with the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization, into combat support helicopters. Such helicopters, once recategorized, are not counted against the numerical limitations on attack helicopters set forth in paragraph I of Article IV and in Article VI of the Treaty.

Subparagraph (P) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "combat support helicopter" as a combat helicopter which does not fulfill the requirements to qualify as an attack helicopter and which may be equipped with a variety of self-defense and area suppression weapons, such as guns, cannons and unguided rockets, bombs or cluster bombs, or which may be equipped to perform other military functions.

Existing types of combat support helicopters, as of November 19, 1990, are listed in paragraph 4 of Section-II of the Protocol on Existing Types. The list of existing types of combat support helicopters is keyed directly to the definition of the term combat support helicopter. Combat support helicopters are not subject to the numerical limitations set forth in Articles IV and VI of the Treaty. Subparagraph (Q) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty" as battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, primary trainer aircraft, unarmed trainer aircraft, combat helicopters, unarmed transport helicopters, armored vehicle launched bridges, armored personnel carrier look-alikes, and armored infantry fighting vehicles look-alikes subject to information exchange in accordance with the Protocol on Information Exchange. This definition incorporates all of those conventional armaments and equipment encompassed within the term "conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty." The term "unarmed trainer aircraft" used in the definition is synonymous with the term "reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft" used elsewhere in the Treaty. A limited number of certain two-cockpit combat-capable trainer variants of single-cockpit combat aircraft types may, within 40 months after entry into force of the Treaty, be reclassified into unarmed trainer aircraft after being disarmed totally in accordance with the Protocol on Aircraft Reclassification. Such reclassified combat-capable trainer aircraft are not counted under the numerical limitations on combat aircraft set forth in paragraph 1 of Article IV and in Article VI of the Treaty.

Subparagraph (R) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "in service," as it applies to conventional armed forces and conventional armaments and equipment, as battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft, primary trainer aircraft, unarmed trainer aircraft, combat helicopters, unarmed transport helicopters, armored vehicle launched bridges, armored personnel carrier look-alikes, and armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes that are within the area of application, except for those that are held by organizations designed and structured to perform in peacetime internal security functions or that meet any of the exceptions set forth in Article III of the Treaty.

Put another way, subparagraph (R) means that all conventional armaments and equipment of the categories listed in subparagraph (R) that are within the area of application are deemed to be "in service" with conventional armed forces, except for those held by internal security organizations or those that meet any of the qualifications set forth in Article III. Thus, for example, battle tanks held by naval units are defined as being in service with the conventional armed forces.

The term "in service" is particularly important as it relates to paragraph 3 of Section IV of the Protocol on Existing Types, which requires each State Party to provide notification when a new type of conventional armament and equipment subject to the Treaty enters into service with its armed forces within the area of application, and to Sections III and IV of the Protocol on Information Exchange, which require the States Parties to provide information on Conventional armaments and equipment in service and not in service, respectively, with conventional armed forces.

It is important to understand that whether conventional armaments and equipment are "in service" (or not) is not a sufficient criterion for determining whether they are subject to the Treaty's numerical limitations. For example, battle tanks in paramilitary forces are not "in service," but they are numerically limited pursuant to the counting rule in Article III. Conversely, paragraph 3 of Section I of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization makes clear that up to 100 Soviet Mi-24 R and K helicopters will not be counted under the Treaty even though they meet the definition of "in service" set forth in subparagraph (R).

Subparagraph (S) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "armored personnel carrier look-alike" and "armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alike" as an armored vehicle based on the same chassis as, and externally similar to, an armored personnel carrier or armored infantry fighting vehicle, respectively, which does not have a cannon or gun of 20 millimeters caliber or greater and which has been constructed or modified in such a way as not to permit the transportation of a combat infantry squad. The definition further provides that, taking into account the provisions of the Geneva Convention "For the Amelioration of the Conditions of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" of 12 August 1949 that confer a special status on ambulances, armored personnel carrier ambulances shall not be deemed armored combat vehicles or armored personnel carrier look-alikes.

Existing types, as of November 19, 1990, of armored personnel carrier look-alikes are listed in paragraph 1 of Section II of the Protocol on Existing Types. Existing types of armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes, as of November 19, 1990, are listed in paragraph 2 of Section 11 of the Protocol on Existing Types. The lists of existing types of armored personnel carrier and armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alikes are keyed directly to each respective definition.

It should be noted that the definition of armored personnel carrier look-alike and armored infantry fighting vehicle look-alike vehicles meet the general definition of armored combat vehicle set forth in subparagraph (D). However, the look-alike definitions rep- resent special exceptions to the applicable sub-category definitions that follow the general definition in subparagraph (D). They are thus not subject to the numerical limitations for armored combat vehicles set forth in Articles IV, V and VI. This fact is explicitly recognized in Section II of the Protocol on Existing Types.

Subparagraph (T) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "reduction site" as a clearly designated location where the reduction of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty in accordance with Article VIII takes place. The substantive provisions of the Treaty relating to reduction sites are listed in paragraphs 9 through 13 if Article VIII. The procedures regarding the inspection of reduction of conventional armaments and equipment at reduction sites are set forth in Section X of the Protocol on Inspection.

Subparagraph (U) of paragraph 1 of Article II defines "reduction liability" as the number in each category of conventional armaments and equipment limited by the Treaty that a State Party commits itself to reduce during the period of 40 months following the entry into force of the Treaty in order to ensure compliance with Article VII. A State Party's reduction liability is calculated in accordance with paragraphs 7 and 8 of Article VIII of the Treaty.

Paragraph 2 of Article II provides that the existing types of conventional armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty are listed in the Protocol on Existing Types. This paragraph further stipulates that the lists of existing types shall be periodically updated in accordance with subparagraph (D) of paragraph 2 of Article XVI of the Treaty and Section IV of the Protocol on Existing Types. Paragraph 2 of Article II notes that such updates to the existing types lists shall not be deemed amendments to the Treaty.

In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article XVI of the Treaty such updates are understood to be "improvements relating to only minor matters of an administrative or technical nature." In this regard, paragraph 3 of Section IV of the Protocol on Existing Types requires each State Party to notify all of the States Parties, upon the entry into service with its armed forces within the area of application, of (a) any new type of conventional armaments and equipment that either meets one of the definitions in Article II or falls under a category listed in the Protocol on Existing Types, and (b) any new model or version of an existing type already listed in that Protocol. Paragraph 4 of Section IV then requires that the appropriate list in the Protocol on Existing Types be updated no later than 60 days after such notification to reflect the new type or new model or version of an existing type.

It should be noted that not all types of armaments and equipment subject to the Treaty are listed in the Protocol on Existing Types. For example, the VBC-90 is a heavy armament combat vehicle held only in France's paramilitary forces. As such, it is not listed because it is not "in service" with conventional armed forces. It is, however, subject to information exchange.

A question arises as to what would happen in the event that a State Party failed to report, in accordance with paragraph 3 of Section IV of the Protocol on Existing Types, an item within the area of application that appeared to be a new type or a new model or version of an existing type.

In such a case, any concerned State Party would have the right to raise the issue in the Joint Consultative Group as well as bilaterally in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article XVI of the Treaty. Whether raised in the Joint Consultative Group or bilaterally, the State Party in question would be required, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article XVI, to explain why the item was not reported. Ultimately, if the concerned State Party wishes to press the issue, the Joint Consultative Group, pursuant to paragraphs 3 and 4 of Section IV of the Protocol on Existing Types, would have to address whether the item should have been reported or not. If the State Party responded in a way that satisfied the concerned States Parties that the item in question was not a new type or new model or version of a current existing type, then the issue would be resolved. However, if the State Party failed to satisfy the concerned States Parties or agreed that the item should have been reported, then the other States Parties would have the right to take whatever action is allowed under the Treaty or international law that they believed was appropriate in response.

Paragraph 3 of Article II provides that the existing types of combat helicopters listed in the Protocol on Existing Types shall be categorized in accordance with Section I of the Protocol on Helicopter Recategorization.

¹ The Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, signed in Warsaw, 14 May 1955.

² The Treaty of Economic, Social and Cultural Collaboration and Collective Self-Defence signed in Brussels, 17 March 1948.

³The North Atlantic Treaty signed in Washington, 4 April 1949.

Return to Top
Return to Table of Contents
Return to CFE Treaty Main Page