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