Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07THEHAGUE1061
2007-06-05 12:44:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR THE

Tags:  PARM PREL CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1061/01 1561244
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 051244Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9363
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001061 

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 LEDDY
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR THE
WEEK ENDING JUNE 1

This is CWC-50-07.

-------------------------------
DG PAPER ON OCPF SITE SELECTION
-------------------------------

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001061

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 LEDDY
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR THE
WEEK ENDING JUNE 1

This is CWC-50-07.

--------------
DG PAPER ON OCPF SITE SELECTION
--------------


1. (U) With regard to the Director General's paper dated May
25, the delegation notes that most of the text addresses the
history of selection from the TS perspective, and its
rationale for making the changes. There basically were two
options: a two-step method analogous to what is currently
being done and a one-step process. Both have pros and cons.


2. (U) A two-step process with the first step selection of
the number of inspections in each State Party with
probability proportional to 1 0.5 sqrt (#OCPFs) has the
advantage that states with inspectable OCPFs can have a feel
for their expected number of annual inspections. However, it
would not take into account whether the SP has facilities
judged highly relevant to the CWC. The second step would
randomly choose the facilities to be inspected using
probability proportional to 1 0.5 sqrt (A14),but in the
event that the SP has only low relevance facilities, it would
be able to select only low "value" sites.


3. (U) The one-step process presented has the disadvantage
that SPs will not be able to consistently predict their
expected number of inspections. The advantage to the TS is
that the selection is a function of both the number of
facilities and the facilities' relevance, meaning that the
inspections will focus on the states with large, relevant
industries (this will impact Japan more than the U.S.).


4. (U) Finally, the TS proposal continues some of the less
desirable elements incorporated into the current method, such
as resampling a mere five percent of sites yet to be
selected. While noting that over half of the SPs have had at
least half of their facilities inspected (and 17 SPs have had
all of them inspected),this means that the burden on SPs
with large industries (Germany, UK, Italy, Japan, U.S. and
China) will eventually be providing 95 per cent of the
inspections.


5. (U) With regard to the new proposal from facilitator Luis
Garcia (Spain),the delegation view is that it has become
even less acceptable. First, the facilitator has accepted
the NAM/German view that the anonymous list can include only
the number of subsites and the product group code (see
Verification Annex IX Section C, para 4). In a nod towards
those states wanting more site information, he has included
the TS assessment of whether the site is highly, moderately
or less relevant to the CWC. This makes it impossible to
make reasonable selections.


6. (U) Second, the facilitator has put a limit of five
points on the facility selections, requiring SPs to choose at
least 20 facilities. Given that this is an anonymous,
uninformative list of facilities, the delegation sees no
reason why a state could not choose to put 50 points on a
given site. There is no reason to further "protect"
facilities from selection. Third, the required 40 states
needed to make nominations before the TS must take them into
account is a pretty large number, over half of the states
with declarable OCPFs. While one could possibly live with
it, the del sees it as a third strike.


7. (U) The facilitator asked if the U.S. could join
consensus on his proposal, and del rep replied that this was
absolutely not possible.

--------------
ARTICLE XI
--------------


8. (U) In the May 29 WEOG meeting, the Netherlands reported
that Iran mentioned China's willingness to serve as
facilitator for a new consultation on Article XI. France
confirmed that they had heard the same directly from the
Chinese delegation.


--------------
BUDGET
--------------


9. (U) Also in the May 29 WEOG meeting, the budget
co-facilitator (Diana Gosens, Netherlands) reported that the
TS is to release its draft 2008 budget on June 22, the Friday

SIPDIS
before the EC. The co-facilitators intend to hold their
first consultation during the first week of July, the week
following the EC. Subsequent meetings would be held after
the summer break. Gosens reported that the inspection
numbers in the draft budget will remain at their 2007 budget
levels - 200 total.


10. (U) Javits sends.
GALLAGHER