CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001041

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN)
NSC FOR DICASAGRANDE
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR
WEEK ENDING MAY 5


This is CWC-41-06.

--------------
CHINA
--------------


1. (U) PRC Ambassador Xue Hanqin asked to meet with Amb.
Javits on April 28 to discuss a number of issues. Xue raised
the PRC request on the margins of last year's Conference of
States Parties for bilateral discussions concerning issues
ranging from destruction of abandoned CW to chemical industry
issues. She said that the PRC is still coordinating a
response to the U.S. questions on the ACW issue. Xue noted
that in addition to the various ministries in Beijing, there
are 13 local authorities that need to be contacted for
information. She also made the point that the Chinese are
very focused on the issue of dealing with Iran's nuclear
program, and this was drawing attention away from other issues


2. (U) Xue said that the Japan/PRC request for an extension
of ACW destruction will not be on the agenda of the May
Executive Council. However, Zhang Shen, who accompanied Xue,
said that the document would be available by the May 15
destruction informals so it could be the basis for discussion
on that topic that day. On the discussions with Japan, Xue
simply reiterated that there is still no general agreement
with Japan on a destruction program or on specific issues
such as destroying ACW on-site or transporting to a central
facility.


3. (U) In an aside about the U.S. extension request, Xue
commented on the fact that delegations are going to link
destruction issues and implementation issues. Xue also spent
a great deal of time expressing her concern about the
Technical Secretariat agreement with the African Union, and
emphasizing that in her view this set a bad precedent. She
stressed that the authority to conclude agreements is with
the EC, not the TS, and it is important that the Director
General make a clear statement about this at the next EC.
(Amb. Javits has already discussed this with the DG and is
helping to craft some appropriate language.)


4. (U) On the 10th anniversary of entry into force of the
CWC, Xue said that Director for Special Projects Krzysztof
Paturej had raised the issue of PRC attendance and asked for
Ministerial-level attendance. Xue emphasized that it would
be important to coordinate on the level of attendance,
especially within the P-5.

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


5. (U) Facilitator Maarten Lak (Netherlands) held a May 2
consultation on Article VII, supported by Legal Advisor Onate
and Implementation Support Branch (IPB) personnel.
Discussion centered on two topics: the advance copy of the
Article VII status report and IPB/Onate's discussions of the
results of recent Technical Assistance Visits. First,
Belgium inquired whether the status report could be used to
set TS implementation priorities using such factors as date
of EIF, whether or not post-conflict, etc. IPB chief Magda
Bauta said yes, but only if delegations first achieve
consensus on indicators to use before providing suggestions
to the TS.


6. (U) Ireland asked whether in the specific case of
post-conflict states, whether the TS could capitalize on
internal legal capacity-building elements in country. The TS
responded that no, it had not, but this might be a useful
venue to further implementation. Finally, New Zealand,
Colombia and the U.S. noted that a number of lines in the
table provided (faxed back to ISN/CB) noted only that a fax
was received on a specific date, but no details of the
information provided appeared. Onate noted that the table
was a synopsis of a larger document, which is available on
the external server, and is continually updated (note: it
should be checked frequently). Lak stated that he would
provide draft EC report language at the next consultation on

11 May.


7. (U) TAV results: (Note: Interestingly, although many of
the TAVs discussed were joint U.S./TS efforts, U.S.
involvement was mentioned only in the instances of the
Philippines TAV and the Indonesian information exchange.)
First, Onate discussed the visit to St. Kitts and Nevis,
where 11 States Party (and one non-SP, the Bahamas) attended
a workshop sponsored by the Organization of Eastern Caribbean
States. Three members of the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA)
and two members of IPB attended to assist in drafting
implementing legislation. First, Belize has submitted its
legislation to its Cabinet and established its NA in the
Ministry of Defense. Three general approaches were taken:
the single act approach is being taken by Antigua (which
anticipates submitting its draft to the Cabinet in two
weeks),the Bahamas (which is expected to adhere shortly; its
NA will be in its MFA) and St. Kitts. An act integrating
implementation legislation for the CWC and other Conventions
(such as Rotterdam and Stockholm) is being taken by Dominica
(which expects to submit it to Parliament in late 2006) and
St. Lucia. Guyana and Trinidad prepared drafts for both
approaches and requested comments from the TS. Haiti
prepared draft legislation for imposing penalties and
established its NA in its Pharmaceutical Control Board. Much
progress is expected in the next few months.


8. (U) Onate reported that he spent April 10-12 in Argentina
where, just prior to his visit, the implementing legislation
was submitted to parliament. He then was in Lima, Peru, with
the Andean Community members April 24-25. Four of the five
states are in good shape. Bolivia established its NA in the
Ministry of Defense and had draft implementing legislation of
surprisingly good quality. Passage is expected in the next
three or four months. Peru modeled its legislation on that
of the UK, incorporating its private sector into its NA. Its
draft implementing legislation is finalized. The remaining
unresolved issue is privileges and immunities: by law Peru
can only issue visas for one year, not the required two.


9. (U) Colombia anticipates its implementing draft
legislation will be ready for its legislature in May 2006,
after elections. Venezuela also was a happy surprise, with
an established NA, initial declaration, and already two
industry inspections. The Ministries of Justice and Foreign
Affairs are finalizing the draft legislation. All that
remains is the approval of the petroleum industry. Sadly.
Ecuador has made little progress. It has an established NA,
which has no budget and no people. Its personnel turned over
four times this past year, which has impeded progress.
Ecuador formally asked for TS assistance.


10. (U) Anand Dhavle (IPB) discussed his February 13-15 TAV
to Tanzania. Just a year ago, its embassy in Brussels became
energized on the CWC front, which resulted in attendance at a
May 2005 TS meeting in Namibia. As a result of the TAV,
Tanzania has draft legislation on which OLA is commenting.
The newly established NA set out its action plan for
completing its implementation process. It also will be
hosting the 4th regional meeting of the National Authorities
of the Africa Group. One remaining issue is about to be
resolved: The ambassador in Brussels needs to be accredited
to the OPCW.


11. (U) Separately, del reps were advised the GRULAC was
fighting the U.S. initiative to put the highest priority on
TAVs for implementation support. In response, del rep had
coffee with the Colombian del rep just prior to the Article
VII consultation, to assure him that the U.S. request was not
an "either/or;" rather the U.S. is asking was asking for
additional TAVS. The U.S. values the role played by meetings
of the regional and sub-regional NAs, where TS exchanges with
the one or two attendees from capital are viewed as a useful
mechanism to obtain progress reports on a states'
implementation effort. However, these meetings are not/not
the way to forward implementation. TAVs to capitals result
in meetings of all relevant agencies, where all attendees
learn of their roles in their NA, and appropriate legislation
can be drafted. The Colombian del rep was grateful for the

explanation, acknowledged that the GRULAC had been
misinformed, and promised to explain the U.S. approach to
other GRULAC members.

--------------
INDUSTRY/LATE SUBMISSION OF DECLARATIONS
--------------


12. (U) Facilitator Larry Denyer (U.S.) presided over his
first consultation on this topic. TS officials presented an
informal paper describing the issue along with the TS Note
S/567/2006 dated 25 April 2006, and a series of graphs on
timeliness of annual declarations (faxed back to ISN/CB). In
general, timeliness of declarations has improved, but there
still much work to be done. Italy asked if the TS had ever
studied reasons behind the delay, and received a negative
reply along with speculation that potential causes were
delays related to the submission of classified materials and
lack of National Authority capacity, resulting in delays in
compilation and transmission of declarations.


13. (U) Italy, supported by Australia, China, India, Japan,
and The Netherlands, requested the TS study the situation and
present its conclusions to delegations. India also asked
whether the majority of the delays were insignificant, e.g.,
one or two days due to transmission issues, or whether
significant delays were the case, such as one or two months.
Italy also requested the TS to provide an annual report on
delays and the underlying causes. Australia asked for a list
of states that had not met the deadlines and the date on
which their declarations were received, as well as a list of
those states that submitted nothing at all.


14. (U) The UK noted that the CWC sets out clear deadlines
and wondered if use of the new Verification Information
System (VIS) might mitigate against some of the delays. (The
response was: no, still classified). Germany, supported by
Japan, asked whether the delays resulted in significant
unfairness, i.e., more industry inspections for those who
submit on time versus those states that delayed. If so,
Germany recommended consideration of appropriate
admonishments for states that do not comply.


15. (U) With respect to working on a nil declaration,
delegations agreed that this would address one aspect of the
problem. Iran raised concerns regarding potential legal
implications. Article III specified where nil declarations
were required (presence/absence CW stockpiles),but Article
VI purposely avoided such language. While this would not
prevent negotiation of such a declaration, delegations must
carefully consider possible formats and whether it would be
included in the Declarations Handbook. Would failure to
submit a nil declaration be a case of noncompliance? The
facilitator noted that the issue of legality had been raised
with the Legal Advisor, who had no objections. Several
states worried that submission of an annual nil declaration
would burden small NAs with yet another reporting
requirement. Switzerland, supported by the UK, demurred,
saying that the difficult part is reaching out to industry,
not filling in and submitting a short form.


16. (U) Overall, the first meeting was successful, with
twenty-six delegations in attendance. Given the early state
of play, there was quite a bit of interest and discussion
during the meeting. Facilitator will meet with the TS the
week of May 7 to discuss next steps.

--------------
INDUSTRY/OCPF SITE SELECTION
--------------


17. (U) Facilitator Luis Garcia (Spain) held a May 4
consultation on the issue of OCPF Site Selection Methodology.
Garcia's intent was to present corrected calculations for
his proposal using the most recent scenario (40 states
colluding against one state). Admitting that the TS had
bungled the last set of calculations due to the complexity of
his proposal, Garcia informed delegations that he now was
aware that it would be necessary to reduce the proposal's

complexity and that he is considering just how to do this.


18. (U) Delegations unanimously welcomed the decision to
find a more comprehensible proposal. Canada, supported by
China and Iran, noted that the TS would be inspecting sites,
not states, and recommended focusing on the industry sites.
Canada also urged Garcia to move ahead quickly to ensure
delegations agree on a more equitable and efficient selection
methodology as soon as possible. Russia, Brazil, India,
Iran, and Mexico reiterated their strong opposition to
inclusion of any political element, such as one state
nominating any other states. Japan, supported by Norway,
noted that any proposal will need to maintain elements to
ensure unpredictability, and noted that it could accept
geographic and political nominations from States Parties.


19. (U) Garcia, thinking out loud, described a possible way
ahead. First, it would be a one-step selection process.
Second, it would focus on plant sites, not states. Garcia,
when asked, would not confirm that he would prepare a new
paper. However, he did inform delegations that during the
week of June 19, he planned to schedule two consultations on
the methodology.


20. (U) After the consultation, Per Runn (Policy and Review
Branch) pulled aside del rep to propose an alternative
approach. The first step would focus on selection of the
number of inspections in each state, using the
0.5sqrt(number) 1 algorithm for both the number of facilities
and the A14 values. The second step would allow states to
participate by submitting requests to the TS such as, "Put my
points on facilities A, B, and C if Iran is selected, on
facilities D, E, and F if Germany is selected,..." etc. That
would allow states to increase the probabilities of selection
of individual facilities, assuming that the draw included a
mandate to inspect one (or two...) facilities in that
country. While this is a very attractive proposal, del reps
suspect that it would not meet the "non-political" criterion
of Brazil, Iran, India, Mexico, and Russia.

--------------
INDUSTRY/SCHEDULE 3 TRANSFERS
--------------


21. (U) Discussion in this consultation centered on the
latest facilitator's paper (dated March 22),which included
Iran's comments from the previous meeting. Many delegations
asked that much of what Iran requested be removed, and many
other changes were suggested. Iran reminded delegations of
their regional concerns and how the VIR continues to indicate
that the majority of Schedule 3 transfers to States not Party
are to one State in their region. Iran is also convinced
that, upon review of the discussion from the drafting of VA
Part VIII para 27, that the five years given to the
Conference to consider "other measures" was meant to be a
five-year grace period for these countries to come into the
CWC, after which they should face a transfer ban. Thus, they
see themselves as demonstrating significant flexibility in
discussing something other than a ban at this time.

-------------- --------------
INDUSTRY/LOW CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR SCHEDULE 2A/2A*
-------------- --------------


22. (U) Facilitator Steve Wade (U.K.) called a pre-meeting
for several delegations (France, Germany, Japan, UK, and
U.S.) to meet with him and Legal Advisor Onate regarding the
legal interpretation of VA Part VII para 5. Despite the
words of Onate, the result of this session seemed to solidify
the positions of these delegations to the idea that the
facilitator's proposal is outside the reading of this
paragraph. In the consultation, Wade presented the details
of his latest paper (dated 7 April 2006). Russia weighed in
first with concern about the facilitator's paper in light of
the language of VA Part VII para 5, which was joined by those
from the earlier discussion. Canada stated that it felt that
the "onus" was to demonstrate that industrial recovery of
PFIB at a given concentration was "difficult" and that, in
absence of such a demonstration, the facilitator's proposal

was acceptable.


23. (U) Mohamed Daoudi (IVB) recalled that, during a similar
discussion for Schedules 2B and 3, there was a general
consensus that 30 percent addressed the concerns of "ease of
recovery" across the board, regardless of total weight. Del
questioned why the fact that the set of chemicals was much
smaller meant that this same type of approach would not be
considered sufficient. Italy still supports the
facilitator's proposal; it also requested a written opinion
from LAO on the language of VA Part VII para 5.

--------------
CONFIDENTIALITY

SIPDIS
--------------


24. (U) Facilitator Betsy Sanders (U.S.) held a May 2
informal consultation on the situation regarding the
classification of information. Iran continued to obstruct
progress, but this time, India did not join support Iran's
efforts. Although the substance of the discussion is agreed,
the way ahead remains deadlocked. Iran insists that the
decisions must be implemented via EC report language, in
order to institute recommended changes right away. France,
Germany, Japan, Ireland, and the TS supported finalizing the
draft decision text, which would carry more weight and
provide States Parties not involved in the negotiations the
relevant background underlying the decisions.


25. (U) Ireland, supported by Germany, recommended that
delegations support both approaches: report language to
ensure that recommendations are implemented right away;
decision language to record the will of the Executive Council
to be endorsed by the Conference. The facilitator also
distributed draft EC report language, requesting the TS to
distribute to National Authorities the Confidentiality
Supplement to be included in the Declarations Handbook as an
annex. The facilitator asked delegations to provide concerns
and suggestions by May 10.


26. (U) Iran noted that the substance is delegations'
request that the TS include presentations by OCS experts on
classifying and handling documents segments in workshops,
seminars, and annual meetings of National Authorities. In
short, this amounts to EC meddling in internal TS management
issues. Unless and until someone presents a satisfactory
explanation for use of a decision instead of report language,
Iran will not budge. Furthermore, the draft decision as it
stands mixes elements. The preamble combines language from
Review Conference, the OPCW Policy on Confidentiality, and
informal information papers provided by the TS at the request
of delegations (this argument swayed no one),arguing that
this mix provided confusion, not clarity. Once again, the
facilitator was unable to achieve consensus on a way forward.


27. (U) Javits sends.
ARNALL