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

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001713 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 SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 This is CWC-77-07. -------------- SCENESETTER FOR EC 50: DEJA VU -------------- ¶1. (SBU) There has been a certain malaise since delegations returned from summer holidays, with widespread acceptance of the view that there will need to be a special session of the Executive Council during the Conference of States Parties to pass the budget and perhaps other agenda items. Alexander Khodakov (Secretary to the Policy Making Organs) even described the special EC sessions during the CSP as now-normal procedure in his presentation to new delegates at the OPCW Induction (Orientation) session September 12. WEOG discussion on September 11 assumed a special session would be necessary, until budget co-facilitator Diana Gosens of the Netherlands asserted that they were trying very hard to complete the budget on schedule. ¶2. (SBU) Iran and the NAM are raising issues in several different consultations that indicate plans to disrupt EC decisions, or perhaps hold some agenda items up unless favored programs move forward (such as an action plan for Article XI). The NAM as a body continues to work actively, and not just behind the scenes, as evidenced by an EC agenda item referencing the Cuban request on behalf of the NAM to discuss the DG,s proposal on OCPF site selection. WEOG is working through its coordinator to remove this reference, and raise awareness of the precedent being avoided by doing so. ¶3. (U) The reduction in destruction inspection estimates for the U.S. and Russia has opened a new but shop-worn point of contention over how to re-allocate the money saved from those inspections, with WEOG members arguing for more Article VI (OCPF) inspections and China and NAM members calling for increased international (ICA) assistance (more detail below). Russia has also indicated its intent to block any U.S. documents on the agenda, pending approval of its Maradykovsky Facility Agreement and Verification Plan. ¶4. (U) Del is working to encourage constructive participation at the EC to complete work that can be completed, to save precious debate time for important issues to be resolved. -------------- NEW WEOG COORDINATOR -------------- ¶5. (U) Over the summer, the Irish delegation solicited nominations on behalf of the WEOG for a new coordinator, as outgoing chair Christer Ahlstrom (Sweden) has assumed new bilateral duties and can no longer coordinate the regional group. Annie Mari (France),the sole candidate, was unanimously elected at the first WEOG meeting of the fall and chaired her first WEOG session on September 11. She will chair an expanded WEOG meeting, including eastern European, Japanese and South Korean delegates on September 20, to discuss issues of common interest for the upcoming Executive Council. -------------- DUTCH CHALLENGE INSPECTION EXERCISE -------------- ¶6. (U) In addition to U.S. representative Don Clagett, who participated in the observer program for the exercise September 10-14, the delegation also attended a more limited program of briefings, updates and a site tour of the DSM industrial facility in Delft. Participation was notable; much of the Executive Council was represented, which Dutch perm rep Amb. Maarten Lak hopes will begin to build support for upcoming discussions of the EC role in a challenge inspection. The visitor program was comprehensive, and enabled delegations not familiar with challenge inspection procedures to gain an understanding of the timeline, interactions between inspection team and inspected state party, and the roles of various parties involved. The final day,s events included a question and answer period. Unfortunately, this session was used by NAM States Parties to highlight their concerns with the political nature of challenge inspections, the possibility of abuse, and to take the Dutch to task for not ensuring wide regional representation in their observer (as opposed to visitor) program. -------------- AMMAN WORKSHOP -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Del rep confirmed with OPCW Director of Verification Horst Reeps that the TS can support either of the two weeks proposed by the U.S. for a follow-up workshop to finalize the Iraqi initial declaration, as can the UK. Japanese colleagues have expressed interest in taking a more active role in the workshop this time; del has recommended Japan coordinate with Reeps on whether additional expertise is required. Del will continue to work with the TS and UK to establish a date for the invitation to Iraqi officials and follow up with Washington to ascertain the availability of key Iraqis for the date selected. Del will continue to encourage prompt, coordinated action on the part of the TS to ensure that the upcoming workshop is constructive and geared toward completion of the draft declaration. -------------- EC VISIT PLANNING -------------- ¶8. (U) Del rep met with delegations of States Parties involved in the upcoming EC visit to Anniston. Del rep briefed delegation on the status of preparations to date (flight/hotel reservations),reminded participants of their individual obligations for flight arrangements and visas, and assessed progress being made. TS Chemical Demilitarization Branch officer Gabi Coman-Enescu provided additional information to assist with planning, and has offered to brief the visiting delegation on the facility layout and basic operations and terminology prior to the visit. Delegations, concerns so far seem largely administrative, with the exception of the Irish delegation, who recommended in WEOG several weeks ago that the WEOG provide input to its regional representative on the visit to ensure its concerns and/or areas of special interest were addressed. The UK delegation followed up with a list of technical questions on Anniston, which have been forwarded to Washington. Del expects that as the visit draws closer, regional groups may become more engaged, and will report any developments to Washington. -------------- ARTICLE VII -------------- ¶9. (U) On September 13, Kimmo Laukkanen (Finland) chaired a meeting on Article VII. Amb. Onate (TS Legal Adviser) presented the latest report on the status of implementation of Article VII (EC-50/DG.10, dated 7 September 2007). He also highlighted a few new items that will be dealt with in a corrigendum before the start of the Executive Council, including: Cambodia has established its National Authority; Kiribati and Qatar have submitted legislation to their parliamentary bodies; and Sri Lanka has submitted new legislative elements in a hope to make their legislation comprehensive. Except for clarifying questions, there was no discussion from delegations. Because of this, the facilitator decided that delegations needed more time to review the report and intends to hold another meeting on September 17. Korea made the only substantive comment, expressing serious concern for those States Parties who have not submitted initial declarations. Amb. Onate echoed these concerns and discussed how simple the process for initial declarations is for non-possessor states. -------------- ARTICLE XI -------------- ¶10. (U) On September 12, Li Hong (China) chaired his second consultation on the topic of Article XI. Iran and others were quick to raise the idea of an action plan for Article XI. Others, like Mexico (who was a co-facilitator for drafting the decision taken at CSP-10 (C-10/DEC.14, dated 11 November 2005)) stopped short of calling for an action plan but clearly indicated that action was needed and that the previous decision fell short of completeness because of compromise. Perhaps knowing how unpopular an action plan is, Iran proposed that a decision be taken at CSP-12 to follow-up on and that the elements of the action plan could be laid out later. Many delegations expressed their objection and strong concern about such a plan, asking how it was different from C-10/DEC.14. Australia proposed that the upcoming Review Conference (RevCon) be used as a platform to discuss progress from C-10/Dec.14 and whether an action plan was warranted, noting that this led to successful results for Article VII and universality coming out of the First RevCon. Korea questioned the utility of an action plan for Article XI, noting that there were no easily quantifiable goals as there were for Article VII and universality. Despite the objections, the Chinese facilitator committed to bilaterally float whatever decision text any delegation (i.e., Iran) might forward him. Del rep asked the procedural question about how such a decision could be achieved at the CSP, given that the EC is just two weeks away and EC approval is necessary before going to the CSP. To this, the Iranian delegate pointed out that a special session of the EC could be called on the margins of the CSP to tidy all of this up. ¶11. (U) There was also some discussion about the international cooperation and assistance (ICA) work carried out by the TS and various States Parties. South Africa and others asked how we could better measure the effectiveness of these efforts so that they can be improved over time. ¶12. (U) In an interesting exchange near the end of the meeting, Cuba made an impassioned plea for moving this work forward, particularly given the delay in getting started. A few minutes later, Cuba took the floor again and read a statement on behalf of the NAM that was fairly general but called for an action plan, in light of the success of such action plans for Article VII and universality. The Tunisian delegate intervened shortly thereafter and reminded the group that an action plan could not be launched without consensus of the entire group, &including all NAM States Parties.8 Clearly, she was not consulted about the NAM statement that Cuba read, and she was angry. In fact, an exercised discussion amongst NAM delegates continued after the close of the meeting. -------------- FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS -------------- ¶13. (U) On September 13, Amb. Dastis (Spain) held a consultation on the topic of risk assessment and frequency of inspection. The Director General first took the floor to apologize for problems that occurred, preventing complete distribution of the TS papers of 25 and 28 May 2007. Bill Kane (Head, IVB) gave a very thorough overview of these two documents. Because of the lack of preparation time for some delegations, Amb. Dastis announced that another meeting would be held on September 21. -------------- INDUSTRY CLUSTER ) LATE DECLARATIONS -------------- ¶14. (U) On September 11, del rep (Larry Denyer) chaired a consultation on the topic of &late declarations.8 The focus of the meeting was new draft decision text that was produced with the assistance of the Canadian and Mexican delegations. Nearly all of the delegations who spoke were in favor of this &rather modest8 compromise text, despite their early preference for annual nil declarations. ¶15. (U) Although acknowledging that this text moved in the right direction, Iran still had concerns about the significance of the initial declarations problem, any call for &deadlines,8 how to target those whose delay is the most significant, etc. This resulted in another statement from Russia about those States Parties who are in violation of the treaty and how this could be dealt with. ¶16. (SBU) The South African delegate told del rep in advance of this meeting that he expected at least one delegation to purposely slow down progress on this decision as a means to larger gains. In del rep,s estimation, Iran is working to hold this decision, together with the budget and other valuable decisions, as bargaining leverage for an Article XI decision calling for an action plan. ¶17. (U) Given the ongoing dynamics, del will continue to work with interested delegations to see if a way forward can be identified. -------------- 2008 BUDGET CONSULTATIONS ) ICA -------------- ¶18. (U) On September 12, Diana Gosens (Netherlands) chaired the third consultation on the DG,s Draft Programme and Budget for 2008. The topic for the discussion was Programme 3 (International Cooperation and Assistance). Several questions were raised, some in great detail. South Africa and others expressed concern about the inclusion of two legal officers (LAO staff) in this budget program and how that might indicate adequate (and even increasing) funding to this program, when in fact it is not directed at areas under Articles X and XI. The DDG was quick to state that this was a management call, as these lawyers are working exclusively on Article VII implementation. China was the first to say that perhaps some Articles need not always be a priority (meaning Article VII). South Africa also asked for more detail on the break-out of several line items (e.g., research projects, support for National Authorities),presumably as a vehicle to measuring progress and quality of these programs. -------------- 2008 BUDGET CONSULTATIONS ) OTHER ISSUES -------------- ¶19. (U) Following the brief consultation on the External Relations Division on September 14, the DDG reported on the budgetary impact of U.S. and Russian reductions in inspections, estimating that EUR 570,000 would be available for other purposes, if the present ZNG budget is maintained. He presented four proposals for possible reallocation of the funds within Chapter 1 of the budget, including (a) increased sampling analysis, (b) increased training for inspectors, (c) increased Article VI inspections by 10 for a total of 210, or (d) purchase of additional inspection equipment. After the TS asked for informal reactions, the debate demarcated SIPDIS clearly between WEOG delegations supporting increased inspections, particularly of OCPFs, and the Chinese and NAM delegations rejecting any increase in inspections, preferring the money go to increased ICA efforts. ¶20. (U) The DG is expected to release a revised budget proposal by September 19. JAVITS SENDS. Arnall