CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000450 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: DECL: 02/28/2016 TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR WEEK ENDING FEBRUARY 24 REF: STATE 27141 (NOTAL) Classified By: Pete Ito, Deputy Permanent Representative to the OPCW. Reasons: 1.4 (B, D) This is CWC-17-06. -------------- RUSSIA -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Del reps met with Victor Smirnovskiy of the Russian delegation on February 21 to go over a variety of issues in the run-up to the March Executive Council session. Smirnovskiy confirmed that Russia has submitted a proposal for its 45% deadline (requesting Dec. 31, 2009) to the Technical Secretariat. He added that Russia does not intend to submit any additional extension request, but does intend to submit a detailed plan (by April 29, and not/not the March EC). ¶2. (C) Smirnovskiy noted that Moscow's reaction to the South Korean extension request is that the request cannot be approved without an accompanying detailed plan. He specifically mentioned the pressure Russia receives regarding its own plans, and Moscow's interest that all possessor states be treated equally. Moscow was not, continued Smirnovskiy, as concerned about the lack of a specific date in the request. ¶3. (SBU) Del reps asked about Russian intentions regarding distribution of the facility agreement/verification plan for Kambarka and Maradykovsky. Smirnovskiy said his understanding is that there are a few minor issues that still need to be addressed with the TS (Note: not exactly what the TS has expressed to the U.S. del),but that their National SIPDIS Authority is acting on a letter they recently received detailing these concerns. He made no commitment in terms of getting the documents out in time for the May EC. ¶4. (SBU) In response to questions from del rep about operations at the two new facilities, Smirnovskiy replied that to his knowledge, there were no issues with the test in December, and operations will begin "soon." They do not expect Maradykovsky to begin operations until summer or fall. (Note: this is different from the last timeline the U.S. del had heard, which projected start-up around April.) ¶5. (SBU) Del rep inquired as to whether Moscow had any significant concerns on Pine Bluff and Newport documents (both of which will be up for EC consideration in March). On PBBDF, Smirnovskiy noted that Russia simply did not have time to study the document prior to the December EC. He indicated that Russia did not have any objections. On Newport, Smirnovskiy anticipated Moscow would still have reservations if the U.S. has not yet specifically named a second stage treatment facility. Del rep explained that the new U.S. language was consistent with that in the RCWDF documents, and that it specifically addressed when we would consider the agent destroyed and how the TS would be able to verify. Smirnovskiy said the delegation would query Moscow, but their del believes it might be most productive simply to discuss this on the margins of the March EC. ¶6. (SBU) The discussion turned to the EC agenda item on rationalization of the EC program of work, which falls under Russian Amb. Gevorgian. Smirnovskiy said that Gevorgian has not yet found a facilitator, and it appeared that Gevorgian has been pressing Smirnovskiy and the other delegation members to find a solution. When asked about the time-senstivity of the issue, Smirnovskiy referred to the report language that suggested convening consultations "without delay." Both delegations agreed the choice of facilitator would be important in setting the tone for productive consultations, and also discussed the value in waiting to take any sort of decision on proceeding on this matter. (Note: it may be important to see whether there is a change of which vice-chairs handle which cluster, and whether South Africa will continue to vocally push this issue.) -------------- QEXT GENERATION AGENTS -------------- ¶7. (C) Drawing on the points provided in reftel, del rep met with delegates from the UK (Mark Matthews),Switzerland (Ruth flint),Austria (Hans Schramml) and Czech Republic (Jitka Brodska) to discuss the recent ill-considered comments made by Scientific Advisory Board Chairman Matousek to the Western Group. All of the delegates appreciated the clarification that the U.S. did not develop or weaponize NGA, including "Novichoks." They also agreed with the U.S. that it is a bad idea to have a discussion on whether to add NGAs to the CWC Schedules of Chemicals. Finally, they all also stated that they had not heard of any interest by any delegation in pursuing such an effort, and the issue has not/not resurfaced in WEOG. -------------- FINANCIAL RULES CONSULTATIONS -------------- ¶8. (U) The Financial Rules consultations resumed on February 23 and finished up a second run-through of the amendments. Items 10.1.04 and 10.3.04 were approved with no discussion. Item 10.4.01 - Approved. Italy as in previous discussions expressed concern about the wording of "legal liability," they feel the wording could lead to actual legal liability to the OPCW. The facilitator noted the current discussion is about the amount that will need the Director General's approval, which will rise from Euro 4,000 to Euro 5,000. This was approved. The facilitator will speak with the Italian delegate to try to resolve the "legal liability" issue prior to the next consultations. Items 10.6.04, 10.6.05 and 10.6.06 - Deferred. Germany raised the issue, and was echoed by Japan, Italy and Sweden, whether this item should even be in the financial rules. These delegations also noted the language is not in line with language that came from CSP-8/Dec.3. India and Iran both feel this item should remain in financial rules, with Iran stating that any equipment used in inspections should be available to any country being inspected so they can become familiar with the equipment. Germany and France suggested looking at the IAEA and see if they have language that can work in this instance. Germany further noted that certainly inspected parties should know the equipment that is going to be used, but as only approved equipment is used, it should already be known Item 11.1.03 - Approved. Japan asked that the word "drawn" be changed to "prepared." There was no objection. ¶9. (U) The facilitator said he would work with the TS to prepare new amendment language to incorporate agreed upon changes, as well as drafting alternate language for items which were deferred using delegates suggestions. The consultations closed and will resume next Thursday, March 2. -------------- ARTICLE VII - BELGIAN PROGRESS AND A DESIRE TO HELP IN AFRICA -------------- ¶10. (U) Ambassador Javits and del reps met with the Belgian representative, Walter Lion, on February 22 at Lion's request. Lion began by noting that he expected Belgium's legislation to be passed in the three regional assemblies and the national parliament by May when Belgium replaces the Netherlands on the EC. ¶11. (U) Lion then said that Belgium was interested in providing Article VII support to the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, and Burundi. He said he knew that the U.S. had conducted assistance visits in the region in conjunction with the TS, and asked that we provide him with our thoughts on what types of visits would be most effective. Lion said that because Belgium had a solid understanding of the three countries and a diplomatic presence in each, he believed that the Belgians would be well placed to not only provide assistance visits but to follow up through their local embassies. Lion said the Belgians were open to U.S. and TS thoughts on whether Belgium could be most effective through strictly bilateral visits, multilateral visits, or visits working with experts from the TS. ¶12. (U) Ito sends. ARNALL