CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 002024 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 LEDDY WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION, NOVEMBER 27-28, 2007 (EC-51) REF: STATE 159645 (U) This is CWC-90-70 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (U) Despite being a much shorter session than normal (a day and a half as opposed to the usual four),Executive Council 51 did manage to clear several lingering issues from the Council agenda, including a decision on late declarations shepherded through by U.S. facilitator Larry Denyer and several lists of validated data for the OPCW Central Analytical Database. Following so closely on the heels of the Conference of States Parties, this EC was characterized not by a flurry of consultations, but by an unnecessarily protracted debate on the report of the EC visit to the Anniston Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility. The documents for the Russian facility at Maradykovsky, and the U.S. facilities at Newport and Pine Bluff were deferred to the next EC. However, by requesting an opinion from the Legal Advisor, the U.S. Delegation did get one set of Pine Bluff modifications noted and off the agenda. End Summary. -------------- STREAMLINING THE EC AGENDA -------------- ¶2. (U) At the request of the U.S. Delegation, the agenda items on Article VII implementation (5. d),Article XI (5. e),and Universality (5, f) were deleted from the agenda. At the request of the South African delegation, the agenda (7) on the OPCW Office in Africa was also deleted from the agenda. In both cases, delegations noted the recent actions by the Conference of States Parties. Iran voiced initial skepticism at the deletion, but acquiesced to consensus when the Secretariat noted that there were precedents for the deletion and that it would not prejudice any future discussion of the matters. -------------- GENERAL DEBATE -------------- ¶3. (U) General debate was short, with only five delegations making statements: Cuba (on behalf of the NAM and China), South Africa (on behalf of the Africa Group),Portugal (on behalf of the EU and others),China and the U.S. Of note were two elements of the EU statement. The first was an expression of concern "regarding aspects of the procedures and methods adopted to reach agreement on several issues" and noting "we must ensure that informal negotiation does not replace either the role of the appointed facilitators, or preclude a representative mix of states parties drawn from the regional groups." This was a clear reference to the dissatisfaction expressed by many WEOG members immediately following the CSP regarding the lead role the U.S. took in the final stages of negotiation, to the perceived exclusion of other interested delegations. The second element was an endorsement by the EU of the DG,s statement at EC-49 regarding destruction at Maradykovsky; the EU statement included a clear reference to Article IV of the Convention. -------------- -------------- DETAILED PLANS FOR CWDF VERIFICATION AND FACILITY AGREEMENTS -------------- -------------- ¶4. (U) Following the mutually agreed request to the Chair by Russia and the U.S., the agenda items on the Newport detailed verification plan (5.1),the Maradykovsky detailed verification plan (5.2),the Newport facility agreement amendments (5.19 and 5.20),and the Maradykovsky facility agreement (5.21) were all deferred to the next regular session of the EC. Russia also requested that the Pine Bluff Binary detailed verification plan (5.3) and Pine Bluff Binary facility agreement modifications (5.23) be deferred. ¶5. (U) In an effort to break at least some of the documents free from the Maradykovsky/Newport stalemate, the U.S. explained that sub-items 5.22 and 5.23 were simply modifications to attachments, and as such did not require Council approval. The U.S. noted that no recommendations for revisions or expressions of concern had been made to date, and recommended that the EC-51 report state that the documents had been considered, and that they then be removed from the EC agenda. Russia stated that it did not agree with this interpretation of Council action. The U.S. requested a formal opinion from the Legal Advisor. India noted the importance of resolving whether Council was necessary or not, at this session. ¶6. (U) Legal Advisor Onate later gave his formal concurrence with the U.S. position. The modifications to the Pine Bluff Chemical Agent Disposal Facility were then noted. Continued Russian deferral of the Pine Bluff Binary modifications was undercut somewhat by the U.S. announcement of completion of destruction operations at the secondary treatment facility for PBBDF. Del will request that the following statement, read during the debate on this item, be circulated as an official document. BEGIN STATEMENT. The United States is pleased to report that as of yesterday, November 27, 2007, we have completed destruction operations at the Treatment Storage and Disposal Facility for the Pine Bluff Binary Destruction Facility. The Technical Secretariat will conduct one more inspection at this location in early December to confirm the completeness of destruction. As we stated Tuesday morning, the U.S. has completed the destruction of all parts, components, munitions, and chemicals associated with the most modern chemical weapons system ever developed by the United States. All former production facilities associated with the production of these systems have also been destroyed. This marks a significant milestone for both the United States and the Chemical Weapons Convention, and is yet another demonstration of our commitment to the goals and objectives of the Convention, to rid the world of the threat of use of chemical weapons. END OF STATEMENT. -------------- -------------- CONVERSION OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES -------------- -------------- ¶7. (U) All four of the DG,s notes on Russian Conversion progress were noted (Agenda item 5 b). Germany took the floor to state that Russia had missed the original conversion deadline in 2003 and urged Russia to make every effort to complete conversion as soon as possible. -------------- PROGRESS REPORTS IN MEETING REVISED DEADLINES -------------- ¶8. (U) Under agenda items 5.8, 5.11, and 5.14, the Council noted national papers by Libya, the United States, China, and Japan. Unlike EC-50, Iran agreed without comment to note the U.S. report, but still insisted upon chapeau language in the report belaboring its standard point about the obligation of possessor states to destroy within extended deadlines. Russia expressed irritation from the floor at the unnecessary repetition of this text, but did not contest it. -------------- ANNISTON VISIT -------------- ¶9. (SBU) BACKGROUND TO THE REPORT. Following the visit itself in October, the TS drafted the group,s report, working closely with the U.S. behind the scenes so that several issues of characterization were resolved without the drafting group,s knowledge. By the time the U.S. had its "first look" at the draft report, the only substantive issue seemed to be the unusual highlighting of a specific passage through the use of direct quotation. The sentence in question dealt with the U.S. position that Schedule 2B chemicals generated by a destruction process must also be destroyed, and had evidently been the subject of much debate between the Russian Federation and the rest of the delegation. Del noted its concern that the report not be used as a stage for unrelated policy debates, and also that elements clearly covered by a U.S. presentation not be omitted simply because they differed with Russian policy. ¶10. (U) Although this draft had been presented as final, Del was surprised to receive a new version very shortly before the EC session that had further highlighted the text in question by relegating it to a footnote. After offering a possible alternative that was rejected by Russia, Del met with the EC visit delegation to express its appreciation for their work in drafting, but its concern at the inappropriately heavy hand one delegation had in the drafting. However, to avoid further delays in distribution and to set a positive precedent in terms of minimal host State Party interference with the drafting, the U.S. allowed distribution of the new version, but attached comments as follow: QUOTE. In accordance with C-11/DEC.20, the U.S. has had the opportunity to review the draft report, and in keeping with this decision attaches written comments below: The United States would like to express its appreciation for the efforts of the Chairman of the Executive Council, the EC delegation, and the Technical Secretariat in preparing for, conducting, and reporting the results of the first visit of an Executive Council delegation to a U.S. destruction facility. We believe that these visits are and will continue to be a useful exercise in building confidence and transparency regarding the efforts of States Parties to destroy their chemical weapons stockpiles. Footnote 2 - The U.S. believes that the report should, first and foremost, be an accurate and comprehensive reflection of all topics covered in the presentations and discussions. In this case, neither U.S. participants nor members of the Council delegation have been able to confirm that this is, in fact, a verbatim quotation. While this footnote may not reflect the precise words of Dr. Hopkins, it does accurately reflect United States policy. Both the use of quotation marks and relegation of this statement to a footnote were, as we understand it, done to satisfy one government whose objection was that the U.S. view reflected was inconsistent with its own. UNQUOTE. ¶11. (U) Agenda item 5.12, the report of the EC visit to the Anniston CWDF, was not discussed until the final hours of EC-51. The text, with U.S. comments, was distributed on November 28 at 11:30 after a recess in the morning session (to finish reproduction of the text). The EC Chair made no formal introduction of the report except to read the agenda item and suggest immediately that due to its late distribution consideration of the report be deferred to the following session. Ambassador Javits noted that time should be allowed for any initial comments delegations might wish to make, and he read the following statement. QUOTE. The United States would like to express its appreciation for the efforts of the EC Chair, the EC delegation, and the Technical Secretariat - not only in the drafting of this report, but also in the preparations for and conduct of the visit to Anniston. As envisioned by CSP-11/DEC.20, the U.S. had the opportunity to review the draft report of the visit early last week. We commend the group on its hard work in drafting. Overall, it seems to us to be a balanced and accurate reflection of the EC visit. We did express concern about one phrase in particular that, unlike any other, had been placed in quotation marks. This was apparently done to accommodate the concerns of one delegation regarding a difference in interpretation of the treaty. We noted that neither we, nor the group, were able to confirm that this was an accurate transcription of Dr. Hopkins, words, and thus questioned the use of quotation marks. We even suggested an alternative formulation which would capture the essence of the presentation but that we hoped would be less objectionable. In this final version, the quotation has been retained, and relegated to a footnote. We view the role of the host State Party in the review process as one of ensuring that the contents of the draft report are factually accurate, and a comprehensive reflection of the presentations, discussions and activities of the visit. It is not our desire to alter the text or change the message of the report. We do, however, wish to emphasize that the report of a Council visit should not be used as a vehicle to raise or contest policy issues unrelated to the purpose of the visits. Presentations by U.S. officials reflect U.S. policy, and in no way prejudge the actions or opinions of the Council. Since this is the case, issues that were covered by the host State Party in some detail should not be omitted from the report or subjected to protracted drafting exercises simply because they are deemed controversial or are not in accordance with the policy of a single participant. In conclusion, we would like to again express our appreciation to all involved in the visit and the drafting of this report - we believe that on the whole it did an excellent job accurately reflecting the events of the visit and the observations and conclusions of the delegation, and trust that future reports will do the same. END QUOTE. ¶12. (SBU) DEL COMMENTS. From the delays and debate surrounding the drafting and distribution of the report, Del would offer several observations for future visits. First, the report was drafted by the Technical Secretariat and discussed initially with the group weeks after the visit itself. As the lengthy debate and final report proved, the collective memory after such a period was less than accurate and led to inaccurate and unnecessary quotations attributed to U.S. officials. Del would strongly recommend that delegations on future visits accomplish the majority of the drafting before conclusion of the visit. ¶13. (U) In addition, Del learned that a good deal of the drafting seems to have been done by proxy, with members of the Delegation sending alternates to drafting meetings here in The Hague. Given the difficulty the group seems to have had in agreeing on what presentations actually covered and how to portray these topics, the substitution of individuals who had nothing to do with the visit is inappropriate in drafting sessions. This too could be resolved by insisting that the report be drafted on site prior to the delegation,s departure. END COMMENT. -------------- TIMELY SUBMISSION OF DECLARATIONS -------------- ¶14. (U) This decision (EC-M-27/DEC/CRP.4/Rev.2, dated 26 November 2007),representing the work of the consultations conducted by Larry Denyer (US Del),was adopted without discussion. Because the language in the provisional agenda indicated that this decision contained recommendations to the CSP, the fact that this would be and now is a stand- alone EC decision was made clear by the EC Chair when he presented it to the Council. -------------- OPCW CENTRAL ANALYTICAL DATABASE -------------- ¶15. (U) After deferral from several previous sessions, the EC approved the addition of new lists of validated data to the OPCW Central Analytical Database (OCAD) and the removal of other data from the OCAD. -------------- ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL MATTERS -------------- ¶16. (U) The report by the Director General on OPCW income and expenditure for the financial year to 30 September 2007 and the TS Note on the Verification Information System were noted. The EC "received" the Note to the External Auditor with regard to the contingency margin. -------------- CLOSURE -------------- ¶17. (U) The EC closed just after noon on November 28. The report was adopted with no discussion except the Russian comment noted above on the Iranian chapeau on destruction deadlines. No other business items were proposed. -------------- BILATERAL MEETINGS -------------- ¶18. (SBU) The UK requested a meeting with Del Reps, the primary purpose of which seemed to be to review the outcome of the Amman Workshop and to probe for any developments in a possible U.S. approach to the topic of "non-lethals" at the Review Conference. However, the UK also expressed an interest in U.S. discussions with the Libyans during the last EC, and requested clarification as to whether the U.S. was interested in reviving the Trilateral Steering Committee process. The UK noted its view that this might not be the best time to do so, but also that it is likely to accept a Libyan offer to a UK embassy officer in Tripoli to facilitate a UK visit to Rabta. The UK believes this could provide useful insight into the progress of conversion of the former CWPF, and indicated that if the U.S. were interested, it would request that the Libyan invitation be extended to the U.S. as well. UK reps also noted that this offer would probably be made more formally from London to Washington in the near future. ¶19. (U) Russian MFA rep Anna Lukashina requested an informal meeting with U.S. Del Rep to discuss possible goals and interests for the Review Conference. Lukashina noted the Russian view that the Review Conference should do just that - review the past five years of the operations of the Organization (as opposed to spending too much time on new initiatives),and possibly suggest improvements in some areas, or a return to "unresolved issues" (citing Challenge Inspections as one example). Lukashina also underlined the importance of the General Purpose Criterion. She added that Russia is in the process of internal government discussions to develop its Revcon strategy, and asked where the U.S. was in its preparations and whether it intended to submit national papers. Del Rep explained that the U.S. is also engaged in internal discussions and has submitted national papers on a number of the Revcon Working Group topics over the course of the year, and suggested that a more detailed discussion might be possible early next year. ¶20. (U) Javits sends. Arnall