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

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001786 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 21, 2007 This is CWC-78-07. -------------- EC-50 Preparations -------------- ¶1. (U) On September 17, Ambassador Romeo Arguelles (Philippines) chaired the preparatory meeting for EC-50 and review of the agenda. There was little discussion. Ambassador Javits urged delegations to address the issues for decision and avoid the deferrals of routine business that have characterized past Council sessions. -------------- QUAD LUNCH -------------- ¶2. (SBU) French delegate and WEOG chair Annie Mari invited members of the UK, German and US delegations to lunch September 18 to discuss issues of mutual interest. German delegates raised the question of the Maradykovsky documents and what changes to the texts or decisions by the Council would allow the U.S. to accept them. Discussion centered on the Director General,s language from EC-49, clear commitment to second stage verification under Article IV/V, commitment to such verification at future facilities. Del reps agreed to consult Washington authorities. ¶3. (SBU) Del reps noted the importance of new targeted action on Article VII. The other dels agreed that continued action is important, but thought it might be more productive to pursue action directly through the TS than in the EC, where linkage with an Article XI action plan was inevitable. On OCPF inspections, the German reps expressed resistance to continuing increases in inspection numbers without a more rigorous look at targeting inspections more effectively to relevant facilities. UK del rep noted that the push for numbers provides the only leverage we have on pursuing improved site selection. ¶4. (SBU) Topics proposed for the October Quad meeting included Article VII, OCPF site selection, destruction/Maradykovsky, and strategy for the Review Conference particularly for the issue of non-lethals which is certain to come up. -------------- ACADEMIC FORUM -------------- ¶5. (U) Del reps attended several sessions of the Academic Forum September 18 ) 19. Of note were several presentations/discussions on riot control agents (RCAs), non-lethals, and incapacitants. -------------- EXPANDED WEOG -------------- ¶6. (SBU) The Western European and Others Group met on September 20 with other interested delegations from Eastern Europe, Japan and South Korea. Discussion centered on the upcoming Executive Council session. Guest delegations continue to express appreciation for the opportunity to have frank discussions with the WEOG. -------------- ARTICLE VII -------------- ¶7. (U) On September 17, Kimmo Laukkanen (Finland) chaired a meeting on Article VII. The discussion focused on the format for EC recommendations to the CSP ) e.g., a follow-up action plan v. a decision v. report language. Most delegations acknowledged that significant work remains to be done. ¶8. (U) Iran repeated several times their position that report language only was needed and that decision language was premature and inappropriate. Del rep deployed guidance and insisted that the EC,s recommendations be addressed now, which several delegations were quick to endorse. In the end, the facilitator agreed to move forward with language that could be used in whatever format or timing was agreed. ¶9. (U) On September 21, Del rep met with Laukkanen and discussed options, presenting draft decision language and he could use for developing a document for distribution. Laukkanen,s plan is to distribute this no later than September 24, with the intention of meeting during the EC to try to reach a consensus on decision language. -------------- 2008 BUDGET CONSULTATIONS -------------- ¶10. (U) Del rep met with Labib Sahab (acting head, Budget and Finance) to discuss the budget and to raise U.S. suggestions on reallocation of EUR 570,000, including funding for the SAB and funding to purchase a special CD-burner previously requested by the TS. Sahab noted that a previous EC decision limited the number of regular SAB meetings to one annually, and it would take a new EC decision to increase the number of SAB meetings before more funding could be allocated from the regular budget. ¶11. (U) The budget consultations on September 19, were dominated by the Deputy Director General,s presentation of the DG's proposal on where to reallocate the EUR 570,000 resulting by reductions in U.S. and Russian destruction estimates. The DG's new proposal includes two of the options floated last week: increased training for inspectors (EUR 170,000),and purchasing additional inspection and verification equipment (EUR 400,000). Del rep asked for clarification on the type of equipment that would be purchased. The DDG listed off some the equipment under consideration; the TS promised to circulate a paper to all delegations with more details. (NOTE: Following the consultations, DDG approached Del rep to convey TS's intention to purchase the special CD-burner either from the EUR 400,000 equipment purchase proposal or from left-over year-end funds.) ¶12. (U) During the consultations, Japan asked for more justification for the addition of two fixed-term positions in the 2008 budget. The DDG offered little explanation aside from that provided in the budget. After the meeting, Japanese delegate told Del rep that Tokyo is opposed to increasing the number of fixed-term positions. He also noted his intention to raise the issue again - along with Germany - at the September 21 budget consultations and asked for U.S. support on the issue. ¶13. (U) On September 21, the final budget consultations before the EC again focused primarily on the DG's proposal. In the absence of a paper with more details on its spending plans, the Verification and Inspectorate directors gave thorough presentations on their divisions' needs; the TS promised to prepare and circulate a detailed paper on both equipment and training. ¶14. (U) The UK raised the option of funding additional OCPF inspections, but the issue seems tied up with the current policy debate on site selection, with little likelihood of reaching consensus. Canada and Australia were particularly supportive of reducing the budget if additional inspections were not feasible. ¶15. (U) Aside from Iran's continual insistence that the EUR 570,000 be reallocated to ICA to support International Cooperation Branch activities, the general feeling among delegations was that two choices remain: approving the DG's proposal or reducing the budget. (COMMENT: Del recommends to keep the budget at its current ZNG level and not reduce the budget, joining other countries in supporting the DG's proposal.) -------------- REPORT OF THE EXTERNAL AUDITOR -------------- ¶16. (U) On September 19, Takayuki Kitagawa (Japan) chaired a meeting to discuss the External Auditor's Report. Aside from incessant questions raised on every point by Iran, the meeting was uneventful. The most contentious issue raised by Iran concerned the contingency margin; despite detailed explanations from the TS about the situation, Iran noted that the EC should request additional information from the TS. -------------- 26TH OPCW DATA VALIDATION GROUP MEETING -------------- ¶17. (U) On September 19, Del rep met with Armando Alcaraz and Hugh Gregg (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) regarding the results of this week,s Validation Group meeting. The results of the Group,s data review was the acceptance of: 67 MS spectra (for OCAD inclusion),9 MS spectra (not for OCAD), a number of NMR spectra (for OCAD inclusion),and 29 GC retention indices (for OCAD inclusion). Other topics discussed included: establishment of an LC/MS database for potential inclusion in OCAD, inclusion of prediction GC retention indices (to reduce false positives),and accepting GC data based on a single run (rather than the normal three). ¶18. (U) Lastly, this meeting announced that Ed White (NIST) would no longer serve as MS Chairman, acknowledging his dedication and diligence over the years. A search for a long-term replacement will prove very difficult. Mr. White is no longer participating because previous funding for his efforts has not been renewed. -------------- UNIVERSALITY -------------- ¶19. (U) On September 20, Said Moussi (Algeria) chaired a meeting on Universality. A draft decision was circulated and formed the basis for most of the discussion. Suggestions were made to include language from last year's decision (C-11/DEC.8) and to clarify portions of the draft. It was decided to take up the issue following EC-50. After the meeting, Moussi approached Del reps to ask for assistance in moving the decision forward and welcomed any advice or input the Del might provide. The next meeting on Universality is scheduled for October 5. -------------- FREQUENCY OF INSPECTION AND RISK ASSESSMENT -------------- ¶20. (U) On September 21, Amb. Dastis (Spain) chaired another meeting on this topic. The meeting was again attended by the DG and Verification staff. ¶21. (U) The first part of the discussion centered on the May 28, 2007 TS paper specifically on the Schedule 2 risk assessment methodology. South Africa attempted to use the text in paragraphs 16 and 17 of this paper to indicate that Schedule 2 inspection levels should be higher than in the current budget proposal. The TS made it clear that paragraph 16 is meant to demonstrate the high-end of the frequency range for facilities where such was warranted, but that paragraph 17 was meant to demonstrate the average frequency over time. Japan and several WEOG delegations had some minor questions but strongly supported the general approach the TS took in this paper. ¶22. (U) The second part of the discussion was on the more general May 25, 2007 TS paper. On Schedule 1, many WEOG delegations expressed the opinion that the TS proposal was, if anything, higher than necessary and might be further reduced in later years. Germany, however, asked that the Schedule 1 frequency be kept static to reflect the sensitivity of these compounds. The Schedule 2 discussion was truncated by the early specific discussion, and Schedule 3 was likewise short. The DG began the OCPF discussion (in response to a South African comment) by referencing his EC-49 opening remarks, during which he recommended a revisit of OCPF declaration components. This led to a long discussion into how this might be done, during which Del rep reminded delegations that, for many reasons (e.g., legislative),this review needed to be kept within the bounds of current declaration processes. In the end, it was agreed that the declaration element found in VA Part IX para 4(c) ) &main activities8 ) would be the focus of the review. Eventually, it was decided that it was best for the TS to make a first attempt at options for para 4(c),which will be distributed to delegations, along with possible ways to include appropriate expert input. ¶23. (U) Del Comment: The idea now being reviewed by the TS was something that was being discussed internally within the interagency. The fact that this approach was proposed and gained such favorable ground will change the USG approach to the matter. However, it will still be of value to provide our thoughts and approaches to the TS for their consideration during this time. JAVITS SENDS. Arnall