CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY WRAP-UP

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 THE HAGUE 002272

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

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 JOECK
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY WRAP-UP
FOR 3 SEPTEMBER 2004

This is CWC-102-04.

--------------
ARTICLE VII
--------------


1. (U) Del rep attended a September 1 OPCW National
Implementation workshop on National Implementation in London.
Santiago Onate, Office of the Legal Advisor, Anan Dhavle,
International Cooperation Division, and facilitator Mark
Matthews (UK) presented tutorials on Article VII obligations
to targeted SPs from African, Middle Eastern, and Caribbean
regions (presentations and attendee lists were faxed back to
AC/CB). On the margins, Rwanda and Sudan relayed requests
for U.S. assistance. The representatives from Gambia and
Trinidad and Tobago privately noted that most of the
attendees were not the accredited representatives to the
OPCW, but had been asked by their missions to attend the
seminar. This may explain the "listen only" mode of most
attendees. Finally, Martin Rudduck, UK National Authority,
noted that Sweden and Norway are assisting Iceland in its
implementation effort.

--------------
DG PFIRTER'S TRAVEL TO NEW YORK
--------------


2. (U) On September 3, Chief of Staff Rafael Grossi
informed us that DG Pfirter will make two trips to New York
in connection with the UNGA. In addition to the traditional
meeting with the First Committee, the DG will make a second
trip in conjunction with additional UN efforts on
coordination with multilateral organizations. Grossi said
the current plans are for the DG to travel to New York on
October 7-8 and 20-21. He added that the DG would be willing
to tack on a trip to Washington if there is USG interest
either in meetings at the Department or gatherings in support
of initiatives focused on areas such as Latin America.

--------------
TAIWAN
--------------


3. (SBU) Del rep recently spoke with officials of the
Taiwan Representative Office in the Netherlands. Mark Tseng,
Director of the Economic Division, and Jennifer Hsieh, also
from the Economic Division, noted that Taiwan is interested
in possibly having the Taiwan Chemical Industry Association
apply to be non-official attendees at the Conference of
States Parties in November. They said they had engaged the
U.K. and France on the general issue of Taiwan's interest in
the OPCW, and would be meeting with the Japanese and Italian
delegations in the near future. We provided no substantive
reply, but emphasized that if the Taiwanese felt strongly
about possible non-official attendance at the CSP, it would
be important to engage the PRC informally to ensure Beijing
did not oppose the initiative. Tseng said the Taiwan
Chemical Industry Association would be sending a delegation
to The Hague in mid-to-late October.

--------------
ACCOUNTING FOR GB AT DESERET DF
--------------


4. (U) Delegation was informed by members of the TS that
there remains an outstanding issue with regard to 1132 of GB
at the Deseret CWDF. The TS was at pains to emphasize that
the issue of a "phantom" 1132 kg of GB at the Deseret Storage
Facility has been resolved and was not/not what they were
referring to. Rather, the issue was that having agreed
finally on the correct amount of GB at the SF, the figure
finally arrived at now did not match with records at the DF.
TS is in the process of attempting to reconstruct past

SIPDIS
verification activities and declarations in an effort to
discern if and where another accounting error may have
occurred, but requested that the US begin reviewing its own
records in an effort to reconcile the difference between the
now-agreed figures for the SF and the destruction figures for
the DF.
--------------
EU INTEREST IN ALBANIA
--------------

5. (U) Delegation has been approached three times in two
days with requests for information about the nature and scope
of US assistance to Albania in destroying its small stockpile
of CW. Specifically, the new German delegate Ronald Munch
and, on a separate occasion, French delegate Dominique
Anelli, asked whether the delegation had any information
about what the US intended to do, the scope of our effort
and, in particular, whether we viewed it as possible for the
EU to become involved in the effort. Delegation informed
both that the U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program
office had become involved and that it appeared CTR was going
to be in a position to lend significant support to the
Albanian destruction effort. However, it was impossible to
discuss details of CTRs program because the process was still
in its early stages. At this point CTR is still going
through the various steps required by Congress to certify
that Albania is eligible to receive CTR funds. Delegation
did not rule out that
some effort may have been expended to examine the task from
a technical/operational point of view, but if so we were not
aware of what those efforts may have produced. Before money
could begin flowing, contracts could be let, etc., etc.,
however, the certification process had to be complete, and
that was the focus of our effort at this stage.


6. (U) Anelli asked whether it would be possible to, perhaps
on the margins of the upcoming Council session, have a
dialogue between us and members of their MFA about the state
of U.S. efforts. In particular, they would be interested in
knowing, if possible, where the EU might become involved in
assisting the Albanians since, as he put it, Albania is our
close neighbor (an observation made separately by Munch as
well). Delegation offered that it would consult with
Washington on this question but allowed that if it was not
possible, perhaps our delegation could be in a position to
have and pass along some basic information about what we're
doing. If the EU was genuinely interested in providing
support, it seemed judicious to begin a dialogue sooner
rather than later so as to prevent duplication of effort.


7. (U) In a separate conversation, former German delegate
Peter Beerwerth took the unusual measure of contacting the
delegation directly from Berlin to ask essentially the same
questions as Much and Anelli had posed. In the course of the
conversation, Beerwerth observed that EU did not have the
funds to lend major support such as, for instance,
constructing a destruction facility, but that it was
considering lending support in the form, again for example,
of providing technical assistance visits to help the
Albanians determine an appropriate destruction technology.
Delegation responded that it did not have details of the
scope of CTRs program of work in Albania, but believed the
intent was that the U.S. would fund the destruction facility.
Presumably that would imply the US would also have a hand in
determining the destruction technology, type of facility to
be used, etc., etc. But again, this was speculation since it
was so early in the process and the delegation wasn't even
certain whether CTR itself had asked and answered such
questions. (Note: Given the clearly heightened interest the
EU has taken in this area, delegation believes that it is
important to begin discussing these issues with EU
representatives in the near future. Delegation understands
that in the past CTR/WDC has been less than enthusiastic
about the prospect of EU participation or "support", but
believes that even if this remains the case, it is in the
general interest to have an open and frank discussion in
which we would clearly state our views. End note.).

--------------
STATUS OF RABTA DOCUMENTS
--------------


8. (U) On Monday, 6 September, delegation provided round two
of U.S. comments to the Libyan conversion request to the
Libyan delegation and the Technical Secretariat (TS). In
passing the comments delegation made it clear that the four
items categorized as "major deficiencies" must be taken into
account and addressed before the document is circulated to
states parties on 10 September.


9. (U) Subsequently, Libya faxed the TS 9 pages of new text
intended to address each of the four deficiencies. The TS
has slightly rewritten and reformatted the Libyan text to
make it more compatible with the already-existing text of the
conversion request, and is in the process of incorporating
the new text. Delegation expects to receive and forward to
Washington by COB Wednesday, 8 September, copies of the text
that will be incorporated into the final version.


10. (U) To summarize, the changes being made to address each
of the four areas of major deficiency;

1) Libya provided the TS two and one half pages of history to
be included after the cover page of the conversion request.

2) The current version of the conversion request includes a
very detailed schedule for "phase 1" destruction activities.
It also makes a general reference that "phase one"
destruction activities will be completed within one year.
Details regarding the schedule for phase two conversion
activities will be included in the Combined Plan for
Conversion and Verification.

3) The conversion request will include a statement in CWP
5.21 to the effect that detailed verification measures for
phase one destruction are included in the Combined Plan for
Destruction and Verification that will be submitted to the
Council for consideration - with an EC-38 number. Similarly,
detailed verification measures for phase two conversion will
be included in the Combined Plan for Conversion and
Verification, probably with an EC 39 or EC 40 number. The
reasoning is that the TS cannot formally circulate a CP for
Conversion and Verification before the Council approves the
conversion request. Despite the assignment of a later EC
number, the Conversion Plan and the attendant plan for
verification will be available to states parties during EC
38, but again with an EC 39 or EC 40 number.

4) The conversion plan will now include text specifying
certain discrepancies that were detected during the course of
TS inspections. The new text will also note that the

SIPDIS
equipment list contained in the conversion request is in fact
consistent with the factual findings from the inspections,
but that an amended initial declaration is required and will
be accomplished to ensure consistency between the two
documents. It will take a few weeks because it is fairly
voluminous, but they are working on it. To address
Washington's comment that the inventory list should include
details such as "materials of construction, whether old or
new", etc., the documents will now also include text to the
effect that all equipment is commercially available and not
specifically or uniquely designed for CW production; it is
available in many places and observable at any commercial
chemical or industrial production facility. The TS and Libya
both have observed that with over 5,000 pieces of equipment,
it is not feasible to include item-by-item descriptions and
still have the document out by 10 September.


11. (U) Delegation met with the TS on the morning of 8
September to review the new/changed text, as well as to
receive copies of the various notes, reports, and decision
documents required to accompany the Libyan request. All
these materials were faxed to State AC/CB on 8 September, as
has the text of the Libyan fax to the TS. During the course
of the meeting, delegation reaffirmed with the TS that the
documents must be completed and available at the document
counter no later than COB Friday, 10 September. TS
acknowledged this and assured delegation it would be so.

--------------
STRUCTURE OF THE RABTA DOCUMENTS
--------------


12. (U) In a previous meeting, the TS informed the delegation
that it had originally drafted and given the Libyans a
document in which the destruction plans and conversion
request had been integrated as one package. When the TS
received the documents back from Libya, they discovered the
Libyans had essentially "split" the documents into the
conversion plan and, separately, the destruction plans. The
TS intention, therefore, was to send the conversion request

SIPDIS
and the destruction plans out under separate DG notes, but as
a package in which each set of documents is cross-referenced
in the other.


13. (U) Their approach is driven by the fact of Libya's
having separated the two documents. Re-combining them would
have taken a lot of time, according to the TS, and would have
run the risk of errors being introduced. Delegation
expressed our concern about the possibility of having other
delegations try to shred out the destruction plan and approve
it while taking time to mull over the conversion request. TS
took the point but offered that they would work as closely as
needed with us and others to use language in the
aforementioned DG notes to tie the two documents together.
As noted above, drafts of these documents have been received
by the delegation and forwarded to State AC/CB.

--------------
MARQUARDT RECORDS REVIEW
--------------


14. (U) TS reports informally that on the subject of the
recently-completed Marquardt and Pine Bluff Arsenal
production facility inspections, the news sounds
categorically good. As TS representative Oleg Uharov put it,
all our talk was "made obsolete" by a few hours of practical
experience. Since Uharov was the architect of these
particular headaches, his assessment means carries a lot of
weight. The TS has received initial reports and, in both
cases, the inspector/visit team chief (Oswaldo) reported that
he had been fully able to fulfill his mandate, in the case of
PBA, and his visit instructions, in the case of Marquardt.
When Mazur asked him how he was able to ascertain the
presence of "various" quantities of particular equipment and
to discern sub-components, Oswaldo responded that in the
before and after photos he was shown the fact of destruction
having occurred, and of what and how much of what had been
destroyed, were absolutely clear.

--------------
RABTA TECHNICAL CHANGE STATUS
--------------


15. (U) Delegation was informed that French delegate Sophie
Moal-Makame, based on new instructions from Paris that
haven't officially gotten to her yet, was informed that;

-- The changes made to the request for a technical change
substantially address French concerns over equitable
treatment and bounding the time given for conversions;

-- Paris is concerned that other SPs have the impression
that France is opposed to the Libyan request; they are not.
Sophie allowed that the statement by her Amb during the
Council session went a long way toward promoting that
impression, but said that it was nevertheless erroneous. In
fact they are contacting/have contacted the Libyans in
Tripoli to inform them that they do not oppose the Libyan
request.

-- France will watch closely to see gauge how Council
members react to the proposal and, in particular, whether
there seems to be broad support for it;

-- The DG note will be "very important" for France's
further consideration of the request. (Note: Delegation was
informed by the TS today that the DG assessment of the Libyan
technical change request will be available at the document
counter not later than the morning of Thursday, 9 September.


16. (U) While Moal-Makame stopped short of stating outright
that France would join consensus, this news is obviously
welcome. It remains unclear whether all of France's concerns
are addressed by the "new and improved text", or they will
seek additional modifications. Moal-Makame did not allude to
any though.


17. (U) Ito sends.
SOBEL