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

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001684

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 SEPTEMBER 7, 2007


This is CWC--75-07.

--------------
PLANNING FOR AMMAN WORKSHOP
--------------

1.(U) Del rep met with UK and Japanese representatives to
discuss and clarify points on TS efforts to plan a follow up
to the December 2006 Amman workshop to finalize the Iraqi
initial declaration. Del rep offered Washington,s proposals
of the weeks of 28 October or 11 November to the UK and
Japanese delegations and will provide any response to
Washington. Del has also shared email confirmation of the
Iraqi Parliament,s third reading of the CWC with the UK
delegation. Del will follow up with the TS to find out
whether TS officials would also be able to support one or
both of the weeks in question.

--------------
2008 BUDGET CONSULTATIONS ) INSPECTORATE
--------------

2.(U) On September 5, Donggy Lee (Korea) chaired the second
consultation on the DG,s Draft Program and Budget for 2008.
The topic for the discussion was Programme 2 (Inspections).
Ichiro Akiyama (Director, Inspectorate) gave a brief summary
of this Programme, noting the small 2.2 percent increase in
this budget area and highlighting efficiencies that have been
strengthened (e.g., sequential inspections, use of SSA
contracts for additional inspectors, reduction in team sizes).

3.(U) Russia pointed out that, even though overall
destruction activities in their country have increased, the
increase was less than the TS assumed in the budget proposal
(i.e., two new destruction facilities, rather than three).
This spurred lengthy discussion about &decreases8 in
destruction activities in Russia and the U.S. and the
ramifications for possible increases in other types of
inspections (i.e., Article VI) and activities in other budget
areas. The TS committed to evaluate how the changes in
planning for Russian and U.S. destruction activities would
reduce the overall &ceiling8 on inspector days and total
income and how this might affect other verification
activities.

4.(U) Many delegations spoke in support of the zero nominal
growth (ZNG) submission from the DG. However, several
delegations were disappointed that there was no further
increase in Article VI inspections, particularly OCPFs (e.g.,
Austria, France, Canada, Belgium, UK, U.S., and Switzerland).
Canada was particularly strong in stating that to stop the
year-to-year increase in inspections sends the wrong signal
and, although the &hierarchy of risk8 is important, it is
adequately reflected in the DG,s proposal, a point that
Switzerland picked up on by stating the expected time between
inspections for the categories of sites (2.5 years for
Schedule 1, 3.8 years for Schedule 2, 14.8 years for Schedule
3, and 41.9 years for OCPFs). Many delegations also spoke of
the importance of inspector training, as well as the
long-term solution for inspector staffing (i.e., SSAs v.
increased hiring).

5.(U) Japan asked about the budget for Schedule 2 inspections
with sampling and analysis (S&A),particularly how many such
inspections had been conducted to date, how many were left,
and how that affects 2008 plans. Bill Kane (Head, IVB) said
that the TS had conducted eight such inspections to date (two
in 2006 and six so far in 2007),that they plan three more
(total of nine) for 2007, and that they plan two more in
2008, for a grand total of thirteen. He pointed out that the
DG, based on progress to date, has asked the staff to plan
for 8 to 10 such inspections per year after the 18-month
trial period is completed early in 2008.

6.(U) South Africa, along with China, Cuba, Iran, Pakistan,
Mexico, and India challenged the assumption that increased
numbers of OCPF inspections results in added confidence and
proposed a discussion on the fundamental principles and goals
of OCPF inspections. Iran made vague arguments about the

caveat placed on the 2007 budget agreement (i.e., discussions
on &hierarchy of risk8, etc.),whether that has been
sufficiently dealt with, whether we should be looking at
returning to the 2006 inspection numbers for OCPF sites
rather than an increase, etc. China and Mexico pointed to
destruction as the clearest path to confidence. Mexico also
reminded delegations that, despite the apparent infrequency
of OCPF inspections, they have an OCPF site that has been
inspected twice since EIF of the Convention.

-------------- --------------
SCHEDULE 2 INSPECTIONS WITH SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
-------------- --------------

7.(U) Japanese delegate (Kiwako Tanaka) reported briefly to
Del rep that Japan had hosted the TS,s eighth Schedule 2
inspection including sampling and analysis last week. She
reported that the inspection went forward without any
difficulties and agreed to report in more detail at a later
time.

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

8.(U) Del rep cornered delegation representatives from Cuba,
Mexico, and South Africa after the September 5 budget
consultation to assess their reasoning behind asking that an
item (OCPF site selection) be added to the agenda for EC-50,
reminding them what they had to lose if there was any delay
in the implementation of the DG,s revised inspection
selection methodology. They confirmed that the item was
requested on behalf of the Chinese delegation. These three
countries said they were satisfied with the DG,s proposal
and its implications for them and other countries with
smaller industries and would like to see it implemented as
soon as possible. They said their hope is to allow the DG to
present briefly the process leading up to his proposal and to
allow delegations to speak up in favor of returning to
discussions on the &missing elements8 (e.g., SP
nominations) at some point in the future ) nothing else.
Given that we seem to have a common goal here in supporting
the DG,s proposal, Del rep requested that these delegations
let us know of any plans for keeping the EC discussion from
going in the wrong direction and how we could help.

--------------
&RISK8 AND FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS
--------------

9.(U) On August 30, Del rep met, at TS request, with Bill
Kane (Head, IVB) and a member of his staff. Kane wanted to
hear early thoughts from the Del on the May 25 and May 28 TS
documents on the subject. DelRep reported that our quick
review of the Schedule 2 document showed that a small number
of &low risk8 sites and one &high risk8 site in the U.S.
would move to the &medium risk8 category, meaning a very
minimal impact on U.S. industry inspection burden. However,
DelRep also indicated that these documents were not likely to
sway many of the delegations that have been the most vocal
about the &hierarchy of risk8 and the distribution of
industry inspections, which Kane acknowledged. The
discussion also included the fact that several delegations
(e.g., Canada) had not received the documents in question
from the TS, despite the fact that Amb. Dastis (Spain) had
clearly asked the TS to distribute them, and how this might
impact future consultations. (The next such consultation is
September 13.)

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER ) LATE DECLARATIONS
--------------

10.(U) On September 4, DelRep (Larry Denyer) chaired a
consultation on the topic of &late declarations.8 He made
clear that this new draft decision was meant as a significant
compromise, with the goal of a decision at the September EC
and that work would continue until that goal was reached.
Overall, delegations were much more positive about this most

recent draft decision text than previous drafts. Several
delegations, including France and Japan, expressed their
preference for &nil declarations8 but also expressed their
willingness to move forward with the current proposed
decision text.

11.(U) There was quite a bit of discussion about concerns
from Iran, Turkey, and Mexico about the legality of imposing
&new8 deadlines on the submission of initial declarations
and that this could be perceived as an official granting of
additional time to meet a past obligation. Russia made an
interesting intervention about the level of scrutiny given to
possessor States meeting their obligations, the extensive
consideration given to Albania,s situation when they missed
a destruction deadline, the fact that SPs who do not submit
their declarations on time are in violation of the
Convention, and that there is already a vehicle for dealing
with this in Article XII.

12.(U) There was also an &Article VII-like8 discussion
about how SPs should be identified and approached with offers
of assistance. There was also concern expressed about any
reference to Article VII in this decision, clearly indicating
a lack of understanding about the provisions of the CWC that
address implementing new decisions by the EC and CSP.

13.(U) Many textual suggestions were made during the meeting.
The facilitator solicited the help of delegations in
preparing a new draft, to which Mexico and Canada responded.
A new draft has now been prepared and distributed for an
additional consultation on the morning of September 11.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER ) TRANSFER DISCREPANCIES
--------------

14.(U) On September 4, Merel Jonker (Netherlands) chaired a
consultation on the topic of &transfer discrepancies.8
Although it was made clear that the &definition8 of the
terms import and export in the draft decision is meant to
serve solely as a guideline for how SPs handle declaration
data, there is still significant confusion and concern about
how this might impact corresponding definitions in other
conventions, especially those dealing with customs. The
co-facilitators listened to the comments, including drafting
suggestions, and committed to looking into the matter further.

15.(U) The consultation reflected no urgency to get a
decision completed before the upcoming EC, so the next
consultation will be during the regularly scheduled Industry
Cluster consultations in October. Jonker announced that she
will be leaving her post at the end of the month and would
leave the facilitation to her Japanese counterpart (Kiwako
Tanaka) to fly solo, unless someone is interested in stepping
forward to be a co-facilitator.

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

16.(U) Del rep met informally with Jitka Brodska (Czech
Replublic),and Emma Gordon (U.K.) this week to discuss
upcoming plans. The Protection Network meeting, originally
scheduled for October has been postponed. The Czech Republic
is now considering a proposal that the meeting be held in
Prague sometime in spring of next year. Brodska said they
have agreed in principle and Gordon felt that the U.K. would
support the idea. The Industry Protection Forum is scheduled
for Nov 1-2. Krisztof Paturej (Director Special Projects)
has requested changes to the original proposed program.

--------------
ABAF
--------------

17.(U) Mary Rios (IO/MPR) attended the session of the
Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial Matters (ABAF).
In her debriefing to the Del, Rios noted that the ABAF
worked successfully with the TS to address a number of

technical questions on the budget.

--------------
AMCIT APPLICANTS
--------------

18.(U) The Ambassador discussed hiring Amcits for positions
at the OPCW with Ali Asghar (Head Human Resources),
specifically encouraging the OPCW to be more pro-actively
engaged with prospective candidates in order not to lose them
to other employers.

19.(U) Ron Nelson (Director Administration) provided del with
copies of the applications of all Amcit candidates for the
currently open Head of Public Relations position and promised
to shortlist more Amcits based on Del recommendations.

--------------
Host Country Committee Meeting
--------------

20.(U) The Host Country Committee (HCC) met on September 6
to discuss the draft document presented by the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs regarding the Tax and Duty Free shop on the
premises of the OPCW and outlining procedures and quotas for
purchases. The response from the delegations at the meeting
was uniformly negative. The Ambassador stated strongly that
there was no reason to agree on anything that circumscribed
rights already defined by prior agreements and treaties. He
objected to the Ministry discussing the agreement only with
the TS and presenting it as a fait accompli to delegations.
Russia agreed and objected to the arbitrary imposition of any
quota. The Iranian Ambassador expressed resentment at the
implication that diplomats might abuse the system. Committee
members are now privately conferring on how to follow up to
prepare for a meeting with the Ministry of Finance.


21. (U) JAVITS SENDS.
Gallagher