CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): SCENESETTER FOR

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000481 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: 03/06/2016 TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): SCENESETTER FOR 44TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION REF: THE HAGUE 42 Classified By: Ambassador Eric M. Javits, Permanent Representative to t he OPCW. Reasons: 1.4 (B, D) This is CWC-18-06. ¶1. (C) Summary: The focus of delegations at the March 14-17 Executive Council session will be whether possessor states in general, and the U.S. in particular, will submit extension requests regarding their 100% destruction deadlines. If those requests are not on the agenda, delegates will be looking for confirmation that they will be submitted by April ¶29. While the EC-44 provisional agenda looks extensive, there are few items ready for an EC decision. The key issues, such as a possible OPCW office in Africa, are only opportunities for grand-standing. The one important exception may be the selection of a chairman for the working group to prepare for the Second RevCon. But with a shortage of decisions to take, delegations have ample time to focus on CW destruction and drive home the point to possessor states that they are expected to provide extension requests by April ¶29. End Summary. -------------- EXTENSION REQUESTS -------------- ¶2. (C) Delegations anticipate that the U.S. and other possessor states will provide extension requests for their 100% destruction deadlines by the March EC. If those are not submitted, the delegates expect a clear promise by possessor states that they will do so by the April 29 deadline in the Convention. The South Korean submission of its extension request only reinforces those expectations. At this time, no other possessor state has followed the ROK example. The Russian delegation restated to us recently that while they have provided the Technical Secretariat with documents for the EC regarding their 45% destruction deadline, they do not intend to address the 100% deadline at the EC. We will keep Washington informed of the plans of other possessor states. ¶3. (C) Whatever any other possessor state may do, all eyes will certainly be on the U.S. Delegation has worked with Washington to be as transparent as possible with key delegations and the WEOG, and there should be little surprise if the U.S. does not submit its extension request at EC-44. However, if the U.S. does not clearly state that it will submit the request by April 29, that question will be repeatedly put to the U.S. in the formal sessions and side-bar conversations. There likely will be a great deal of attention devoted to the U.S. presentation at the March 13 destruction informals, as many delegations may be expecting a more detailed briefing than the standard update on progress toward the 45% milestone. Delegation has provided Washington with a draft EC statement for Amb. Javits that anticipates the extension request will not be ready for the March EC. The views of other delegations and proposed actions to be taken in The Hague were outlined in reftel, and will be updated as necessary. -------------- DESTRUCTION INFORMALS -------------- ¶4. (C) Although Amb. Javits' statement as currently drafted acknowledges the original U.S. intent to submit its extension request at the March EC, and assures delegations that the request will instead be submitted by April 29, 2006, States Parties' first opportunity to question the status of the U.S. program will be during the destruction informals. If the U.S. is unable to submit the request at the March EC, delegation strongly recommends that the standard update on progress toward meeting the 45% milestone is prefaced by a statement acknowledging the interest of delegations in a more detailed status update focused on the 100% deadline. The statement should explain that because the extension request is not yet ready for submission, provision of detailed program information beyond the 45% would be premature, and that the U.S. intends to provide this information upon formal submission of its extension request. ¶5. (C) Del has queried the TS on the line-up for the destruction informals session scheduled for Monday, March 13. Currently the U.S., Korea and Russia have indicated their intent to provide updates on their destruction program (the U.S. and Russia specifically tailored to progress toward the 45% deadline). Germany plans to make a brief presentation on its assistance to Russian CW destruction efforts. Japan, China and India will make brief statements from the floor. In accordance with their intermediate deadline extension request, Albania will also provide an update; Libya may also present general information on its program, but will likely save specifics for an extension of its 100% deadline, to be submitted prior to April 29, 2006. (Del is working with Washington and the Libyan and Albanian delegations to provide the appropriate level of assistance/influence in preparation for EC statements and presentations.) -------------- SECOND REVCON -------------- ¶6. (U) Without doubt, it is far too early to begin work for the Second RevCon, which will be held in April 2008. However, the Director General's statement last year that he would set up a working group in 2006 to prepare for the RevCon has initiated a flurry of activity on the chairmanship of that group. The Iranian Ambassador immediately voiced his interest in the job. The Colombian Ambassador, who will depart at the end of 2006, initially indicated a willingness to serve as the initial chairman with a successor to be selected later this year, but subsequently indicated he was removing himself from consideration. UK Ambassador Parker, who will be in The Hague through the Revcon, has now also expressed a strong interest in chairing the group. ¶7. (SBU) EC Chairman Dastis (Spain) has told Amb. Javits that he would like to get a decision on Parker's chairmanship of the working group at the March EC. One reason is that this will be the last EC at which Dastis will be the chairman. (Note: The African Group will nominate the next chairman, who will take over for the May EC. While the group has submitted the name of the South African Ambassador, there remains some uncertainty about whether she will take the post.) -------------- AGENDA ITEMS -------------- ¶8. (U) The following are the items on the provisional agenda (EC-44/1/Rev. 1, dated 17 February 2006): -- Status of Implementation of the Convention (a) Verification and Conversion Plans: -- The TS has distributed the note on corrections for the detailed plan for conversion of the CWPF (sarin production), open joint stock company "Khimprom" Volgograd (EC-44/S/2, dated 10 February 2006). -- Verification Plan for Indian facility at Borkhedi will again be on the agenda for consideration and approval. Del will refer to standing guidance, but may consider additional action in light of recent TS discussions reported septel. -- U.S. Verification Plans: Newport VP, PBBDF VP, and changes to the Anniston VP (due to optimization) will all be tabled for EC consideration. While del does not anticipate difficulties with PBBDF or Anniston documents, Newport could still pose a problem. Del has inquired with German and French delegations as to whether the U.S. written response to questions about Newport (December 2005) were satisfactory. The German delegation is awaiting an official response from Berlin. The Russian delegation has expressed continuing concerns about the lack of a specifically named secondary treatment facility. Although del has worked to address these concerns, a meeting on the margins with experts from Moscow will probably be critical in getting Russia to join consensus on the Newport documents. (b) Report on progress made in meeting revised deadlines: Under this agenda item, possessor states can normally be expected to make a brief statement from the floor summarizing destruction efforts and current percentage of stockpile destroyed. At EC-44, the TS will also provide its own (annual) summary of progress under this agenda item (percent of declared stockpile destroyed by each state, as of 31 December 2005). (c) Establishment of Russian 45% deadline: Noted above. (d) Extension of deadlines for destruction of category 1 CW: Noted above. (e) Article VII: Facilitator Ronald Munch (FRG) held a consultation on February 15 and does not anticipate having another session before the EC. His current plan is to circulate very terse and general report language noting the TS report on the status of Article VII activities. No SIPDIS regional group has objected to Dutch Amb. Maarten Lak succeeding Munch as facilitator, and the expectation is that Dastis will announce the hand-over at the EC. (f) Facility Agreements: -- Japan will table its Schedule 1 FA at EC-44 (having deferred it themselves at EC-43). Japanese del does not anticipate any difficulties in getting EC approval. -- U.S.: Del does not anticipate problems with PBBDF FA; see above comments regarding Newport. Modification to the Anniston FA (due to optimization) will also require EC approval. (In addition to the two Anniston documents requiring EC approval, the TS will issue a DG note with a red-line version of the Anniston FA, simply to clarify and highlight the numerous changes made as a result of optimization). -- Russia: Despite assurances made in December that, at a minimum, the Kambarka FA would be distributed for EC-44, no new Russian FAs will be available for EC-44 consideration. (TS concerns have been reported septel.) -- Albania: Some WEOG delegations have inquired about the status of Albania's FA. Del has explained current status of Albanian documents to concerned delegations, and recommends Albanian delegation for EC-44 be prepared to address questions about delays in distribution of documents. (g) Status of annual declarations: TS plans to make its usual presentation, simply a summary of all declarations received since the last EC session. -- Biomedical Samples: Iran and India requested deferral of this issue to EC-44. India asked for more time to study the matter; Iran had problems with the use of specialized laboratories able to handle this type of sampling. Both indicated a concern about the use of outside experts in work on this matter. Special advisor Ralf Trapp is working on a proposal that he believes will address those concerns. Trapp is preparing the DG's report on the eighth session of the Scientific Advisory Board. He will include text that receives prior SAB reports on biomedical sampling as well as new language drawn from the February 6-7 meeting of the working group addressing this issue. The DG's note would indicate that the TS should prepare a work program on biomedical sampling in which experts from SPs could participate. Trapp reemphasized that work on biomedical sampling will proceed whether or not the proposed language is acceptable to India and Iran. Obtaining their approval would only intensify work in this area. -- Lists of new validated data: The draft decision is contained in EC-44/DEC/CRP.3 and CRP.4, dated 13 February ¶2006. -- Africa Office: Facilitator Malik Azhar Ellahi (Pakistan) will hold his first consultation on March 1, and the expectation is that there will only be an initial discussion of how he intends to proceed as facilitator plus some initial data assembled by the TS. Krzysztof Paturej, Director of the Office of Special Projects, will be coordinating with Malik, and he has made clear that he intends to focus on the costs and benefits of the various options that have been put forth, and have delegations make the political decision on what is most productive. Paturej has made quite apparent his skepticism that an office is the most cost-effective option. -- Second RevCon Working Group: Noted above. -- Rationalization of EC work: As the Vice-Chairman in charge of this issue, Russian Amb. Gevorgian has yet to find a facilitator to handle this matter. Fortunately, this delay is not a problem; indeed, due to a number of reasons noted previously, inaction may be the best option. The push by the South African Ambassador (or her staff) for more action on the CW cluster was channeled into the EC rationalization bundle. In addition, the push by Iran and others for a continuation of Article XI consultations is also contained in EC rationalization efforts. -- Implementation of Office of Internal Oversight and External Auditor Recommendations: The DG's report on the implementation in 2005 of the recommendations contained in the 2004 Annual Report of OIO is in EC-44/DG.5, dated 14 February 2006. -- Privileges and Immunities Agreements: Not yet released. -- Administrative and Financial matters. (a) Payment of dues to the OPCW: Co-facilitators Florian Antohi (Romania) and Jae-woong Lee (South Korea) have yet to schedule a consultation. (b) New posts: The TS will produce a document (not yet available) that will approve the last two positions approved in the 2006 budget. These two posts were not approved at EC-43 because the position descriptions were not available for delegations. (c) Income and Expenditure: The DG's report on 2005 Income and Expenditure is EC-44/DG.2, 10 February 2006. (d) Financial Rules: Consultations are ongoing on the Draft Financial Rules and proposed revisions. It is unlikely that a decision will be ready for EC-44. -- Reports of the Scientific Advisory Board: Not yet available. -- Anti-Terrorism efforts: One facilitation was held on February 15 to brief on the activities of an African anti-terrorism center. The key question is whether someone can be found to succeed facilitator Sophie Moal-Makame (France). If not, work on this issue will again be put on hold. -- Selection of the Chair and Vice-Chair: In addition to the points noted above regarding African Group deliberations on its nominee for the Chair, FRG Amb. Alexander Petri is the WEOG nominee to be the Vice-Chairman from the group. Del will keep Washington informed of developments on other Vice-Chairs. -------------- OTHER ITEMS -------------- ¶9. (U) Sampling and Analysis: The TS has provided a note title "Support by Inspected States Parties for Sampling and Analysis under Article VI" (S/548/2006, dated 10 February 2006). ¶10. (U) A decision document with amendments to the OPCW Policy on Confidentiality has been distributed (C-1/DEC.13/Rev.1, 2 February 2006) ¶11. (U) Javits sends. ARNALL