CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR 16

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 001731

SIPDIS

STATE FOR AC/CB, NP/CBM, VC/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN)
NSC FOR CHUPA
WINPAC FOR FOLEY

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR 16
- 30 JUNE

This is CWC-74-03.

--------------
Summary
--------------


1. (U) No other delegations showed enthusiasm for
committing, as of Friday, June 20, to a serious, sustained
effort at a systemic fix for Article IV/V financing.


2. (U) There were no immediate results from this round of
industry intersessional consultations, but it is possible
that the September Executive Council could take decisions on
Boundaries of Production and Requests for Clarification of
Declarations.


3. (U) Facilitator Eric Wills (Netherlands) tried to get
consensus on what he considered the technical issues in the
draft decision on sampling and analysis. He appears to have
succeeded, with the exception of the French, who insist that
analysis results be hand-carried from the designated lab that
performed the analysis to The Hague.


4. (U) Ambassador Javits will participate in site visits at
Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and Tooele, Utah the week of 14 July
and will return to Washington for consultations 18-19 July.

Topics:

-- Article IV/V Consultations
-- June Industry Intersessionals
-- Sampling and Analysis Procedures
-- Ambassador Javits Upcoming Travel

--------------
Article IV/V Consultations
--------------


5. (U) US Del led off the comments, expressing regret that
the proposed facilitator's report for EC-33 language was so
anodyne and arguing that the reference only to "efforts to
achieve prompt issue and payment of invoices" was reductive
and did not cover many other elements of the Article IV/V
problem. Deloff made the point that U.S. inability as of yet
to reimburse for Article IV/V in 2003 did not in any way
speak to problems with the system of budgeting for and
assessing Article IV/V. Del urged the need for serious
discussion of a real solution to this problem, underlining
that the USG was willing to discuss the three main
approaches, as outlined in draft EC-33 guidance. Facilitator
Geoff Cole (UK) welcomed this, but then pointed out in detail
the problems with each of the three, e.g. difficulties that
might arise with assessment based on previous year's
activities if there were significant year-to-year
fluctuations in the amount of work carried out.


6. (U) No other delegations showed enthusiasm for
committing, as of Friday, June 20, to a serious, sustained
effort at a systemic fix for Article IV/V. (Ruth Flint
(Switzerland) indicated a preference for the system of
assessing based on previous year's activity.) Overall
preference was to suggest modest edits to the facilitator's
text and he recalled that a statement at an EC in mid-2002
had referred to the possibility of possessor states making
voluntary advance payments on Article IV/V, should they so
wish. There was broad support for resurrecting this
previously agreed language.


7. (U) The Spanish thought the reference to payment of
invoices "as far as possible within the same year as the work
carried out" in the facilitator's draft was too vague, and
suggested replacing "the work" with "the inspections".
Nobody had problems with that.


8. (U) A number of dels specified that they had no
instructions with respect to allowing reimbursements for
withdrawals from the Working Capital Fund to cover 2004 needs
to be made as late as the end of 2005. This group of
countries included Germany, France, and Russia.

--------------
June Industry Intersessionals
--------------


9. (U) There were no immediate results from this round of
industry intersessional consultations, but it is possible
that the September Executive Council could take decisions on
Boundaries of Production and Requests for Clarification of
Declarations.


10. (U) Facilitators held meetings on Captive Use, Requests
for Clarification of Declarations, Low Concentrations
Schedule 2A/2Aasterisk, the draft Handbook on Chemicals (part
of the draft Declarations Handbook),and the draft
Declarations Handbook. The session on OCPF (Other Chemical
Production Facility or UDOC) plant site selection was
cancelled because the new U.S. paper had not been coordinated
with Switzerland.

-- The two sessions on the draft Declarations Handbook and
its Handbook on Chemicals raised issues too technical for
delegations to respond to adequately on the spot. There
might easily be consensus, however, if some of the proposals
could be translated into simple language. Especially useful
are the suggestions to highlight the most used chemicals in
the Handbook on Chemicals, and to make forms A-1 and A-2 of
the draft Declarations Handbook an annual submission from all
States Parties, reconfirming their National Authority
information and certifying that they have nothing else to
declare (if that is the case). The facilitator (Manfred
Ruck, Germany) also proposes a simple new system to assign
unique identifier numbers to all Scheduled chemicals that do
not have Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers. He intends
next to sort out mixtures declarations.

-- A decision on Requests for Clarification of Declarations
should be possible now that Del has been able to respond to
the Iranian legal objections. There is broad support for a
political commitment to providing some kind of answer to such
requests within 60 days, especially since 45 percent of such
requests in 2002 involved inspectability of plant sites, and
60 percent involved compliance concerns. Iran and others are
swayed by the argument that if a declaration is not complete,
the timeline for submitting declarations under the Convention
has not been met.

-- The British facilitator for Low Concentrations suggested
that Amiton be moved to Schedule 1 because it is no longer
used, but neither he nor the Scientific Advisory Board had
done their homework in this respect. When Del asked if the
Technical Secretariat had any information, Industry
Verification Branch confirmed that declarations of transfers
of Amiton are still coming in.

-- Captive Use is still being blocked by Russia because
Russia does not declare any Schedule 3 production that does
not leave the plant site. (The Russian delegation would sign
up to the captive use language with respect to Schedule 2
only.) Germany also spoke out for the first time, reserving
on the draft decision text because there is no agreement in
Berlin. The German del clarified later that Germany does
not/not interpret the Boundaries of Production decision to
require any declarations based only on calculations. Unless
a measurement has been made, Germany maintains there is
nothing for inspectors to verify, since re-doing calculations
does not constitute Verification.

--------------
Sampling and Analysis
Procedures 19 June 2003
--------------


11. (U) Facilitator Eric Wills (Netherlands) tried to get
consensus on what he considered the technical issues in the
24 April draft decision. He appears to have succeeded, with
the exception of the French insistence that analysis results
be hand-carried from the designated lab that performed the
analysis to The Hague (para. 11.8 (e)).


12. (U) The French del has had a bad experience with the
Technical Secretariat's approach to confidentiality, and does
not want to allow any additional hands/eyes on the analysis
results. The Rijswijk lab (Stefan Mogl) wants to insist on
hand-carrying because the results were not readable when sent
by secure fax during the recent exercise. Mogl has not
approached Technical Secretariat support staff (IT,
Confidentiality) who might be able to offer him a better

SIPDIS
technical option. Del has since done so.


13. (U) Iran continues to raise political objections to
para. 9.1, insisting that "geographic distribution" of chosen
designated labs be mandated. Wills continues to point out
that only European labs were available in 2000. India listed
numerous labs currently suspended in support of Iran. There
is a factual misunderstanding here by supporters of Iran, if
not by Iran itself. This might be straightened out by a
forceful and clear spokesperson for the Technical Secretariat.

14. (U) In paras. 9.3 and 11.6, Iran demands the right for
the ISP to observe off-site analysis, because it is part and
parcel of inspection activity.


15. (U) Agreed changes:

-- OP 2, request the Technical Secretariat to "further"
test and validate . . . Rationale: to reflect the successful
sampling and analysis exercise.

-- Para. 6.1, the UK requested the Technical Secretariat's
custody "is deemed to be" maintained by "the integrity of"
the fiber-optical seals. However, the language will stay
unchanged due to objections from France, Japan and Del.

-- Para. 6.3, France reserves until it studies the IATA
A-106 document used to apply the special exemption granted to
the Director General by IATA in 1993.

-- Para. 6.4, Germany objected that the Convention says
the Director General shall be responsible for transport of a
sample, so the responsibility cannot be the National
Authority's. Agreed fix: "The National Authority of a
designated lab shall facilitate in-country transport of the
sample."

-- Para. 6.5, delete "as necessary" because it is
grammatically part of the previously deleted verbiage.

-- Para. 11.9, the ROK tried to insist on a third lab if
there is any inconsistency. It should be possible to explain
to the South Korean delegation why this might not be
necessary. The ROK del indicated they would accept "or, if
the issue is not clarified, select additional ones."

--------------
Ambassador Javits' Upcoming Travel
--------------


16. (U) Ambassador Javits will participate in site visits
at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and Tooele, Utah the week of 14 July
and will return to Washington for consultations 18-19 July.
Ambassador Javits is willing to stay in Washington an extra
day or two if additional meetings are necessary.


17. (U) Javits sends.

BAILY