Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07THEHAGUE2024
2007-11-30 16:26:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR

Tags:  PARM PREL CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #2024/01 3341626
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 301626Z NOV 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0758
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
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
-------

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