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

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001186

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 15

This is CWC-57-07.

-------------- --------------
SECOND REV CON: MEETING OF SP AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRY REPS
-------------- --------------


1. (U) On June 11, Amb. Lyn Parker (UK) chaired a meeting of
States Parties and chemical industry representatives for the
preparation of the Second RevCon. In his opening remarks,
the Director General made mention of: UNSC 1540, the chlorine
gas attacks in Iraq, the importance of establishing national
implementation measures (Article VII),the key role industry
plays in partnerships with the TS and governments, increasing
numbers of industry inspections (1998-2002: 502 inspections,
2003-2007: 807 inspections),increasing number of inspectable
sites (particularly OCPFs: 54 percent increase since 1998),
TS initiative to change the current OCPF site selection

SIPDIS
methodology, the ongoing "start-up" period for sampling and
analysis activities during subsequent Schedule 2 inspections,
the value of the VIS, and the necessary balance between
intrusiveness and the object and purpose of the CWC during
inspections.


2. (U) The Technical Secretariat made a series of
presentations:
(1) Per Runn discussed industry issues open and resolved
since the First RevCon;
(2) Sandor Laza discussed experiences from industry
declarations;
(3) Bill Kane presented an overview of implementation
requirements under VA Parts Vi, VII, VIII, and IX.
(4) In addition, Jiri Matousek, chairman of the Scientific
Advisory Board, discussed the activities of the SAB since the
First RevCon. (These briefings were faxed back to
Washington.)


3. (U) During the afternoon's open forum, industry reps made
several formal presentations:
-- Neil Harvey, WMD Issue Leader for CEFIC (European chemical
industry trade organization),discussed trade and production
controls within the EU;
-- Pietro Fontana, CAS Issue Leader for CEFIC, presented a
rather disjointed collection of issues - limitations of the
use of CAS numbers, whether too frequent Schedule 2
inspections make for an unnecessary overlap to records review
(given the "3-year look back"),and why the TS reporting on
converted and destroyed CWPFs does not appear to add up in
his opinion; and
-- Dr. Tony Baslock of Contract Chemicals Ltd (also
representing Chemical Industry Association (UK)) presented a
number of items coming from their NA Advisory Committee and
his company's inspection experience.
-- The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA)
tabled a paper in which they discuss the role of industry in
the CWC, ICCA support for the CWC, and a number of key ICCA
positions.
-- The UK delegation tabled a paper entitled "Technological
and Structural Developments in the Chemical Industry and
Their Implications for the CWC." (All of these documents
were faxed back to Washington.)


4. (U) A few interventions stood out:
-- The Indian Chemical Council repeated a topic often
discussed by their National Authority, that of the "inherent
hierarchy of risk" and the Schedules of chemicals. (See
their paper on the OPCW external server.) She also discussed
the importance of Article XI and the promotion of free and
responsible trade, including a possible organization to help
resolve disputes between SPs. The Indian NA went on to call
on the TS to prepare a paper on "lessons learned" from
verification to date to have a better understanding upon
which to discuss frequency of inspection and related issues.
-- CEFIC made at least two comments about the varying mixture
threshold levels (from 0 to 80 percent) within national
implementing measures, which the Del read as a clear poke at
the existing U.S. threshold for Schedule 3. He also
expressed concern about how the DG's new OCPF initiative
would focus more on the largest industries. In response to

the UK NA paper and the briefing by Tony Bastock, he also
emphasized that the capability of a reaction system is not
the issue, but rather its outcome.
-- The representative from the Chinese NA pointed to the
successful verification activities to date and asked what the
focus should be now, pointing to a continuing emphasis on
Scheduled chemicals rather than OCPFs. She also questioned
what role the EC should have in light of the DG's recent
initiative on OCPF site selection. She also asked about the
number of uncertainties, etc. that have come form the various
inspection types (Schedule 1, etc.). She also discussed
briefly their experiences over their inspections at 89 sites
to date. She also pointed out a case where a change in the
organization of a Schedule 2 company resulted in inspections
during two subsequent years.
-- The representative from the Korean Specialty Chemical
industry Association said they had hosted 25 inspections to
date. Given that their experience shows that records review
takes about half of the time and effort within an inspection,
he questioned whether pre-work by both the NA and the TS
might speed up the process and conserve TS funds.


5. (U) Del rep discussions with Ted Cromwell (American
Chemistry Council) indicated that he was pleased with the
event and the opportunity to interact with the Del, the TS,
and industry colleagues. He was particularly pleased that
discussions on the margins with Krzysztof Paturej (Director
of the Office of Special Projects) resulted in ACC taking the
lead for the organizing of the industry security forum and
ICCA taking the lead for the industry verification forum
within the Industry and Protection Forum in conjunction with
the 10th Anniversary, to be held in November.

--------------
VIR CONSULTATIONS
--------------


6. (U) The June 12 consultation on the 2006 VIR was
relatively sedate. The Del deployed the general aspects of
guidance (pleased with the increasing quality of the VIR,
etc.) and said that detailed comments would follow. Most
other delegations followed this same pattern. A few
delegations - Russia, Japan, and, particularly Germany - made
more specific comments throughout the review. Germany
insisted that the chair (EC Chair, Amb Arguelles of the
Philippines) prepare a summary of the meeting.


7. (U) The UK and Germany made brief interventions about
their two industry inspections that resulted in
uncertainties. India also pointed to their national paper
from EC-48 during the discussion on their destruction program.


8. (U) Iran made two interventions: (1) Given that the
deadline has passed, would the TS give an update on the
destruction of CWPFs? The TS committed to discussing this
during the upcoming destruction informals, as well as in a
paper for EC-50. (2) Requested an update on the cases of
transfer of Schedule 2 chemicals to a non-State Party. The
UK gave the details of their recommendation to their customs
organization for prosecution. The TS said that no further
obligation was required of the SPs. Iran insisted that the
UK handle this more seriously and keep the EC informed of
progress on these cases, as they were legally "breaches of
the CWC."


9. (U) The TS reported that their intention is to produce a
VIR corrigendum for EC-49, and asked that SPs finalize their
comments accordingly. If needed, further corrigenda would be
produced after that time.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER: LATE DECLARATIONS
--------------


10. (U) During the previous consultation in April, Iran and
South Africa, supported by others, requested a paper from the
TS outlining the history of this issue and how they felt the

SIPDIS
current facilitator's draft decision text would help resolve

those issues. Despite their insistence that this could be
done easily and quickly, the TS did not release this paper
until June 12 consultation opened. Even though the revised
draft decision was prepared back in April, given that the TS
paper was released so late, the comments by delegations was
limited to saying that they needed more time for their
capitals to review the documents.


11. (U) Given the unsatisfactory outcome of the consultation,
the facilitator (Larry Denyer, U.S.) is working to schedule
an additional meeting to discuss delegations' comments during
the week of July 9. This seems the only option to needed
progress, given that there is only one other formal Industry
Cluster week in early September before EC-50, the last EC
before the CSP.


12. (U) South Africa consulted privately with the facilitator
after the meeting. Even though their industry is small, they
declare on time and regularly host inspections. But they
clearly see their role as protecting the smaller NAs within
Africa, and they will have great difficulty in accepting the
concept of "nil declarations." Given that Iran, India, and
New Zealand seem to have similar concerns, there is
significant doubt now that this decision can move forward.
The current text already includes several concessions that
many delegations of industrialized SPs would rather not have
but are willing to allow for the sake of progress. Further
concessions would probably kill the decision.


13. (U) The facilitator will look at a number of options,
both short and long-term, to use in the September meetings,
if the July meetings show no progress.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER: TRANSFER DISCREPANCIES
--------------


14. (U) This consultation marked no significant progress on
this issue. Although many delegations spoke in favor of the
current draft decision language (both with and without the
bracketed text),many other delegations said they require
more time to get a reaction from their capitals.


15. (U) Japan was actually the most vocal in questioning much
of the current decision text. Their biggest concern seemed
to be any additional burden on Schedules 2 and 3 companies.
They also pointed out the difficulties that arise between the
Customs Union and the rest of the world, indicating that
perhaps two options for a solution should be considered
simultaneously, an idea that drew much concern.


16. (U) As they did at the late declarations consultation in
April, Iran asked the TS to prepare some background material
to lay out exactly what the current draft decision would do.
(Note: This delegation seems unwilling to do its own homework
but rely entirely on the TS to do this.)


17. (U) Although the co-facilitators first considered the
possibility of an additional meeting in July to help make
progress before EC-50, they later reconsidered and will wait
until the regularly scheduled meeting, which will probably be
in early September.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER: OCPF SITE SELECTION
--------------


18. (U) As was reported previously, the facilitator followed
through with his threat and canceled his June 13
consultation. He also resigned as facilitator for this
consultation.

--------------
ARTICLE VI: SEQUENTIALS INSPECTIONS AND S&A
--------------


19. (SBU) Del rep learned from Bill Kane (Head of Industry
Verification Branch) that planning for a pair of sequential

inspections within the U.S. was "on their radar," certainly
in 2007. In discussions with the Swiss NA rep, del rep
learned that the Swiss have now hosted sequential inspections
pairing Schedule 3 and UDOC sites, as well as two Schedule 2
sites. In these cases, both inspections were completed
within a week. The Swiss also reported that they have hosted
"two" inspections to date this year, one being a pair of
sequential inspections.


20. (U) Del has learned that the TS has now carried out six
total Schedule 2 inspections incorporating sampling and
analysis: Switzerland, the UK, China, India, Italy, and the
Netherlands (earlier this month). In the June 12 WEOG
meeting, the Dutch reported on their recent experience.
Their analysis was performed in "open" mode, which they felt
was to their advantage, as their felt certain that an
analysis in "blinded" mode would have resulted in a "false
positive." As no further details were given, Del will
discuss this further with the Dutch delegation.

--------------
UN-OPCW HIGH-LEVEL MEETING
--------------


21. (U) At a June 15 meeting, most delegations expressed
support for the Polish-Dutch initiative for the Sep. 27
UN-OPCW meeting in New York. Tadeusz Chomicki, Deputy
Director in the Department for Security Policy in the Polish
MFA, and Henk-Cor van der Kwast, head of the nonproliferation
desk of the Dutch MFA, provided the briefing to delegations
about the high level meeting.


22. (U) Chomicki noted that the OPCW will be sending letters
to NGOs and notes verbale to UN member states to drum up
support for the event. The Dutch and Polish Foreign Ministers
will definitely attend, and they hoped other delegations
would press for Ministerial attendance. They will brief
delegations in early September on the state of preparations.
DG Pfirter and the Regional Coordinators will be invited to
speak.


23. (U) France started the Q&A session by expressing support
for the proposal and asking about the agenda. Chomicki
replied that this is still being considered. He noted that
the date was selected because there are no other events
scheduled at the UN. He emphasized that it will be a public
event with the press in attendance, and that there would be a
press conference after the meeting. France suggested inviting
the Chair of the 1540 Committee, and Chomicki thought that
was a good suggestion. India asked about the intent behind
the meeting and asked specifically about the reference in
written material to "renewed commitment to multilateralism."
Chomicki replied that, frankly speaking, there had not been
many successes in recent years in the disarmament field. This
meeting is an effort to strengthen efforts in this area.


24. (U) Iran then made its move, first asking if this was a
Dutch-Polish proposal to have a meeting or an announcement to
delegations that this is going to happen. Chomicki replied
that this is a proposal from the two countries and they were
not seeking OPCW approval. However, to make it a success,
they certainly needed support from other SPs. Iran then said
that if this is being done in the name of the OPCW, the
Netherlands and Poland alone should not speak for all
delegations. There had been no discussion on this step, and
Iran knew of no basis for this meeting to be arranged.


25. (U) While stating that this does not mean Iran
necessarily opposes the idea, it did want to make sure it was
procedurally correct. Iran added, however, that it did not
approve of having delegations face a "pre-cooked resolution
text" to be approved on Sep. 27. Chomicki replied that the DG
had raised this idea at CSP-11 and there had also been
mention of it in a TS note. The Dutch and Poles had simply
picked up on the invitation to make this happen. Chomicki
emphasized that this is a 10th anniversary event and, in that
respect, is not strictly an OPCW event.


26. (U) Australia came in and said that UN delegations
arrange meetings like this all the time in New York and that
Poland and the Netherlands were perfectly within their right
to set up this event. Del rep came in to say that the U.S.
supported the meeting, appreciated the Poles and the Dutch
taking the initiative, and totally agreed with Australia on
the procedural issue. Pakistan, Spain and Switzerland
expressed support for the meeting.


27. (U) Iran came back again, saying there had never been any
mention of a UN-OPCW high level meeting. They added that
there is a difference between a seminar scheduled by
delegates at the UN and an OPCW-UN high-level meeting. Use of
that title carries certain connotations, and is important.
South Africa came in to support the Iranian point on the
title of the meeting, stating that it carries a certain
formality. The South African FM could not sign on to a
document from such a meeting without ensuring that it fully
supported all of the text. A high-level event carries
particular weight, and it would be important to check on the
procedural requirements. Chomicki replied that the drafters
of the proposed resolution had worked to stay within the
parameters of the annual document which came out of the First
Committee.


28. (U) Germany expressed support for the meeting, and
expressed concern that a positive substantive step was being
challenged on procedural grounds. Perhaps a modification of
the title of the event and to the resulting document would
assuage Iranian concerns. Austria expressed support for the
German proposal. Cuba intervened three times to basically say
that it will need to go to Havana to seek guidance and will
also stay in touch with NAM delegations in New York.


29. (U) At the end of the session, Chomicki and van der Kwast
made the effort to talk to Iran, which was working to stir up
support from other NAM delegations. However, the general
feeling among WEOG delegations and TS staff seemed to be that
while Iran would continue to raise questions and make things
difficult, they could be mollified with the types of small
face- saving measures proposed by Germany, and the
Dutch-Polish meeting certainly would take place.


30. (U) Javits sends.
SCHOFER