(C) CWC/BWC: MEETING OF CLOSE ALLIES, PARIS,

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 07 PARIS 002399

SIPDIS

GENEVA FOR CD DEL; HAGUE FOR CWC DEL

E.O. 12958: DECL: 04/07/2015
TAGS: PARM PREL TBIO CBW
SUBJECT: (C) CWC/BWC: MEETING OF CLOSE ALLIES, PARIS,
MARCH 10, 2005

REF: A. STATE 041125

B. STATE 246161

C. STATE 41021

Classified By: Political Minister-Counselor Josiah Rosenblatt for reaso
ns 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (C) Summary: Close Allies (U.S., UK, France, Germany) met
to coordinate actions for the upcoming OPCW Executive Council
meeting and to review both joint and bilateral efforts on
compliance, Article VII implementation, financial/personnel
matters and CW destruction. Discussion on BWC primarily
focused on planning for the June Experts Meeting on Codes of
Conduct for Scientists. Although useful as a tool for
coordination, the Paris meeting was truncated due to a French
labor strike and lacked its traditional interaction due in
part to the absence of key participants and a general
reliance on the U.S. to take the lead on CWC/BWC issues. End
Summary.


2. (C) France hosted a meeting of the Close Allies on March
10 to cover pressing issues relating to the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC) and Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).
The U.S. Delegation was led by Guy Roberts, OSD BWC Deputy,
standing in for Amb. Donald Mahley. He was joined by the
U.S. Representative to the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons, Amb. Eric Javits, and a delegation
consisting of State BWC Deputy Katharine Crittenberger (State
VC),Jennie Gromoll and Dan Callahan (State AC),Sue Ryan and
Louis Alvarado (State VC),Ed Freeman (DOC) and Emboff Leslie
Ordeman. UK Delegation - Sarah Price, Gerald Erskine (MOD),
James Harrison (MOD),Martin Rudduck (Trade),and Mark
Matthews (Hague del). France - Marion Paradas (MFA),Sophie
Moal-Makame (Hague Del),Frederic Aubry, Laure Becque-Corcos,
Stephanie Dare-Doyen (Trade),Bruno Dupre, Emmanuel Pizzo
(MOD),Etienne Sur, Gabriel Bernier and, on loan from UK
Hamish Cowell (MFA). Germany - Bernhard Brasach, Gabriele
Kraatz-Wadsack (MFA) and Ronald Albrecht (Hague Del/Art. VII
Facilitator).


3. (C) Allies were in general agreement with the U.S.
approach on most CWC and BWC issues, although testy about
U.S. and Russian CW destruction deadlines and their
inter-relationship. It is clear that the UK is spread thin
on WMD issues and distracted by its upcoming Presidency of
the EU, current G-8 Presidency and Geneva BWC Chairmanship
for 2005. But for sporadic comments, the UK did not engage
beyond the party line on CWC or BWC. Due to a Paris strike,
UK CD Amb. John Freeman was unable to attend and address the
group on his plans for the BWC Codes of Conduct session in
June. MFA Rep Sarah Price spoke on his behalf. However,
others around the table were not well versed on the fine
details, and little detailed discussion ensued. (Note: The
UK released the "second Freeman letter" in Geneva March 21,
(and distributed it during this meeting) having had only
comments from the U.S. End Note.) Although the French had a
large delegation, there was little interaction in any
discussion. The German delegation filled the void by
peppering the U.S. del with detailed questions, primarily on
CWC related issues.


--Compliance--


4. (C) Del members Crittenberger and Ryan provided updates
on the U.S. compliance diplomacy initiative and compliance
issues related to Kazakhstan, Iran, and Libya. U.S.
presentations were positively received by allied partners and
generated compliance discussion.


5. (C) Although the French presented no "new elements of
compliance," Marion Paradas offered that compliance diplomacy
has "good momentum." During Australia Group-related meeting
in Beijing the week before, the Chinese MFA Reps emphasized
the "need for treaty compliance and nonproliferation
initiatives."


6. (C) Regarding specific country compliance issues, U.K.
experts Erskine and Harrison stated that the U.K. shares U.S.
compliance concerns but had little new information to report.
The U.K continues to monitor 10 states of concern closely,
including Libyan CW destruction efforts as they want to be
confident before stating that Libyan WMD has been eliminated.
U.K. continues to have concerns about Iran, as does the
U.S., but had little to add to the U.S. presentation.
Erskine stated that the U.K. has "many questions" about how
Iraq's CWC declaration will be compiled. The U.K. is
monitoring Middle Eastern countries that may or could join
the CWC including Syria and Lebanon.


7. (C) Citing U.S. efforts to acquire copies of specific
Technical Secretariat (TS) reports of inspections in Iran in
1999, German Rep Brasach lamented the inadequate scrutiny by
States Parties of Iran's initial declaration and that the TS
was too quick to give Iran's declared CWPFs certificates of
destruction. Berlin is discussing this issue with the TS; it
needs to be more transparent about its activities. UK Reps
agreed with U.S. and German positions. Germany is concerned
that the OPCW needs to make certain that there is a "real"
conversion of the Rabta CWPF, and that Tripoli not follow the
example of past conversions in Russia and elsewhere that
either left CW production capacity intact or did not result
in commercially viable enterprises. Libya and Russia could
benefit from additional international assistance to implement
their CWC obligations.


--Financial Issues--


8. (C) 2006 OPCW Budget: Del delivered points regarding
U.S. perspective on the 2006 OPCW budget, indicating we will
push for a very lean budget and further improvements in the
"results-based" aspects of the budget. Del also noted that
we will seek further increases in the number of OCPF
inspections ("Other Chemical Production Facilities,"
producing discrete organic chemicals not listed on Schedules
1, 2, 3 above certain thresholds); push for a practical
approach to dealing with the increasing number of vacancies;
and take a closer look at the adequacy of the current
training scheme for new inspectors. The del also highlighted
the increasing problem of non-payment, which has resulted in
a sizable number of member states losing voting rights for
failure to pay dues. All recommended demarching capitals to
encourage payment. The UK echoed the U.S. points on pursuing
a lean 2006 budget, further developing results-based
budgeting (RBB) elements, increasing OCPF inspections, and
addressing vacancies and non-payment. Germany assesses
payment problem is worse because additional States Parties
are paying only enough of their assessments to keep their
voting rights. Berlin thinks that Brazil's payment shortfall
is due to a "political grudge over an old issue," referring
to the Bustani situation. Beyond this, German and French
dels offered little on this issue other than general support
for U.S. and UK points.


9. (C) Director-General selection: Amb. Javits reviewed
U.S. approach to selection process for the next
Director-General. The U.S. would support reappointment of
Argentinean Director-General Rogelio Pfirter whose contract
ends in June 2006, if he is interested. Allies agreed
Pfirter had done an excellent job, post-Bustani, in running
the OPCW. It was acknowledged the Latin American Group
(Grulac) has profited from several terms, and because there
was no early indication of support for any other qualified
candidates, there was a general expression of the group that
the DG, if willing, deserved the support of the Close Allies
for another term. However, France and the UK said formal
decisions from capitals were needed. After confirmation of
support in capitals, Allies will ascertain Pfirter's
willingness to serve another term and indicate group's
support for his candidacy if he is interested. All agreed a
needed precedent could be established during this nomination
process -expected to be non-controversial - unlike when
former DG Bustani raised his re-appointment under Any Other
Business. Germany made a point of noting this group should
coordinate our approach, unlike last time when one country
moved out unilaterally.


10. (C) U.S. Del shared its thoughts on process. Ideally, a
letter would be sent from the Chairman of the Executive
Council to all States Parties, by early April announcing the
decision of the DG to be a candidate and setting a date of
August 1 for other candidates, if any, to step forward and
submit CVs. Candidates would address the September 27-30
Executive Council. A decision could then be taken based on
its recommendations at the November Conference of the States
Parties (CSP-10).


11. (C) UK and German Reps noted the WEOG ought to be
careful in its presentation of this proposal to the EC
Chairman, lest excessive WEOG fingerprints hurt the process.
If acceptable and in an effort to avoid excessive debate on
procedures, the EC Chairman would state the above process in
his letter and consult with regional vice-chairman to achieve
general acceptance for this approach. Allies agreed to
confirm this approach in capitals, consult in The Hague and
be sure Pfirter is on-board. The next EC Chairman will be
voted at March EC and installed May 10.


12. (SBU) "Amigo" system: The German del voiced a general
concern about the recent trend of the TS hiring staff from
member state delegations to the OPCW, but did not raise
doubts about any specific individual. This approach,
characterized by Brasach as the "amigo" system, could have
the effective result of narrowing the likely pool of
applicants that are seriously considered, and also noted a
number of members from current delegations that are angling
for a spot in the Technical Secretariat (TS). Amb. Javits
offered that, while the "amigo" system should not be taken to
an extreme, the DG should be given a certain latitude in
selecting his senior staff, having done a good job so far.
The UK del noted that, while this is a tricky question, there
are no glaringly bad examples so far, offering praise for the
Legal Advisor, Amb. Onate (Mexico) and Special Projects
Director Amb. Khodakov (Russia) and that the specific nature
of the OPCW's work would inherently favor those candidates
who have had direct experience with the OPCW.


13. (SBU) ILOAT/Provident Fund: Del provided a U.S.
non-paper analyzing the International Labor Organization's
recent judgment on claims by TS staff related to the
Provident (investment) Fund, and stressed that steps should
also be taken to protect the OPCW from similar charges in the
future. Del noted increased member state oversight was not
sufficient and that the procedures for running the Fund need
to be revised to formally limit the risk of financial losses,
which could prompt further claims in the ILOAT. The UK and
France voiced their displeasure with the judgments and agreed
upon the need to permanently resolve this issue.


--Article VII (Implementation)--


14. (SBU) Allies were surprisingly accepting of U.S.
suggestions on potential measures taken after the CSP for
those States Parties not fully implementing the Convention,
but noted the likely difficulty in getting such measures
approved. Specific timelines and criteria are spelled out in
U.S. non-paper distributed prior to the Paris meeting. (See
para 34). Formal comments have been requested by mid-April.
The UK del offered strong support for the paper, but appear
to view it as a tactical exercise, not as a "bottom line."
France appeared the most lukewarm in its support, seemingly
inclined to push the issue off until the fall. German Rep
suggested adding even more detail to the paper, yet surmised
it would be difficult to get Executive Council agreement to
any measures prior to the September EC. He specifically
noted that in a recent meeting with members of the African
Group, delegations appeared united in opposition to the idea
of "measures" against those who fail to meet the deadline,
and that the emphasis should remain on assistance. He
suggested this group meet with newly appointed Art. VII
"czar" Mexican Amb. Onate. Examples were given of
legislative problems making implementation slow even in key
capitals such as Onate's. Roland Munch and Mark Matthews
(present/past Facilitators) noted the disorganization and
infighting amongst Technical Secretariat offices. Onate is
off to a good start naming 23 target countries and will be
traveling personally to many of the TS and national
workshops.


15. (SBU) Del member Gromoll noted the urgency for bilateral
assistance visits in capitals, giving examples of the
progress made the week before in Kenya, Burundi and Rwanda.
U.S. and TS lawyers sat down with those trying to establish
implementing measures, such as the Office of National
Authority rep, and walked through details and in all cases
agreed a national Action Plan for completion of measures
prior to agreed December 2005 deadline. Each country was
reticent to accept U.S. help but by the visit's end were
praising success made (this holds true in many Caribbean
countries as well). U.S. high-priority countries were
relayed to group. While regional workshops are helpful in
general, Gromoll argued that the time has come for a
state-by-state review of needed assistance and close
coordination with the TS on prioritization of those that have
requested assistance and those targeted as non-proliferation
concerns. Representatives of those States Parties receiving
assistance could usefully be approached to spread the word on
usefulness of bilateral visits.


16. (SBU) The three allies agreed that the paper should be
distributed more widely during or around the June EC, and
that doing so earlier would put a damper on the current
period when assistance is the emphasis. In this way, States
Parties might turn in requests for assistance by the
requested June EC meeting knowing penalties will be
instituted. Group will stay in close contact on those
countries needing assistance in an effort to cover the
waterfront before more time passes. While agreeing in
principle and lauding the cause, UK, France and Germany have
merely relied on regional workshops and not focused the
resources on what is needed at this juncture (even within the
EC). Munch and Matthews noted on the margins appreciation
for Washington's efforts and continued nudging of this group
in particular.


17. (U) French MOD Rep then noted planned training sessions
in Paris in June and October and potential to do them again
in successive years. MFA Rep Moal noted 45-50 participants
have attended in the past, at which point Munch interjected
States will attend as a method to insulate themselves from
doing nothing further before the CSP. U.S. Rep Roberts
re-emphasized the need for bilateral visits and the high cost
of inviting all States Parties to a session in Paris (hinting
that participants are likely to be those higher-ranking
wishing a trip to Paris).


--Information Update on CW Destruction--



18. (C) Allies focused mainly on Russian and U.S.
destruction efforts. However, Germany believes the situation
in Albania is a concern from a nonproliferation perspective,
CW must be kept out of the "wrong hands." Germany is not
concerned from the perspective of Albanian compliance with
CWC. Regarding assistance for the Kambarka CWDF, Germany
indicated that while there had been delays on the Russian
side, such as problems with delivery of equipment by
subcontractors, it was overall satisfied with the level of
bilateral cooperation. Germany indicated that completing the
facility by the end of 2005, as envisioned by Russia, was
unlikely and, in any case, the facility would not likely
begin destroying CW until mid-2006. The Russians have
expressed interest in Germany providing assistance in
constructing a facility to destroy nerve agent stocks at
Leonidovka and is apparently planning on constructing the
Maradykovskiy plant on its own. (Note: No mention was made
of the facility at Pochep. End Note.). The UK voiced
concerns about Russian plans at Maradykovskiy, especially
regarding disposal of the reaction masses, and will, like the
U.S., discuss this with the Russians on the margins of the
March Executive Council. (UK rep provided U.S. del with copy
of UK questions on Maradykovskiy.) On the margins, UK
indicated interest in helping Russia construct a CWDF at
Kizner.


19. (C) U.S. Rep Roberts provided an update on the status of
U.S. destruction efforts. Without specifically pressing on
the issue of the U.S.'s ability to meet the 2012 deadline,
the allies, with Germany taking the lead, expressed concern
that any delays in U.S. destruction efforts would make it
difficult to put further pressure on Russia to meet its CW
destruction obligations in a timely manner. The allies are
also looking to the U.S. to "set the best example," vis-a-vis
Russia, on issues such as endpoint of destruction and
ensuring proper verification. Germany and the UK showed
particular interest in U.S. plans for second stage disposal
of hydrolysates resulting from neutralization at the Newport
CWDF, with the former voicing concerns about recent
statements from DoD officials that one of the options being
considered for accelerating destruction is re-evaluating the
endpoint of destruction.


20. (C) In response to allied concerns, Roberts reminded
allies that the U.S. is committed to doing all it can to meet
its destruction obligations in stark contrast to the
less-than-adequate Russian destruction efforts. Roberts
affirmed that the U.S. has not changed its position, and
remains unconvinced that first-stage neutralization of
Russian nerve agent satisfies the endpoint of destruction.
Roberts emphasized that the U.S. has no intention of cutting
a bilateral deal with Russia on endpoint, and encouraged the
allies to take a more active role in advancing discussion of
this issue at the OPCW. The German del expressed
satisfaction with Robert's statement that nothing in the
recently published verification plan and facility agreement
for the Newport CWDF was intended to establish first-stage
hydrolysis as constituting the end-point of agent destruction
for CW purposes.


--OCPF Inspections--


21. (C) The UK emphasized the need for stronger support in
the WEOG on OCPF inspections and believes that any
consideration of tweaking the proposed U.S./Swiss formula
should be pushed off until we are at endgame. The UK wants
OCPF selection methodology resolved by the June EC. Germany
offered support in "generic" terms, including the involvement
of States Parties in the selection process, but then raised
more general issues, such as State Party failure to declare
OCPFs, the need for random re-inspections, and asking how
many inspections would be enough. Germany agreed the system
must be fixed. Such a fix could entice new members to accede
to CWC. France expressed "appreciation" of U.S./Swiss
efforts, but emphasized the importance of ensuring "balance"
in the selection process. France suggested that dels
consider developing "technical arrangements" to avoid any
perceived imbalances, but specifically said they were not
advocating changes to the proposed formula. Instead, France
recommended incorporating into any eventual decision
transparency measures and opportunities for evaluation to be
employed during initial utilization of the selection criteria
so that member states can see the impact of the new approach.

--------------
Biological Weapons Convention
--------------

--2005 Work Program--


22. (SBU) Chairman's Views. Although the 2005 Chairman, UK
Amb. John Freeman was unable to attend the meeting due to its
curtailment; UK HOD Price spoke on his behalf. She
circulated the draft of a second diplomatic note Freeman
intends to provide all States Parties, elaborating in more
detail upon his plans for addressing the 2005 agenda item and
for the June Experts Meeting on Codes of Conduct for
Scientists. Freeman plans to send the letter out "quite
soon," (Note: Occurred March 21. End Note.) will take
comments, and is not trying to be prescriptive. In sending
the letter, he will be encouraging broad based participation
in the meeting, trying to ensure the right people speak at
the appropriate times, and inviting feedback from Parties.
He is particularly interested in what States Parties want at
the end of the process. From his perspective, one draft code
of conduct is not achievable or desirable, but he hopes to
stimulate discussion and raise awareness of the myriad
activity taking place. Price explained that Freeman might be
looking at a result that could include elements or
considerations that should be take into account by those
preparing codes of conducts. The UK is conducting outreach
with MFA's and S&T communities; Secretariat in Geneva is
preparing background papers on work on-going and potential
participants.


23. (SBU) Views of Others. German del welcomed the details
and plans to make 2-4 presentations at the Experts Meeting
focusing on the work of government science, university and
professional bodies; Germany wasn't having much luck
generating interest from industry. Brasack said the German
constitution does not provide for "promulgating" codes so the
result of the 2005 meetings cannot be one universal code of
conduct. Results could include non-exhaustive, generic
elements that could be of importance when laying down codes
at a national level. U.S. Rep Roberts noted that governments
can impose training requirements, etc., in providing grants
or contracts, even when there are no Constitutional
requirements. Roberts reviewed the U.S. objectives for the
meeting (ref c). French Rep Paradas stressed the importance
of managing expectations of the WEOG, noting that the results
of 2005 should be consistent with those of 2004 and 2003.
French MFA Official Bernier noted that the MFA was working
with the PM's office, the Ministry of Health and the National
Advisory Board for Health and Life Sciences in preparing for
the meeting. They, too, were having difficulties engaging
industry, which doesn't want to be associated with BW.
France was looking for basic, straightforward and reasonable
results.


24. (SBU) Organization of Meeting. France stressed the
importance of the distinctions between open and closed
sessions. UK Rep Price said they were looking for diverse,
representative participation in the Meeting, noting they too
had generated little industry interest. Brasach suggested
that WEOG exchange lists of presentations in order to reduce
overlap and fill in gaps. U.S. Rep, picking up on the French
comments about open/closed meetings, deployed guidance ref c
on participation in the Meeting, the role of relevant NGO's
versus political interest groups, U.S. opposition to NGO's
being embedded in national delegations, and suggested as a
management tool that the Chairman request abstracts from all
non-government entities wishing to contribute to the Experts
Meetings. The UK did not comment on the abstract proposal.

25. (C) Follow Up on 2003/2004. Discussion on follow-up of
the 2003, 2004 meetings in part digressed into discussion of
how to approach the Sixth Review Conference (RevCon) in 2006.
French deloff Bernier suggested reviewing the usefulness of
the 2003-2005 Work Program and addressing how to handle it
including follow-up in 2006. Brasach responded that the
process was "dual-use" - it addressed important, practical
measures, and could provide material for further elaboration
post-RevCon. While the RevCon won't agree to continue Ad Hoc
Group activities, the importance of bioterrorism, and other
urgent bio-related issues, are such that States may not want
a four-five year gap. All should be thinking about suitable
topics for follow-up.


26. (C) UK Rep said it had yet to assess results of the
current Work Program, but it does see value in intersessional
activity between RevCons to expand knowledge and keep States
talking about the BWC. Further, they would not want to
signal that the past three years have been wasted; our
assessment of the Work Program should be promoted positively.
U.S. Rep agreed that we need to approach the Sixth Review
Conference with a positive message on the 2003-2005 Work
Program. At that time, we will be looking to see what States
have done in follow-up to the Work Program elements. The
RevCon should reflect on the 2003-2005 Work Program, as
specified when the program was agreed. Germany, France, and
U.S. indicated they were preparing updated lists of experts
and labs to provide the UN SYG regarding investigations of
BW/CW use.


27. (U) Sixth RevCon: Chairmanship. No candidates have
been noted; the non-aligned will hold the chairmanship.


28. (SBU) Sixth RevCon: Substance. French Rep reported the
European Union is coordinating European preparations for the
RevCon. The Dutch are sponsoring an EU seminar in April, and
while EU President, had requested a study focusing on
"Institutions/Substance/CBMs/New Elements." The UK will
continue EU work under its Presidency focusing on practical
measures to win consensus and allow small but valuable input
to the Review Conference. UK noted there were a number of
ideas being bandied about, such as the UN SYG's High-Level
Panel suggestions to negotiate Verification and Biosafety
Protocols. London has tried to dampen UN-related enthusiasm
for a Verification Protocol and believes the notion of a
single Biosafety Protocol also needs to be dealt with. UK is
coordinating with Finns and Austrians on the RevCon ideas
(they follow UK in the EU Presidency). Germany pointed to
the CWC Review Conference where Action Plans on
universality and national implementation were adopted as a
model for the BWC RevCon; UK suggested that universal
membership and compliance are the key issues to address.


29. (SBU) U.S. Rep noted that the U.S. was in the early
stages of preparing for the Review Conference, but confirmed
that a return to Protocol or "verification mechanism"
negotiations was off the table. U.S. noted that the WEOG was
in line for Drafting Committee Chairmanship, and asked if
others had considered how to organize the RevCon - conduct a
traditional Article-by-Article Review or organize along other
lines?


30. (U) BWC/1925 Geneva Protocol Anniversaries. Germany
will host a seminar March 23 in Berlin on the occasion of the
BWC's 30th anniversary. France reported that its earlier
efforts to coordinate with the Swiss on a symposium
commemorating the 1925 Geneva Protocol's 80th anniversary
were "on hold." They weren't clear what the Swiss might be
planning. U.S. and UK noted the BWC Depositaries would
release a joint statement on the BWC's 30th anniversary
(March 26). France may do the same in June as Depositary of
the Geneva Protocol. G-8 Senior Review Group members have
agreed to note the anniversaries and the progress of the Work
Program in July Gleneagles Summit statement.


31. (U) BWC CBMs. All are on track to submit CBM
declarations by April 15 deadline and encourage others to do
the same. (Note: EU WMD Coordinator Gianelli is cracking the
whip on the many EU countries not submitting acceptable CBMs
in past.)


32. (U) French Interior Ministry comments on INTERPOL
Bioterrorism database: French Reps confessed that the
Interior Ministry statement two days prior had been a
surprise; MFA had not even seen full draft. They promised to
provide Interior Minister Villepin's statement and any
additional information as it becomes available.

33. (U) Next Meeting: Germany offered to host in Berlin in
September/October.

End Cable Text.
LEACH