CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY WRAP-UP

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 002994

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 LIEPMAN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY WRAP-UP
FOR 28 NOV 2003

This is CWC-131 -03.

--------------
Protection Workshop
--------------


1. (U) This November 19-20 workshop provided a valuable
exchange of ideas and information. Mainly structured to put
experts in the area of CW assistance and protection in touch
with various companies who provide equipment, it also gave
experts (and local delegations) the chance to hear how a
number of States Parties view assistance and protection as
well as what measures States Parties are taking in terms of
emergency planning.


2. (U) South Africa, Czech Republic, The Netherlands,
Sweden, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Australia and even NATO all
gave presentations on the various steps they are taking to
prepare for a possible chemical attack. The common theme in
all presentations was that first response is a local
responsibility. By the time the national level is called in
it is often too late. The focus instead was how best the
national government can assist the local level in preparing
for such an incident. In addition, an American from the
Colorado Emergency Planning Commission gave a presentation on
the public role in preparing and responding to a chemical
incident. This presentation was very well received by
participants.


3. (U) A number of U.S. companies were also present at the
exhibition. Del officer spoke at length with representatives
from both Batelle and Constellation Technology Corporation
who were very eager to talk to a member of the U.S.
Delegation. Both primarily wanted to hear about the role the
U.S. delegation plays at the OPCW.


4. (U) Wednesday evening deloffs participated in a no-host
dinner with three Amcits invited to participate in the course
by the TS: Tim Gablehouse, Colorado Emergency Planning
Commission; Melanie Granberg, Attorney with Colorado law firm
of Gablehouse, Calkins and Granberg, LLC; and Michael
Penders, President of Environmental Security International- a
private DC based consulting firm (former Chairman of the G8
Nations Project on International Environment Crime and
Eco-Terrorism). The evening provided a useful exchange of
ideas and views related to the CWC. Specifically they were
interested in learning more about the Organization as a
whole, issues related to commercial/industrial security and
the transfer of chemicals, as well as issues related to
informing the public of their safety from possible CW related
incidents both at industrial commercial sites and military
sites.

--------------
Article X Consultations
--------------


5. (U) While the consultations on 21 November were convened
to discuss the proposal for a new format for States Parties
to make declarations on provisions of assistance (Article X,
para 7(c)),most time was actually spent looking at ICA/APB's
plan of events for 2004. When discussion did turn to the new
format, the facilitator (Hans Schramml - Austria) explained
that his reason for proposing such a format was to make
offers of assistance easier for the Technical Secretariat to
process and provide structure to the offers. Currently the
TS has many incomplete and/or vague offers of assistance from

SIPDIS
a very small number of SPs and the hope is that this format
will help provide cohesion among the offers. Del stated that
this would be best if it were a voluntary format as opposed
to a requirement for a SP to offer assistance. Del offered
that many SP's have different constraints and processes for
making offers of assistance and requiring SPs to use such a
form may be difficult. There were a couple of calls by SPs
(Iran, UK) that a plan of action on Article X may be worth
exploring.

--------------
Article X Consultation
--------------

-------------- Discussion with the UK in advance of consultations on
Declaration Format for National Protective Programs --------------


6. (U) The UK (Gabby Krueger and Clive Rowland) were very
appreciative of U.S. comments on their proposed format. They
took all our comments on board and look forward to discussing
the format in more detail in the future. In response to U.S.
concerns on items 4 and 7 (efforts at the local and regional
level) they explained that the goal here was to capture the
differences in the way SPs structure their efforts. Many SPs
have a regional or local mechanism to respond to CW incidents
that are supported by, but not run by their national
government. The UK believes rewording may help solve the
U.S. problem with this item (though no alternate wording was
proposed). In regard to the U.S. concern on items 6 and 23
(references to publicly available information) the UK
understands our concern and again believes the items can be
reworded. They did not intend for these two items to be
all-inclusive of every possible publicly available bit of
information, but rather as a jumping point or reference point
for SPs t
o gather more information. On our last point regarding R&D
facilities, the UK is looking at possibilities. The U.S. is
not the only country to voice concerns over providing this
information.

-------------- Article X Consultation --------------


7. (U) The consultation on 24 November focused on the UK
proposed format for Declaration of National Protective
Programs. Most SPs did not have comments back yet from
capital. Krueger went through the document paragraph by
paragraph in order to pass along comments from the Protection
Network to delegations. Beyond these comments (see below)
SPs grabbed onto our statement that "it is important that our
efforts strike a balance between the desire for transparency
and concerns related to the sensitivity and practical
difficulties in gathering and releasing selected information.
India, Iran, The Netherlands, Japan, France, China all
echoed this sentiment. South Africa was very vocal and laid
down a marker regarding the length and detail of information
in the proposed format. On a number of different occasions
during the consultations the delegate from South Africa made
it very clear that Pretoria believes that information outside
of national programs was not relevant and should not be the
bulk of the declaration (they believe it currently is the
bulk of the declaration). They do not see the value added in
having questions outside of national protective programs and
believe the format should be much shorter. Krueger's plan is
a have a revised draft ready for circulation in mid-January
and follow up with another round of consultations the end of
January.


8. (U) Proposed Changes by the Protection Network:

-- Question 3: include at end of last sentence after
terrorists "all other non-State actors".

-- Question 5: add sub item (e) - Would X SP like to receive
assistance/expert advice?

-- Question 6: Suggest opening to broader than just
governmental.

-- Question 7: Suggest breaking into "implementing" and
"developing" - for example Implementing (a),(b),(c),
Developing (a),(b),(c).

-- Question 8: Subitem (a) delete "designs that were".
Include in (a) and (c) - commercial.

-- Question 9: Add "Hazard modeling". In "Decontamination
measure for personnel or equipment" change "measure" to
"technologies".


9. (U) Javits sends.
SOBEL