CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): HOST COUNTRY

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 003184

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 JOECK
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/08/2014
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): HOST COUNTRY
AGREEMENT MEETINGS IN THE HAGUE, 29 NOV-3 DEC

REF: A. REF A. STATE 240245


B. REF B. STATE 225581

C. REF C. STATE 225585

D. REF D. STATE 225592

E. REF E. STATE 225599

F. REF F. STATE 213871

Classified By: Amb. Eric M. Javits, U.S. Perm Rep to the OPCW for reaso
ns 1.4 (h).

This is CWC-144-04.

--------------
Background
--------------


1. (C) The U.S. invited a number of countries (Refs A-F) to
send representatives to The Hague, during the 9th CWC
Conference of the States Parties (from 29 Noveber-3 December
2004) for informal bilateral expert discussions on Host
Country Agreements (HCA). With the exception of Luxembourg,
the DoD led team was successful in meeting with all intended
delegations (Norway, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Jordan,
Belgium, and Hungary). Other HCA-related matters were
discussed with Italy and Germany.


2. (C) All indications were that the discussions were
beneficial in promoting a greater understanding among the
host countries as to why an agreement should be aggressively
pursued and concluded. Delegations we talked to provided
reasonable degrees of assurance that it was their intent to
provide prompt responses to the latest draft texts provided
to them.

--------------
Highlights
--------------


3. (C) Several delegations wanted to know how many other
countries the U.S. was attempting to conclude agreements
with, followed by a request to obtain a copy of an approved
agreement the U.S. had with another country. They stated
that having such knowledge and information would help
generate support within their own country to conclude an HCA
with the U.S.


4. (C) None of the countries provided any clear indication
they preferred a legally binding agreement with the United
States.


5. (C) Some countries assumed that our push to conclude an
agreement with them may somehow be connected with the EU's
recent call for a Challenge Inspection (CI) Action Plan.
This, in turn, appeared to produce some reluctance on their
part to engage in further discussions with the U.S. until
they consulted with the EU. The del however, effectively
dispelled this misconception regarding an EU connection.


6. (C) Del addressed the HCA in general terms, noting why we
felt an HCA was necessary and how it functioned as a
communications and coordination plan, intended to help
clarify expectations in circumstances where time was at a
premium in light of a politically significant event.


7. (C) Del expressed an interest in hearing specific
concerns any of the countries may have as soon as possible,
noting we had the goal of concluding this agreement by March
2005 (with exception of Jordan). Countries appeared somewhat
surprised, but generally receptive to our request for capital
visits.

--------------
Summaries of Individual Discussions
--------------


8. (C) Portugal: Attending for Portugal was Mr. Rui Lopes
Aleixo from the MFA, and Ms. Rita Guerra, Permanent Delegate
to the OPCW. The del conducted a "near" line-by-line review
of the agreement with the Portuguese delegation. Aleixo
pointed out that conceptually the agreement posed no problems
and that he understood the need to conclude an agreement;
however, he pointed out that he could not guarantee that they
could agree on the format, explaining that an "exchange of
notes" may be a better approach in order to avoid an
interagency and Parliamentary review. He also emphasized
that a MFA legal review, not yet undertaken, would be needed
to clarify whether Portugal can accept the draft HCA in its
existing form. Portugal was under the impression that the CWC
provided sufficient detail to conduct a CI, and thus
questioned why an agreement was needed at all. Del pointed
out that the CWC only provided for requesting and receiving
challenge inspections, as well as requirements for the
conduct of the inspection. It did not provide the necessary
information for protecting national security interests,
especially as it might apply for protection of another
country's assets located within the host country's territory.
The del also pointed out that the agreement lays the
framework for determining significant administrative,
communication, logistical and policy details that the CWC did
not address. Portugal was also concerned about the timing of
this request, hinting that the USG might be planning
something that would require the HCA to be implemented, or
that there was some connection between the agreement and the
EU's recent call for a CI Action Plan. Their concerns were
quickly dispelled, however. Finally, Aleixo did solicit our
patience with concluding the agreement, pointing out that
Portugal is undergoing several governmental CWC position
changes. In saying that, Aleixo stated it would be useful to
obtain a copy of an existing agreement between the U.S. and
another country, in mustering support for an agreement
between Portugal and the U.S.


9. (C) Hungary: Mr. Istvan Fehervari, Hungary's Deputy
Director for Arms Control and Non-proliferation, led
discussions for Hungary. Fehervari expressed concern
regarding the need for such an agreement, as well as the
legal status of the agreement, financial implications, and
the MFA's ability to compel Hungary's CWC National Authority
to execute the agreement. He noted that, since US forces are
not stationed in Hungary, there may be no need for such an
HCA. US replied that when we first contacted Hungary about
an HCA, there was a large operational US presence in Hungary
at Tazar, and that these forces had been inspected under
different arms control agreements during the Kosovo crisis.
Del also pointed out that there are continuing NATO exercises
with Hungary that make the existence of such an agreement
relevant. Fehervari expressed concern about the relevance of
this agreement in a larger context, wondering if the HCA had
anything to do with US force redistribution in Europe or the
EU's initiative on
CWC CIs. We noted that neither factor was a motivation for
seeking an HCA now - we are simply renewing our interest in
an agreement that had been initiated several years ago.
Finally, Fehervari requested that we reveal what other
countries we have agreements with and whether it was possible
to obtain a copy of one of the agreements.


10. (C) Jordan: Del spoke with Jordan MFA Rep Saqer M. Abu
Shattal, First Secretary, Embassy of the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan. The del provided a fairly detailed conceptual
overview of the intent and purpose of the HCA with Jordan's
MFA rep, which he later acknowledged as being very
beneficial. His immediate concern, however, was to ascertain
with which other countries within the Middle East Region the
U.S. was negotiating or had concluded agreements. Del
explained that we are not able to reveal that information per
the request of those member-States, and that we treat our
draft agreement with Jordan with the same confidentiality.
He was not surprised by our response and pointed out that
other Arab countries' knowledge of any agreements with the
U.S. is treated with suspicion and skepticism. He pointed
out that while Jordan's existing CWC governmental
infrastructure had been created, there was little to no
support staff in place. The clear implication was that it
may be difficult to provide a quick response that included a
line-by-line review of the text. He did state he would
address the HCA with Amman.

11. (C) Denmark: Del met with Danish Minister Niels Erik D.
Jensen, Permanent Representative to the OPCW. Mr. Jensen
posed a few basic questions as to why an HCA was necessary,
who else has the USG approached, how many agreements have
been concluded and with whom. Del answered these questions
per guidance and expressed an interest in concluding an
agreement with Denmark in March 2005. Following
negotiations, Mr. Jensen contacted Copenhagen to ensure that
Denmark had the latest draft HCA text in hand and to query
whether the text was actively under review. He later
confirmed that the text was being reviewed as requested.

12. (C) Norway: Del approached Norwegian del with a request
to cover the HCA and the need to move forward with concluding
the text. Norwegian del stated that they were under guidance
from Oslo not to engage in any discussions until they had
time to adequately consider the text. In saying this
however, they did acknowledge the importance of addressing
the text and understood the U.S. desire to move forward with
an agreement as soon as feasible.


13. (C) Spain: Del met with Spanish MFA Rep Tomas Lopez
Vilarino to discuss the HCA provided to Spain for review.
Mr. Lopez acknowledged receipt of the text and stated Madrid
experts were reviewing it. He stated it had been Madrid's
intention to have experts at The Hague for HCA discussions.
It was decided at the last minute not to send anyone,
however, due to other ongoing events. He did acknowledge the
significance of the agreement, and stated he would contact
Madrid to highlight our desire to engage in dialogue on the
agreement in the near future, as well as the need to provide
specific comments to the text in the interim.


14. (C) Belgium: Del met briefly with Mr. Filip DeClercq of
the Belgian MFA and Mr. Dominique Jones of their MOD. While
not prepared to discuss the text line by line, their
delegation was notably familiar with the subject and
demonstrated little of the confusion over the document shown
by some other delegations. They stated simply that the
document required extensive legal review, as well as review
by other elements of their government and that they would
convey to Brussels the urgency with which we wanted the
matter treated. Neither expressed hesitation or skepticism
when del advised them we wished to pursue a substantive
discussion of the document, with an eye toward finalizing and
signing it, in the March 2005 time frame.


15. (U) Italy: Del met with Italian MFA Rep Dr. Gianfranco
Tracci to obtain a status update on the U.S./Italian HCA,
which was scheduled to have been signed in Rome in Oct 04.
Tracci stated that the agreement had in fact been signed on 6
Oct 04. However, he added that the agreement still needed to
be submitted to Parliament for ratification. When asked how
long he anticipated the ratification process taking, Tracci
stated that it could take up to two years. Del asked how the
U.S. should treat the agreement in the interim. It was
Tracci's view that it should be treated as a formal agreement.


16. (C) Del also solicited Tracci's views on releasing the
unclassified U.S./Italian HCA to other member-States. We

SIPDIS
explained that, based on a number of requests, doing so may
facilitate the process of getting other agreements approved.
Tracci stated with a significant degree of confidence that he
saw and anticipated no problem at all in releasing the
agreement to other member states. Del pointed out that we
still need to consider the matter in Washington, and if no
concerns exist, we would make a formal request to Italy for
release of the agreement to other countries. Tracci
concurred with our approach.


17. (C) Germany: Del met with MFA Rep Bernhard Brasack to
gain more insight into Germany's request to have the HCA
currently being negotiated with Germany be a more "ad hoc and
generalized arrangement" than what was being proposed by the
U.S. Mr. Brasack pointed out that Germany's position to have
such an ad hoc arrangement came from "high-up" in their MFA,
suggesting they had little latitude to conclude the agreement
in any other manner. He also stated that the MOD had
expressed little support for the proposed text as currently
drafted. Brasack stated it was Germany's view that the
proposed text was logistically unfeasible to support and
execute. More specifically, he stated that too many German
resources would be needed and consumed to support the
envisioned size of the U.S. host team (50 personnel). It
was his view that the U.S. only needed to have a small
contingent of liaison representatives (1 to 2 personnel)
present to represent U.S. interests, and that we must trust
Germany's ability to help protect U.S. interests during the
course of a CI. He also pointed out that the mutual
notification requirements upon receipt of a CI notification
did not make sense. Finally, Brasack stated it was Germany's
objective to demonstrate compliance as quickly possible,
suggesting the U.S. desire to control the pace of the
inspection (via full use of the CI timelines to prepare out
assets) would create significant political problems for
Germany. In stating the above however, Brasack did not
discourage the del from providing a counter-proposal to
Germany's latest response to the U.S. draft


18. (U) Javits sends.
RUSSEL