Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07THEHAGUE1152
2007-06-15 12:01:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

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

Tags:  PARM PREL CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1152/01 1661201
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 151201Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9507
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 001152 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
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 8


This is CWC-54-07.

-------------------
OCPF SITE SELECTION
-------------------

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001152

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
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 8


This is CWC-54-07.

--------------
OCPF SITE SELECTION
--------------


1. (U) In the June 5 WEOG meeting, the facilitator for
consultations on this issue (Luis Garcia, Spain) announced
that, in light of the May 25 Note by the DG on the Technical
Secretariat's initiative in this area, he had asked the

SIPDIS
Vice-Chair for the Industry Cluster to cancel the June 13
consultation and begin the process of finding a new
facilitator. Many WEOG delegations asked him to reconsider.
The U.S. Del, along with Canada, emphasized the importance
that any oral report by Garcia to the EC or EC report
language stress the EC's desire to return to consider the
matter of "proposals by States Parties" (VA Part IX, para
11(c)) at some future point.

--------------
WEOG REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON EPOD
--------------


2. (U) Also in the June 5 WEOG meeting, the chair (Christer
Ahlstrom, Sweden) reported his discussion with the TS on
end-point of destruction (EPOD),based on requests from
France in earlier meetings. The TS was unwilling to prepare
a written summary on EPOD without a written request from the
WEOG. Generally, the idea of preparing a written WEOG
request received very little support from delegations
(especially Canada, the Netherlands and Ireland) given the
dangers surrounding such an action and the uniqueness of each
facility agreement. Annie Mari of France said she was under
strict orders from Paris to get more details on how this has
been addressed at each of the destruction facilities, and
said France would have to address this informally with the TS.

--------------
ARTICLE VI INSPECTION LEVELS
--------------


3. (SBU) Following the June 5 WEOG meeting, Mari asked del
reps about inspection levels within the U.S. so far in 2007.
Apparently, France has yet to host an inspection in 2007.
This raised concerns in Paris about whether inspections were
being held at an appropriate level worldwide. They are also
concerned that, if the TS intends to carry out its typical
annual inspection level in France during 2007, the second

half of the year will be extremely busy. Del rep shared with
Mari what was heard from an inspection team leader -- that
the TS was very busy early in the year carrying out initial
inspections at a number of newly-declared facilities, many of
which were in the Middle East.


4. (SBU) This led del rep to a similar discussion with the
Japanese later in the same day. The Japanese delegate
(Kiwako Tanaka) reported that Japan has hosted two
inspections to date -- one Schedule 3, one OCPF.

--------------
SCHEDULE 2 FACILITY AGREEMENT
--------------


5. (U) Del presented the TS with the National Authority
letter confirming that the USG has no additional changes to
the Schedule 2 facility agreement. Negotiations on this
document were concluded in the fall of 2006. After some
preliminary grumbling from PMO director Khodakov about this
"late addition to the EC agenda," he agreed to include it,
and preparations are underway. The TS provided del rep draft
decision language for this action, which follows the pattern
of other such facility agreements.

--------------
ARTICLE VII OUTREACH AND THE EU
--------------


6. (U) Del rep met June 7 with Ronald Munch (Germany) to

discuss the EU Joint Action and corresponding outreach
efforts on universality and Article VII. Munch began by
explaining the various aspects of the EU Joint Action in
these areas. He acknowledged the difference between the EU
technique and that of the U.S.: the U.S. has been more
willing to approach States Parties (SP) directly to offer
assistance, whereas the EU has relied on the expertise of the
TS in targeting this assistance.

SIPDIS


7. (U) Munch said that they continue to feel that bilateral
assistance visits in capitals are the most effective. Munch
said that requests the TS receives that would take advantage
of EU funding would first be screened by the TS and then
discussed with the EU presidency (currently Germany). To
ensure timeliness, he reported that the process would not be
so formal when the request was for experts from the EU to
accompany the TS during a visit. Given the relative newness
of the EU Joint Action, no such reviews have been held so
far, although he expected this to happen for the first time
in July. Given that Portugal takes over the EU presidency in
July, and in response to a question from del rep, Munch said
that this process would continue as he outlined. He did not
expect Portugal's less-than-complete status under Article VII
to impact their ability to carry out this role effectively.


8. (U) Munch did note that Portugal will not complete its
Article VII parliamentary work before it takes over the EU
presidency in July. Although this is of no concern to
Germany as far as nonproliferation, etc., they still fear
that this "looks bad." He encouraged the U.S. to continue
putting pressure on Portugal, as well as Belgium, to complete
their parliamentary work.


9. (U) Given that many of the "20-in-10" SPs have their
legislation sitting in parliament, this topic was discussed
at length. Munch pointed to the section of the EU Joint
Action that provided resources to parliamentary outreach.
Although he thought the TS and the DG specifically were doing
more in the area of parliamentary outreach, he was concerned
that the DG might be focusing mainly on those that were
reaching out to him, which seems to mean more attention in
the GRULAC. Del rep proposed, and Munch agreed, that perhaps
we both could approach the DG quietly to encourage more
direct outreach by the DG to parliamentarians in the
"20-in-10" SPs.


10. (U) Del rep reviewed in general the bilateral activities
the U.S. is undertaking, especially in conjunction with other
events (e.g., SPP, EXBS, CTR),as well as the known efforts
of other SPs. Munch said that, even though the EU efforts
were more reactive, they would be willing to be more
aggressive in working directly with a SP or asking the TS to
do so, if the U.S. felt there was an especially significant
need. Del rep committed to discuss this with him further,
outlining exactly what might be done with many of the
"20-in-10" SPs.


11. (U) On universality, Munch reported that their efforts in
encouraging Angola to participate in the upcoming CWC
workshop in Algiers might be bearing fruit. The latest
information from Angola is that the foreign minister may
attend.

--------------
ARTICLE X
--------------


12. (U) Article X consultations were conducted by facilitator
Jitka Brodska (Czech Republic) on June 6. Discussion
centered on the Status of Implementation Report on Article X.
During EC-48 the U.S. persuaded the UK to defer action on
the report (EC-48/DG.13) until consultations could be held to
discuss the report. The resulting discussion was
wide-ranging and thorough, touching on nearly every aspect of
the Article X. Gennadi Lutay, Head of the Assistance and
Protection Branch (APB),said the report had been delayed by
its size and it required cooperation of other branches.


13. (U) Lutay noted there are many requests for courses and
to satisfy these requests, APB is endeavoring to achieve
standardization of courses, utilizing TS staff and
contracting with experts. Brodska asked when the TS was
planning another assistance and protection exercise,
suggesting they find synergy with another entity similar to
the Ukraine exercise (held in conjunction with NATO). Lutay
did not acknowledge the synergy comment, focusing instead on
limitations, saying exercises can only be done every 3 years,
and that a member state needs to offer a venue. He used this
opportunity to appeal for a volunteer to host the exercise.


14. (U) France reiterated the facilitators theme by asking
if the TS could see if the OPCW could join an existing
exercise and what the costs were for the 2005 exercise.
Lutay only commented that he did not know the cost of the
Ukraine exercise. The Netherlands asked about the APB
training courses: are lessons-learned utilized, are they
developing computerized learning tools, training trainers.
The Dutch also wanted to know the ratio of time and money
going to one SP versus regional training courses. Lutay said
efficiency is a big issue, noting even one or two courses are
not enough to prepare first responders. They have tried to
use a "train the trainers" approach, but it is only mildly
successful.


15. (U) The TS is working on electronic media, but feel
personalized practical training is more effective. The new
Director of International Cooperation and Assistance, Kalimi
Mworia, said they need to encourage SPs to send the right
people to courses; people who can invigorate others. She
noted that some SPs send policy people over first responders,
and that is when errors can happen when taking the training
back home. Mworia further noted the TS cannot dictate who
can come to their courses. South Africa asked if there is a
framework in which APB activities can build onto each other.
Lutay said they do so when they can, but it is not generally
practical.


16. (U) One topic that came up in this discussion with Lutay
and Mworia was creation of a regional capability. Training
should be focused on a regional entity with the capability to
help others. And make certain they have all the necessary
equipment available close at hand. In that case, if the need
arises for assistance, it can come from highly trained people
who are in the same geographic region and can get there
sooner than from Europe or elsewhere. This was not further
discussed, but del rep believes this could be the direction
the TS moves in coming sessions.


17. (U) In response to a Chinese query on putting the
databank on the external server, Lutay said there continue to
be technical/computer issues between the databank and the
external server, but they are working on it. Del rep
requested earlier submission of the report so delegations
could review and discuss it prior to approving it in the EC.
The facilitator said she would make a point to put these
consultations on next year's schedule.


18. (U) On agenda item 2, National Protective Program (NPP)
submission (Article X, para 4),the facilitator noted the low
rate of submissions and gave three suggestions to raise
submission rates.
-- First, use all APB activities to promote submission.
-- Second, the facilitator noted regional patterns and
suggested working that angle.
-- Third, the facilitator noted the synergy between Article X
and Article VII. Brodska said there were 34 Technical
Assistance Visits scheduled for 2007 and of those 25 have not
submitted the NPP. She suggested asking the TAVs to work on
this during their workshops.


19. (U) Italy asked what the TS has done to promote
submissions -- how are they using the format delegations
worked so hard to pass in 2004. Lutay answered by reciting
their usual practices (mailings, workshops). Del rep
suggested e-mailing the form to NAs where possible and echoed
the facilitators suggestion of having the TAVs provide

information on NPP submissions.


20. (U) On agenda Item 3, APB Activities, the TS again went
over its programs for 2007. There was no real discussion on
this topic, but it led into a discussion of Article X, para 7
offers of assistance. The TS said the recent letter asking
for delegations to renew offers is intended to ensure offers
of equipment and materials offered are still in working
order. The TS said it plans to follow up with countries who
made unilateral offers to see if they could change those into
bilateral agreements.


21. (U) On agenda Item 4, Any Other Business, the UK referred
to the TS promise to send out letters in January requesting
updates to the protection network experts list. The TS said
they sent out e-mails and had not received much response.
They further noted they will be hosting a Protection Network
Meeting in November and hope to be able to have an updated
list prior to that meeting. The Netherlands noted that they
had not received an email and have a number of experts to
change. The facilitator said this is obviously an important
topic and will be discussed in the next meeting. Tunisia
said that at a recent APB workshop in their country, there
was a problem with an inadequate number of translators, and
requested voluntary contributions toward this expense. Lutay
noted they provide translators whenever possible, however
some training is too complicated to be done with translation.


22. (U) The facilitator said consultations would begin again
in September/October. Further, she did not think report
language was necessary for the EC, and no delegation
disagreed.


23. (U) Comment: Del rep has gone to a number of different
consultations on a variety of issues over the past three
years. Some are sparsely attended, but nearly all Article X
consultations have a wide and diverse attendance, indicating
that a broad spectrum of SPs place great importance on
Article X. Unquestionably, much more could be accomplished
in Article X meetings, but the sizable attendance is a
positive sign, as is the fact that there are generally fewer
efforts by normally obstreperous delegations to block work.


24. (U) Ito sends.
ARNALL