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

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001905 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 TWO WEEKS ENDING OCTOBER 12, 2007 This is CWC-81-07. -------------- PREPARATIONS FOR THE EC VISIT TO ANNISTON -------------- ¶1. (U) On October 2, Del Reps were invited to join the Executive Council Bureau meeting to answer questions on the upcoming visit to the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility. Gabrielle Coman-Enescu of the Technical Secretariat also attended for the same purpose. The SIPDIS Ambassadors had few questions other than on logistics. The Russian delegate noted their intention to ask about meeting destruction deadlines. The Algerian ambassador asked about press coverage; before anyone had a chance to respond, the Russian delegate stated there should be &no press.8 The Director General offered a TS briefing before the visit to the EC Chairman. The DG also offered TS support in drafting the report of the visit and noted that the EC members on the visit and the U.S. should all see the draft text of the report before it is finalized. A final briefing before the visit is planned for October 18. -------------- AMMAN WORKSHOP -------------- ¶2. (SBU) Del Rep continues to coordinate with the Technical Secretariat, UK and Japanese delegations on arrangements for SIPDIS the workshop with Iraq, now set for October 28 ) 31. Iraqi representatives in The Hague were on leave following the end of Ramadan so Del Reps were unable to meet with them directly, but they had conveyed their government,s initial commitment to the workshop to the TS before they disappeared on holiday. Horst Reeps (TS Verification) continues to push the U.S. and U.K. to provide imagery. -------------- -------------- OEWG: PREPARATION FOR THE SECOND REVIEW CONFERENCE -------------- -------------- ¶3. (U) On October 2, Amb Lyn Parker (UK) chaired a meeting of the Open-Ended Working Group on preparations for the Second Review Conference (RevCon). The discussion centered on the recommendations included in the preliminary report of the Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) to the Second RevCon (Annex 2 of SAB-10/1, dated 23 May 2007),an earlier Iranian proposal for a special meeting of experts from capitals with the SAB to discuss their recommendations, a review of the June 11 Industry Forum, and next steps. ¶4. (U) Several delegations made positive statements regarding the preliminary SAB report and its recommendations. In particular, several WEOG delegations had positive reactions to SAB comments on the increasing importance of the &general purpose criteria8 and OCFP verification in a time of technology change, a comprehensive OPCW chemical analytical database (OCAD) and analytical capabilities (including biomedical),and the role of national and international societies (i.e., IUPAC). Although acknowledging the possible need to revisit the Schedules of chemicals, Russia stated that current effective implementation topics (e.g., timely declarations and Article VII) are a higher priority. Germany,s position on the SAB comments regarding ricin, saxitoxin, and salts, is that they should be reviewed and the Schedules expanded if they need to be included. The Netherlands asked a more general question about how to turn the SAB,s recommendations into something of policy impact. Germany also stressed the importance of seeing a report from the DG on the &trial period8 for sampling and analysis (S&A) during routine Schedule 2 inspections before deciding on future work. Iran brought up whether the SAB had any technology recommendations for possessor States to help in accelerating destruction, to which both the Chair and the SAB representative responded ) forcing States Parties to look at new technologies would require at least a five year investigation, which would be of no real use in the much shorter term of the 2012 deadline. ¶5. (U) When the Chair opened the discussion on Iran,s earlier proposal about having a meeting of experts with the SAB, not even their South African supporter from the previous meeting came to their defense. Most delegations were concerned about the timing for such a meeting, how this might be done without budgeted funding for it, etc. In the end, the Chair and the DG committed to looking at the timing for the 2008 meeting of the SAB to see if it could be scheduled before the RevCon and could accommodate an informal &encounter8 with delegations. ¶6. (U) In general, delegations were very positive about the June 11 Industry Forum and the opportunity it gave for interaction between industry representatives and delegations from various States Parties. Some delegations reiterated the points their industries made during the Forum, including fair approach to inspection implementation, limited role of OPCW in chemical control, hierarchy of risk, and quality of OCPF declarations. South Africa acknowledged that, despite the advance notice of this Forum, the geographical distribution of industry representatives was not ideal. ¶7. (U) Finally, the Chair laid out the overall plan for the next few months. He provided at this meeting the Chairman,s proposed outline of the RevCon report, which he intends to discuss at the next meeting (October 16). Based on input at that meeting, a revised draft will be distributed in January, along with a draft political statement. -------------- ARTICLE X -------------- ¶8. (U) Jitka Brodska (Czech Republic) chaired an informal consultation on Article X on October 9. Genadi Lutay (Assistance and Protection Branch) provided information regarding the Article X, para 7, Offers of Assistance, describing the options available and a breakdown of how States Parties have responded. He stressed the need to encourage use of the unified format for reporting declarations. He noted that only one bilateral agreement exists to date and expressed the Technical Secretariat,s desire for more bilateral agreements. ¶9. (U) Protection Network. Kristina Rodriguez (Special Projects) discussed the history of the Protection Network and its current composition. She clarified that its role is to provide advice and assessment, and lecture and inform. A meeting of the Protection Network is planned for September ¶2008. ¶10. (U) Qualified Experts. Ervin Farkas (Assistance and Protection Branch) informed delegates of the plan to establish a core group of experts, providing training and equipment and ensuring readiness by 2008. He pointed out that the role of the experts would be specific according to their area of expertise and that their terms of employment would be similar to that of a special services agreement. ¶11. (U) Readiness. Ervin Farkas also made a presentation with information regarding inspections of unilateral offers. He stated that the Technical Secretariat plans to inspect all forty States Parties with unilateral offers by the end of ¶2009. China questioned the selection method, to which Farkas responded that there was an effort to ensure some geographical distribution. He also pointed out that geographical gaps exist that could result in delays in delivery of equipment in an emergency. ¶12. (U) Iran made a request that the Technical Secretariat clarify to States Parties what further equipment is needed. The Iranian delegate also pointed out that Iran has a long standing request for the issue of providing assistance to victims of chemical weapons to be brought in under Article X. Brodska agreed to discussion on this topic at a later date. -------------- ARTICLE XI -------------- ¶13. (U) On October 10, Li Hong (China) chaired a consultation to draft recommendations for the upcoming CSP on the implementation of Article XI. The text for discussion was distributed the afternoon before the meeting and most delegations were seeing the text for the first time during the meeting. As a result, no delegation had guidance from capital, and the meeting became one of superficial editing rather than substance. Although the facilitator,s text relies heavily on text from past decisions, many elements are abbreviated and taken out of context. Because of the wording of the facilitator,s text, many delegations assumed that the goal was a decision for the CSP, a fact that Cuba and others tried to leverage into agreement to do so. ¶14. (U) The issue of real disagreement was whether some type of action plan is needed to move this work forward. The facilitator tried, in his text, to give two options: (1) a &Roadmap8, and (2) a &plan of action.8 Even though many NAM delegations spoke in favor of an action plan, many other delegations questioned whether either of these options was needed. The Canadians were very helpful in reminding delegations of the balance that was achieved in C-10/DEC.14 and the extensive detail it contained on needed actions. This allowed Del Rep and other delegations to intervene and support the idea of using C-10/DEC.14 as our outline for ongoing work. ¶15. (U) The facilitator planned to produce another draft and call another consultation soon. -------------- ARTICLE VII -------------- ¶16. (U) On October 10, Del Reps met with TS Legal Adviser Onate regarding current status of Article VI target States Parties (SPs),particularly the &20-in-108 SPs (i.e., those with chemical industries who have not as yet met their Article VII obligations). Amb Onate agreed with our general assessment of the status of these SPs and was supportive of our initiative to reach out to those in most need of our focused assistance. He also agreed to continue to work with us in this effort and provide insights into avenues that might provide the greatest results. ¶17. (U) That afternoon, Kimmo Laukkanen (Finland) chaired a consultation to work on a draft decision for the upcoming CSP. As the facilitator,s draft had changed significantly from that reviewed during EC-50, Del Rep and other delegations expressed surprise that the earlier text (which many favored) had been abandoned. Given that another meeting will be held on October 15, most delegations were clearly saving their thoughts for the next meeting. Del Rep pointed out some of our biggest concerns with the new texts, while expressing appreciation for some additions (i.e., paragraph 6) which were clearly added to address our preferences. Other delegations also express favor for paragraph 6 and its further focusing of the effort. Del Rep forwarded the remainder of our comments and textual recommendations to the facilitator later in the week. -------------- UNIVERSALITY -------------- ¶18. (U) On October 5, Said Moussi (Algeria) chaired a consultation to review a draft decision for the upcoming CSP on universality. At the beginning of the meeting, Moussi circulated a new draft incorporating some of the changes raised at the previous consultation (ref CWC 78-07). While a number of delegations suggested editorial and formatting changes, Iran stood out for suggesting a number of additions to the text. Most of the text proposed by Iran came directly from the CSP-10 decision on universality (CSP-10/DEC.8), rather than the most recent decision adopted by CSP-11 (CSP-11/DEC.11). ¶19. (U) Many of Iran's suggestions focused on adding the phrase "in particular those whose non-adherence is a cause of serious concern" after "States not Party" in a number of clauses. This prompted several delegations to question whether such language was necessary. Iran's most notable suggestion was to add a reference to the transfer of Schedule 3 chemicals to non-States Parties, borrowing language directly from an EC-47 decision on transfers (EC-47/DEC.8). As with many of Iran's suggestions, other delegations could not see a reason to include this random reference. ¶20. (U) On October 11, Moussi chaired another consultation to review paragraph-by-paragraph a revised draft decision on universality. An updated draft had been circulated prior to the meeting. Editorial changes only were suggested for the first six preambular paragraphs, with many delegations reserving the right to return to these after they received final guidance. ¶21. (U) Preambular paragraph 7 resulted in significant discussion. Del Rep pointed out that this referred to language from a CSP-11 decision on the transfers of Schedule 3 chemicals to non-SPs but did so in an incomplete and unbalanced way. Several other delegations joined in, pointing out that this text seemed out-of-place. Iran, as expected, wanted to know why it was inappropriate to state something that was factual, ignoring the careful balancing of language in the Schedule 3 transfers decision. ¶22. (U) Several delegations felt that some of the operative paragraphs (e.g., OP1 and OP3) were more appropriate in the preamble. As in the previous meeting, there was considerable concern expressed about the repeated use of the phrase &...States not Party, in particular, those whose non-adherence is a cause of serious concern...8 throughout the text. ¶23. (U) True to form, at the end of the meeting, Iran suggested the addition of two new operative paragraphs: one asking the EC Chairman to contact the non-SPs (much as he did under the Article VII decision); and the second asking the TS to maintain a rolling report of the status of universality (again, as is done under Article VII). Del Rep, supported by other delegations, questioned the appropriateness (and, possibly, the legality) of such an action by the EC Chairman with countries that are not part of the OPCW, have not been involved in his selection as EC Chairman, etc. ¶24. (U) The facilitator will produce another draft and hold another consultation on October 18. -------------- STAFFDEL -------------- ¶25. (U) Two staff members from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Thomas Moore (representing Sen. Lugar) and Anthony Wier (representing Sen. Biden),visited The Hague, October 10-12. They met with the DG, the DDG, and Richard Ekwall (the DG's Chief of Cabinet) before having individual consultations on Verification and Inspection, International Cooperation and Assistance, Human Resources, and Budget. Ekwall hosted a dinner for the staffers which gave them an opportunity to meet and talk with American citizens and other staff working in various capacities in the TS. The DG also hosted a lunch for them with senior management. ¶26. (U) The staffers, final day was spent meeting with the Del before having informal conversations with other delegations. They met with Angela Peart (Canadian deputy perm rep),followed by Miguel Garcia-Zamudio (Mexican deputy perm rep) and Erasmo Lara Cabrera (Mexican legal counsel). Amb. Javits also hosted an informal working lunch on October 12 after his return to The Hague. ¶27. (SBU) A common theme raised throughout their OPCW consultations and during their meeting with the Canadian rep was the negative impact of delayed payment of the U.S. assessed contribution. Moore and Wier questioned the impact of the tenure policy on operations. They expressed particular satisfaction with the depth of the information they received from the Secretariat, particularly the lengthy and detailed sessions with the Verification and Inspection divisions. JAVITS SENDS. Arnall