CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 002010

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/ACV, IO/S,
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN)
NSC FOR SMITH
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR
NOVEMBER 13 - 21, 2007

This is CWC-90-07.

--------------
WEOG ) REVIEW OF THE CSP
--------------


1. (SBU) The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) held
its normal weekly meeting on November 13. Discussion was
dominated by the review of the Conference of States Parties
the week before. While several delegations began by noting
that all,s well that ends well (quoted in different
languages),resentment surfaced at Iran being &treated as a
super power,8 and the fact that the majority of CSP
delegations were left out of negotiations for much of the
week and not kept informed of developments. Several
delegations saw the Cuban role in mediation as helpful, and
others noted that the NAM is not monolithic and can be split.
Others warned that the NAM should not be identified with
Iran; NAM countries have very different interests on many
issues. France suggested that the EU could be brought in as
a &component8 or counter-weight to the NAM. U.S. del noted
that the only way to avoid the Iranians holding decisions
hostage is for lots of other delegations, including NAM
members, to stand up vocally to the Iranians.


2. (SBU) A common theme among the WEOG reactions to the CSP
included the need to keep facilitators involved in
negotiations, the difficulty in getting volunteers for the
facilitators, jobs and the need to recruit and keep
motivated people in that role. Most delegations agreed that
the vote called for by Morocco to contest the African
Group,s candidates set a bad precedent and may affect future
meetings; the lack of consultations with the African missions
in Brussels was cited as problematic, starting with the
African Group,s vote for the CSP chair. More generally on
voting, delegations felt that there was not enough time, none
to consult capitals, and that the vote may have been improper
in the first place. There was general agreement that Legal
Advisor Onate,s opinion on the challenge to the African
candidates should have stood, with no subsequent vote
conducted. (Note: The Director General hosted a lunch for
November 21 with Morocco as the guest of honor. The Moroccan
ambassador assured the group that their challenge to the
Executive Council seat was behind them.)


3. (U) WEOG delegtions agreed that Executive Council 51
should beshort and asked Coordinator, Annie Mari (France),
to make a formal request to the Secretariat to shoten the
session. Mari later reported that the Scretariat (Khodakov)
responded that it could notchange the official schedule on
its own, but tha the Council could certainly agree to end
early. (Note: A similar response came to the U.S. reques
to take Articles VII, XI and Universality off te EC-51
agenda ) the Secretariat said it could nt do so, but the
Council could.)

--------------
OEWG ) REV CON PREPARATION
--------------


4. (U) On November 15, Amb.Lyn Parker (UK) chaired a meeting
of the Open-Ened Working Group overseeing preparations for
theSecond Review Conference (RevCon). The topic for his
session was the general purpose criterion (GC).


5. (U) In response to an ealer request from the
Netherlands, Amb. Onate (TS Legal Adviser) presented an
overview of how the GPC is being implemented in national
legislation. Amb. Onate explained that the GPC came
originally from the BWC negotiations and entered into early
negotiations of the CWC. He stated that, under the GPC, all
toxic chemicals are considered chemical weapons (CW) unless
their uses, types, quantities, etc. are consistent with the
object and purpose of the CWC. (Note: This statement will be
placed on the OPCW external server, along with other
statements from the meeting.)


6. (U) About national legislation specifically, Onate stated

that:
- Some States Parties (SPs) incorporate the CWC by
reference.
- Some SPs address the GPC directly in their legislation,
with small adjustments for unique national considerations.
- 123 SPs (68%) have included the GPC in their
legislation.
- 120 SPs have adopted Article I prohibitions in their
legislation.
- The legislative kit the TS uses when working with
National Authorities (NAs) includes GPC elements.
- Recently, some SPs have asked the Legal Adviser,s
Office (LAO) whether it would be consistent with the CWC to
include additional elements in their legislation (e.g.,
inclusion of environmental harm in their definition of toxic
chemical, limitations on the use of toxic chemicals for law
enforcement purposes domestically). LAO,s response has been
that, although these additional measures are the prerogative
of the NAs, these measures are beyond the scope of the CWC.

- Some SPs have included no thresholds for Schedule 2 and
3 chemicals, seeing this as a measure to strengthen control
and security domestically. Switzerland has responded to this
practice recently, stating that it causes difficulties for
matters of import/export reconciliation (as one example).


7. (U) Amb. Onate also mentioned briefly (without naming the
U.S. as the country discussed) the November 8 Herald-Tribune
editorial that cast a poor light on new chemical security
regulations. (Note: Onate mentioned this editorial in
passing to Delrep during the CSP.)


8. (U) Del deployed guidance as part of its intervention to
reinforce the presentation of the Legal Advisor, with the
examples of U.S. law particularly helpful as illustrations.


9. (U) Italian delegate made a brief intervention about the
role of the GPC in their legislation, but mentioned
industry,s concerns with this concept, particularly in light
of declarations. He then stated the importance the Italian
government places on the TS role in developing databases.
This issue was also raised earlier by Italy during the
Industry and Protection Forum, noting that their legislation
is list-based only, and they are greatly concerned that there
are holes in their lists. They did not receive any sympathy
in this regard, particularly from those SPs who were wise
enough to avoid the trap of such lists.


10. (U) The UK, the Netherlands, and Canada made brief
interventions about their legislative process and outreach
efforts to promote understanding of the GPC. This resulted
in a discussion on the mention of harm to both humans and
animals in the CWC and how that conformed to issues of pest
control, etc.


11. (U) Iran made repeated interventions about the importance
of balancing Articles I and II with Article VI in discussions
of the GPC. They also made vague references for the need to
look at the use of RCA by SPs beyond its jurisdiction, the
use of RCA in warfare, and developments in incapacitating
agents.


12. (U) When South Africa intervened to question the extent
of the problem we are trying to address, Onate stated that
the GPC was fairly straight-forward in response to Articles I
and II, but that it became more difficult when looked at
under Article VI. He stated that it was necessary to put
into place rules to allow the verification regime to move
forward. But, he also said that some might argue that the
heart of the GPC lies in Article VI para 2.


13. (U) Amb. Parker noted the Non-Governmental Organizations
Forum on November 19 had received more confirmations of
attendance. He reported that the Director General,s paper
with ideas for the Review Conference would form the basis for
discussion at the next OEWG meeting on December 4. The DG,s
paper should be published by November 23. Parker also
announced that beginning mid-January, there would be weekly

meetings of the OEWG, with a projected draft report to be
completed by the end of February. The RevCon work schedule
will be distributed at the next meeting.

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


14. (U) Based on the deferral of this decision at the special
EC meeting during the week of the CSP, the facilitator (Larry
Denyer, Del) met with TS staff, including a LAO
representative, about the way forward. LAO agreed that this
decision, with minor structural modifications (not
substantive),could be introduced to EC-51 as a stand-alone
decision. The EC has received a mandate from the CSP to
address this issue and, as such, is empowered to take such a
decision. This is strengthened by the precedent set by a
previous EC decision on the transfer of Schedule 3 chemicals
to non-SPs. The necessary changes were made to the decision
text, which was been distributed to delegations in advance of
a consultation on November 21.


15. (U) In the November 21 consultation, the text was only
opened because India and a few other delegations had received
specific textual instructions from their capitals. These
comments focused on operative paragraphs (OP) 3 and 7.
Although the discussions were extensive, the resulting
changes to these paragraphs were minimal. Iran made their
usual generalizations about whether several pre-ambular and
operative paragraphs were even needed, but, in the end, they
backed down when the discussions on OP 3 and 7 came to a
successful conclusion; however, they did say they need to get
final instructions from Tehran regarding PP 2 (i.e., CSP-3
report language expressing &serious concern8 over those
without initial declarations). The result was a consensus
decision text. The minor changes to the text will be
incorporated into the text by PMO as EC-M-27/DEC/CRP.4/Rev.2.
This document will be posted on the external server by
week,s end and presented to EC-51 for approval.

--------------
MEETING WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
--------------


16. (U) On November 19, Amb. Lyn Parker (UK) chaired a
meeting with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as part of
the Open-Ended Working Group,s (OEWG) preparations for the
Second Review Conference (RevCon). Representatives of the
following NGOs participated: Arms Control Association (ACA);
Bioweapons Prevention Project (BWPP); Center for Arms Control
and Non-Proliferation; Green Peace ) War Victims; Harvard
Sussex Program (HSP); International Federation of University
Women (IFUW); International Network of Engineers and
Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES); International
Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC); Pugwash
International; Society for Chemical Weapons Victims Support
(SCWVS); University of Leeds; Verification Research, Training
and Information Centre (VERTIC); Weapons of Mass Destruction
Injured Society (WMDIS); and World Federation of Scientific
Workers (WFSW). Green Cross International (GCI) was
registered to participate but did not show. In addition, two
other individuals attended in their personal capacity )
Richard Guthrie and Dr. Walter Krutzsch.


17. (U) The meeting began with a brief statement by the
Director General (DG),in which he marked the importance of
this event in preparation for the RevCon. Robin Black
(Porton Down) made a presentation on the activities of the
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) since the First RevCon. This
presentation addressed topics raised in the SAB report to the
DG in preparation for the RevCon: captive use of Schedule 1
chemicals; salts of scheduled chemicals; structure of ricin;
the status of CAS Registry numbers; sampling and analysis
(including biomedical); and advances in science and
technology. (Note: It was learned on the margins of the
meeting that the term of Jiri Matousek (Czech Republic) as
chair of the SAB has ended, and his successor will be named
at their February meeting.)





18. (U) A series of NGOs made presentations on a variety of
topics, the general themes of which are listed below:
- Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation:
Incapacitating Chemicals and the Law Enforcement Provision.
The presenter (Alan Pearson) also talked up a new book he
co-wrote with Chevrier and Wheelis entitled &Incapacitating
Biochemical Weapons: Promise or Peril?8, copies of which he
made available to the group.
- INES: INES and its engagement in implementing the CWC.
This presentation was mostly an advertisement and history of
their work.
- WFSW: Working for General and Comprehensive Chemical
Weapons Ban. Again, this presentation was mostly an
advertisement and history of their work.
- VERTIC: This presentation touched on three major
topics: (1) national implementation, (2) compliance
(mentioning non-lethal weapons),and (3) verification.
- SCWVS: Chemical weapons in Iraq-Iran war. This
presentation by an Iranian victim gave a historical
perspective, the goals of SCWVS, and its activities to date.
- HSP: This presentation presented the lessons learned
from BWC RevCons to strengthen the upcoming CWC RevCon )
early preparation and planning, reaffirm CWC comprehensive
scope, focus on national implementation, broader concept of
CWC implementation, widen and deepen synergies, and reach out
to all stakeholders. Although not discussed, HSP distributed
copies of their paper &Non Lethal Warfare and the Chemical
Weapons Convention.8
- ACA: This presentation touched on destruction of
chemical weapons stockpiles, trade in dual-use chemicals,
proliferation concerns, national implementation,
&non-lethal8 chemical agents, and verification.
- Richard Guthrie: NGO participation in meetings of
global arms control treaties.
- BWPP: Lessons from Geneva: learning from the BTWC.
- IUPAC: Why should awareness be an important issue?
This presentation discussed the progression of understanding
about the CWC within the scientific community (including
mention of Responsible Care) and the need for further work.
- Alastair Hay (Leeds): Multiple Uses of Chemicals:
making the right choice. This was a rehash of a presentation
he made at the Academic Forum, focusing on OPCW-IUPAC
chemical education and outreach efforts.
- Dr. Walter Krutzsch: Implementation of the CWC. This
was also a slimmed-down rehash of a presentation he made at
the Academic Forum. It includes several controversial
presumptions ) that the independence of the TS has been
compromised; that the inviolability of records, samples and
approved equipment are being &routinely violated during
hundreds of inspections8; that the practice of reaching
consensus leads to EC agreements &set at the lowest common
denominator.8 Although not discussed, he also distributed a
paper (together with Adolf von Wagner) entitled &CWC
Implementation and new Developments.8
- Pugwash: This presentation was a general overview of
the CWC and the role of the RevCon, emphasizing the value of
including all stakeholders.


19. (U) Several other papers were made available to
participants:
- &Beware the Siren,s Song: Why Non-Lethal,
Incapacitating Agents are Lethal8 by Klotz, Furmanski, and
Wheelis (March 2003)
- &Verifying the Chemical Weapons Ban: Missing
Elements8 by Jonathan Tucker
- &,Off the Rocker, and &On the Floor,: The
Continued Development of Biochemical Incapacitating Weapons8
by Neil Davison of University of Bradford (August 2007)
- The DG,s statement at the Conference on Investigation
of Legal Aspects of Using Chemical Weapons (Tehran, June 2007)


20. (U) During the open discussion, India reacted to IUPAC,s
statement that a shift of technology/industry to developing
countries is seen as &a challenge.8 South Africa also
cautioned against generalizations about developing countries,
citing a legal case that involved citizens from three SPs
(South Africa and two developed SPs),and that South Africa

was the only one to date to prosecute its citizen. The
responses focused on giving attention to situations where
technology is being introduced to an area where an
appropriate regulatory structure does not yet exist. There
was also a discussion about the overlaps between the CWC and
the BWC and whether this created greater strengths or
potential gaps. And, finally, a representative of WMDIS (an
Iranian victim),who did not make any earlier presentation,
made a brief intervention calling for outreach to survivors
and their children to replace anger with understanding.


21. JAVITS SENDS.
Gallagher