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