Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
07THEHAGUE2034
2007-12-05 15:03:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CWDEL IDEAS FOR THE SECOND REVIEW CONFERENCE -

Tags:  PARM PREL CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0012
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #2034/01 3391503
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 051503Z DEC 07 ZDK
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0778
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 002034 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR,
SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP>
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (ROBERTS)
NSC FOR SMITH
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWDEL IDEAS FOR THE SECOND REVIEW CONFERENCE -
ISSUES AND STRATEGY

This is CWC-91-07.
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

-------
SUMMARY
-------

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 002034

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE
SIPDIS

STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR,
SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP>
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC
COMMERCE FOR BIS (ROBERTS)
NSC FOR SMITH
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWDEL IDEAS FOR THE SECOND REVIEW CONFERENCE -
ISSUES AND STRATEGY

This is CWC-91-07.
SENSITIVE BUT UNCLASSIFIED

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (U) Now that the Conference of States
Parties and the final Executive Council
session have ended, OPCW delegations and the
Technical Secretariat turn their attention
more fully to the upcoming Review
Conference. The Director General,s ¬e8
and lengthy TS annex have just been issued)a copy has been scanned to ISN/CB for
distribution) and are on the OPCW external
server. Open Ended Working Group Chairman
Parker has planned two meetings in December
(4 and 12) to discuss the DG,s paper, to be
followed in January by weekly sessions of
the OEWG. He has projected drafting the
RevCon report by the end of February.
France will host the next P-5 meeting
January 15 to discuss the RevCon. Del will
need broad as well as specific guidance on
priorities for the U.S. among th% iany
agenda items for the RevCon.


2. (SBU) Ambassador Javits chaired a
brainstorming session with the delegation
following the CSP. Below are our thoughts
on both issues and pvncess, substance and
strategy, to contribute to the thinking in
Washington. We would welcome an early
response to these ideas, as well as more
detailed guidance on key U.S. objectives as
the RevCon preparations move forward.


3. (SBU) We should push very hard to clear
away the EC &debris8 ) in particular, the
thorny issues that are repeatedly deferred -
before the RevCon so that they will not
interfere with a serious look at the
organization and its future. Such
longstanding issues as the Maradykovsky
facility agreements and the Russian hold on
the U.S. agreements, should be resolved in
EC-52 so that their political overtones do
not color the RevCon. Del will work with
WEOG and the expanded WEOG countries to
cement traditional alliances and develop
strategies on specific issues for the
RevCon. We will need very broad cooperation
on issues of importance to us, and Del will
reach beyond WEOG to find new like-minded
allies on priority U.S. issues.


4. (SBU) In general, del advocates a

proactive approach to the RevCon. Recent
CSP and EC sessions have shown an increasing
trend of the WEOG and other like-minded
states defending against various NAM
proposals while fighting to achieve even
average progress on many issues due to the
linkage (appropriate or not) between various
articles of the Convention. The question
for the Review Conference is whether we want
only to &do no harm8 or whether we want to
pursue new initiatives for the future. A
clear U.S. strategy, including critical
priority objectives vs. those that would be
nice to have, and even initiatives that
could be traded off in the end game, could
put the U.S. and others in a much stronger
position going in to the drafting and
negotiating process scheduled to begin early
next year.

--------------
INDUSTRY ISSUES
--------------


5. (SBU) OCPF site selection: The First
RevCon emphasized the importance of OCPF
inspections, while noting the problems with
the current methodology used by the TS for
selection of sites for inspection. Most
delegations would acknowledge that the DG,s
recent move to modify the selection
methodology will go a long way toward
resolving the perceived unfairness by
allowing more OCPF inspections to go to
States Parties with larger numbers of
declared OCPF sites. The NAM has asked that
consultations be resumed as soon as possible
on this matter. It should be noted that
this was done at the request of China, who
is understandably concerned with the large
increase in inspection numbers they can
expect starting in 2008. Even though many
delegations refer to the DG,s recent efforts
as an &interim solution,8 we should push for
the consultation to (1) primarily focus on
the remaining unapplied mechanism from VA
Part IX (i.e., &Proposals by States
Parties...8),and (2) agree to withhold
judgment on the efficacy of the DG,s revised
methodology for at least a year, at which
time we may have sufficient experience and
data in hand to know whether this needs to
be revisited.


6. (SBU) &Improved8 OCPF declarations: In
parallel with the site selection discussion,
the TS is preparing a paper (at the request
of delegations) on ways that the current
OCPF declaration process might be improved
to provide more relevant
&information...available to the Technical
Secretariat...8 We have been careful to

SIPDIS
point out to the TS and other interested
delegations that discussions on this topic
need to be done within the parameters of
existing declaration formats and procedures,
so as to reduce the difficulty of States
Parties in implementing them. If done
correctly, the DG could implement things
like improved product group codes through
relatively simple modifications to the
Declarations Handbook, under his own
authority. This would also prevent
unnecessarily stirring up some delegations
(e.g., India) who clearly believe in the
&hierarchy of riso8 and that OCPF sites are
intended to declare less information than
sites with Scheduled chemicals. It could
also be presented to delegations as an
improvement in the tools available to their
industry in making their declarations,
overcoming some of the current frustration
that industry often expresses with the
current product group codes that do not fit
their industry well. The Del would
encourage Washington to make the outcome of
its current deliberations on this matter
available to the TS as soon as possible in
order for them to be given adequate
consideration in the TS paper that is
expected to be published in about a month,s
time.


7. (SBU) Schedule 3 transfers to States not
Party: The First RevCon discussed the need
for States Parties to take the necessary
measures to fully implement end-use
certificates for the transfer of Schedule 3

chemicals to States not Party. In that
light, the EC adopted a &do little8 decision
on this matter (EC-47/DEC.8, datet 8
November 2006). Part of the EC-47 decision
recommends txat the RevCon review the matter
and &consider the need to establish other
measures in this regard.8 We should be
prepared for a significant battle on this
matter at the RevCon. Iran clearly sees the
language of VA Part VIII paragraph 27 as a
clear call to not only consider but
&establish other measures regarding
transfers of Schedule 3 chemicals to States
not Party8 and that we are late in doing so,
given the five years after EIF timeline laid
out. Iran points out time and again that
some large percentage (80-90 percent) of the
Schedule 3 transfers to States not Party
each year go to a single country in their
region. If it is possible, we ought to
prepare whatever statistics and positions we
may need to combat this. Although it may
not be possible, for sensitivity reasons, to
lay out the details of the extensive system
the U.S. has in place to ensure that these
types of transfers are for purposes
consistent with the Convention, we may still
be able to make some reasoned statements in
this regard as a counter.


8. (SBU) Sampling and analysis during
Schedule 2 inspections: Given that the
experiences of the recent Schedule 2
inspection involving sampling and analysis
is still fresh in our minds, the Del is
encouraged that discussions will occur in
Washington soon on what we have learned and
what matters need to be addressed further
with the TS. The Del would encourage
holding these discussions with the TS as
s/oj as possible. More generally, the TS
has committed to prepare a report on their
experiences during the 18-month &trial
period.8 However, it is important to keep
in mind that (1) the TS has started
referring to the &trial period8 as a &start-
up period8, (2) the 2008 budget calls for
carrying out a similar number of Schedule 2
inspections with sampling and analysis in
2008, and (3) the TS will carry out two or
three more such inspections in the first
quarter of 2008 before their trial period is
completed. We run the real risk that the TS
report on their experiences from the trial
period will come out too late to be given
any real attention during the RevCon. The
TS and some delegations (e.g., UK) would

SIPDIS
probably argue that this timing is really
not important, as sampling and analysis is
mandated during Schedule 2 inspections and
need not be discussed during the RevCon.
We, along with other delegations (e.g.,
Germany) might0disagree, albeit for
different reasons. The Del sees it as
significantly important that we have a well-
established, unified position on sampling
and analysis and its role, value, etc.
during Schedule 2 inspections. Also, we
should probably approach the TS about the
timing of their report and our thoughts on
its value at the RevCon. To miss the
opportunity to have a significant discussion
on this matter at the RevCon would be a
shame.


9. (SBU) General progress on industry
issues: In general, progress on industry
issues has been painfully slow. The recent

EC decision on timely declarations was the
first Industry Cluster decision reached in a
year, the last being that on Schedule 3
transfers in November 2006. In many ways,
this can be attributed to the fact that
certain smaller delegations (e.g., Iran)
just do not have the ability or will to
focus on any matter outside their pet areas
of interest (see the discussion on National
Implementation below). When the RevCon
looks at the list of industry topics
recommended for work by the First RevCon and
determines how little progress has been
made, it will be an embarrassment. Some
delegations have argued in private that
perhaps this means that the truly important
issues have been dealt with and that we are
now just cleaning up the few items that are
left. However, the Del believes that we can
expect some strong discussion on a number of
outstanding industry issues. We know from
national papers and statements already made
that the UK, Australia and Canada are going
to make a fuss about Schedule
2A/2A(asterisk) concentration thresholds,
and that in their view it is unconscionable
that we have left this group of highly toxic
chemicals potentially unregulated. We
should expect to be put on the spot
(together with Germany and Japan) as the
ones who prevented consensus on this matter
and as the ones who are ultimately
responsible for finding a solution. We
should consider whether we need to consult
intently with Germany and Japan on this
matter and whether we can propose any way
forward. Guidance with new approaches or
some flexybility would be useful going into
such negotiations.

--------------
DECLARATION ISSUES
--------------


10. (SBU) Timely Declarations: The First
RevCon pointed to concerns over timely and
accurate declarations. We should make sure
that the RevCon points tk the recent EC
decision on this matter (EC-M-
27/DEC/CRP.4/Rev.2, dated 26 November 2007)
and mentions the importance of continued EC
monitoring of the impact of the decision and
whether further measures may need to be
taken in the future. This seems to be
important, given that the decision taken was
an EC stand-alone decision (rather than a
recommendation to the CSP) and, as such, is
more open-ended as to next steps.


11. (SBU) Electronic Declarations: The First
RevCon discussed the importance of effective
handling of declarations and the role that
electronic declarations can play therein.
We should ask that the significant progress
made to date be pointed out at the RevCon.
We should also push for even greater
electronib reporting by States Partier to
the TS, emphasizing how these types of
efforts can contribute positively to the
work of the Organization and individual
States Parties. We know that the TS has
focused on certain States @erties where the
impact of them shifting to electronic
declara4ions could be of greatest impact to
the TS (e.g., China). We also know that the
TS has given this topic a lot of attention

SIPDIS
in annual meetijgs of National Authorities<
regional meetings, etc., and that they are

encouraging State Party-to-State Party
cooperation to promote bilateral assistance
and the sharing of software tools. We might
want to consider asking the TS to prepare a
paper or other presentation to the OEWG
laying out the costs and benefits of
completing the necessary work to get the
remaining significant (i.e., larger-
declaring) States Parties on board with
electronic declarations ) data entry
savings, efficiency improvements in
verification activities, etc. We might also
find it helpful to find a vehicle (e.g., a
national paper) to share U.S. thoughts on
the matter to be considered by the TS in
these preparations.


12. (SBU) Article VI ) transfer
discrepancies: The First RevCon discussed
the importance of clarifying declaration
ambiguities. A consultation on the topic of
transfer discrepancies has been active for
quite some time. The consultation group
made a recommendation early this year to the
TS to end the practice of defining transfer

SIPDIS
dywcrepancies as a percent difference and
begin defining these discrepancies in
accordance with the relevant declaration
thresholds. This new practice seems to have
had a very positive impact on this issue,
allowing States Parties to better focus on
transfer discrepancies of real concern.
Also, with the recently adopted decision on
timely declarations, it is hoped that the TS
will begin to gather more information about
missing transfer declarations that can be
used in the reconciliation process.
Although the U.S. has expressed its opinion
that the current efforts of this
consultation are moving in an acceptable
direction, it appears unlikely that real
progress will be achieved in the near
future. We may want to consider the option
of reevaluating the need fr further
consultations on this matter at some point
in the future, given the possible reductions
in transfer discrepancies. This would allow
the facilitators to end the consultation at
the appropriate time in the future basud!on
the overall improvements that have been
achieved, rather than the lack of progress
on the very complicated (and somewhat
controversial) matters that remain.

--------------
NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION
--------------


13. (SBU) Article VII - the way forward:
Despite the significant efforts the U.S. has
made in the area of Article VII,
particularly in outreach efforts, many
delegations have looked at our limited
visible efforts in 2007 and expressed
confusion, particularly in light of the
strong statement we made at CSP-11 about
trying to close the loop on States Parties
with declarable chemical industry
activities. The RevCon may be a chance for
us to regroup and make a further push to
include more States Parties in the efforts
to assist others in meeting their Article
VII obligations. The other problem the
delegation faces is that Iran and other NAM
delegations clearly have issues that they
consider of higher importance (e.g.,
Articles X and XI),and they see Article VII
decisions just a bone they can throw Western

delegations as the balance needed to get
their issues forwarded. They have made it
clear that they do not consider Article VII
as a priority anymore, and they are likely
to use the RevCon as the chance to hammer
that message home. In practical terms, the
annual fight with Iran over decisions on
Article VII, Article X, Article XI, and
Universality takes a considerable amount of
time and resources. Also, as each EC must
address whatever progress has been made, the
fight gets spread throughout the year. The
practical result is that, because these
smaller delegations can only keep so many
balls in the air at one time, little
progress is made on any other matter. We
should discuss this internally in light of
the overall efficiency of the Organization,
particularly the EC, and what changes can be
made.

--------------
ARTICLE XI
--------------


14. (SBU) During CSP-12, the Non-Aligned
Movement circulated its thoughts on what an
action plan for Article XI might address.
The NAM, most prominently Iran and Cuba,
have already set the stage for a push for
more concrete action on Abticle XI at the
RevCon. Del recommends a thorough review of
the NAM paper distributed during CSP-12 to
better gauge what specific measures may be
proposed during discussions and drafting, to
develop constructive responses and possible
counterproposals, and to develop strategies
to find common areas of interest that can be
exploited with other delegations
(particularly within the NAM).

--------------
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD
--------------

15. (SBU) The Scientific Advisory Board
(SAB),which has presented its draft report
to the RevCon Working Group, currently meets
annually with additional med4ings or
activities of Temporary Working Groups
relying upon voluntary contributions to fund
their work. The EC routinely notes reports
by the SAB with little to no discussion, and
little real oversight. Observations and
recommendations from the SAB can generally
be placed in one of two categories: those
that fall within the purview of the DG/TS to
review and possibly implement, and those
that have wider policy implications which
would require the policy making organs to
consider and recommend possible action. Of
course, in all cases, the States Parties
look to the TS to serve as the first filter
for recommendations coming from the SAB andQshould be willing to pick up those
topics
considered to be most appropriately
discussed by the Policy Making Organs.
Although establishing a more effective way
to integrate the work of the SAB with that
of the organization could have the undesired
side effect of raising controversial issues
for debapd, it could also make better use of
the hif(ly specialized work of this body,
particularly as the OPCW grapples with rapid
advances in science and technology. On
several occasions, del has also advocated
regularizing support for more than just one
annual meeting of the SAB from the OPCW
budget; the RevCon may provide an
E

appropriate forum for further discussions of
this proposal.


16. (SBU) Salts: In their preliminary report
to the OEWG, the SAB discu3ces their ongoing
&recommendation that all salts of scheduled
chemicals be treated in the same way as
their corresponding free bases.8 Del
expects several delegetions to pick up on
this recommendation again and insist on its
discussion within the RevCon. Knowing that
this has been a frequent topic of discussion
within the interagency, the del encourages
the formalization (or, perhaps, repetition)
of our jational positin!on the matte2
within guidance.


17. (SBU) CAS Registry numbers: In their
preliminary report to the OEWG, the SAB
discusses their position (which is
consistent with U.S. position) that CAS
numberw are &a useful identification aid8
but not necessarily of regulatory value. We
have already heard in several fora from the
Italian delegation that their legislation is
list-based and, as such, is dependent on the
TS continually providing updated lists of

SIPDIS
chemicals that are to be captured by the
Convention. This is clearly inconsistent
with the way nearly all States Parties
implement the treaty, as it has the
potential to create significant gaps,
particularly over time. If`the Italians
attempt to propagate their views at the
RevCon, we should be prepared 4o intervene
on this issue and encourage others to do
likewise.

--------------
REVIEW OF OPCW ADMINISTRATION
--------------


18. (SBU) The 2008 budget reflected zero
nominal growth for the third consecutive
year, and the TS has repeatedly indicated
that it cannot continue this trend.
Especially with calls for more activities
(roth in Chapter I and Chapter II),
including increased inspections, the TS is
likely to feel forced to introduce growth
budgets. `Similarly, late payment by the
U.S. of annual assessed contributions
continues to draw attention and weaken our
abihity to push for tighter budgeting.


19. (SBU) Although this will become more
relevant in future years, the TS needs to
begin to come to grips with the eventual
transition of the OPCW from a disarmament-
priority organization to a nonproliferation-
priority organization and how that impacts
the staffing and structure of the TS. There
appears to be some level of internal
organizational review underway within the
TS, as indicated by the DG in his statements

SIPDIS
at recent ECs and efforts to align OPCW
practices with those of the UN Common
System. We believe this type of review
should spill over into the RevCon, with an
eye to staffing patterns, numbers of
positions in different branches, ranking of
staff, recruiting (what OPCW neads to do to
attract good people),retention, long-term
use of short-term staff in de facto
permanent po3ytions, etc., as well as the
impact of policies such as tenure. On
tenure, the DG could be given additional
flexibility in waiving tenure considerations
(i.e., not capping extensions at 10 years)
for key staff in highly specialized areas.
With clear U.S. objectives, we could help
shape the debate and the outcome on many of
these issues.


20. (SBU) In May, del held a brown bag lunch
with AmCit TS staff. Although drawn from a
limited population, del believes that the
thoughts expressed at this meeting are
probably indicative of the wider view of TS
staff. In general, the theme was that good
business practices are not applied
consistently and, because of that, there is
an expectation of continued departure by
large numbers b staff, which can be
attributed only partly to the tenure policy.
The topics discussed, although not in every
case appropriate for general discussion
within the RevCon, should be considered more
generally in our preparations:

a. Training: Current priorities are centered
on the Inspectorate, with little happening
elsewhere. Training for maintaining career-
relevant certifications (e.g., medical
personnel, accountants) is not supported.
There is no standard process for bringing
new personnel on board or capturing
&institutional memory8 when someone leaves.
Overall training and development of staff
shouhd be reviewed with a view to
ameliorating the present situation.

b. Retention: Although HR collects data on
why staff leave, nothing appears to be done
with it. Inspection deployment issues
(e.g., low staffing levels for health and
safety personnel mean higher deployment
rates, lack of support for inspectors to
keep in touch with family members during
deployment) are contributing factors. The
threat of the tenure policy motivates many
to stay silent about their concerns, even
going so far as to suggest that inspection
team members are afraid to seturn from an
inspection with anything that lookw!remotely
like a problem.

c. Recruiting: Employment opportunities are
not widely advertised. No-cost advertising
opportunities should be explored and used.
Given that (1) the majority of experienced
applicants in certain career fields (e.g.,
health and safety) come vvnm a limited
number of countries (i.e., Western
countries) and (2) the TS makes it a
practice$to get general wide geographical
distribution of new employees, the result
may be that getting Western employees in
certain fields (particularly technical) may
be more difficult.

d. Tenure: The selective or delayed
implementation of tenure can be seen as
favoring some employees and punishing
others, and this can create an environment
of fear. There seem to be a number of
methods for applying the policy, including
extensions, and better communication and
understanding of the policy could alleviate
confusion.

--------------
&NON-LETHALS,8 INCAPACITANTS AND RIOT
CONTROL AGENTS
--------------


21. (SBU) A common theme among many of the
academic and NGO papers and presentations
has begun to emerge: a poorly defined
desire to do something about what some
believe to be an emerging, and alarming, new
category of weapons that must somehow be
dealt with in the context of the CWC.
Several presentations at the OPCW Tenth
Anniversary Academic Forum covered this
topic, nne in unusual depth by presenting a
spectrum of scenarios from domestic law
enforcement to international armed conflict
and an accompanying spectrum of chemicals
from riot control agents (RCAs) to Schedule

1. The NGO meeting held November 19 in The
Hague, specifically for RevCon preparations,
continued this trend, with a number of
papers on subjects such as &incapacitating
biochemical weapons.8 Several of the
presenters have admitted, however, that
while the possibility of use (keying mainly
off of the Moscow theater incident in which
fentanyl or a derivative appears to have
been used) is of concern, there does not at
this time appear to be a specific threat.


22. (SBU) Discussions have not been limited
to NGO and academic circles. The draft
report of the Scientific Advisory Board to
the RevCon recommends that the Organization
consider &an extension of the Convention,s
declaration requirements so that States
Parties would have to declare all chemicals
they have stockpiled for law enforcement
purposes (types, quantities and delivery
systems)8 and adds that &terminology
surrounding so-called non-lethal
incapacitants also needs further
elaboration.8 The DG,s recently released
paper on the RevCon (WGRC-2/S/1) also
mentions that &in due course, there will
also be a need to address questions suc( as
what effect the introduction of &non-lethal8
weapons for the purposes of law enforcement
and of new means for their use will have on
the Convention.8



23. (SBU) Given a growing interest among
British NGOs in discussing &non-lethals,8
chemicals used for domestic law enforcement,
and riot control agents at the RevCon, the
UK in particular may be under considerably
more pressure to demonstrate increased
flexibility in entertaining discussions and
possibly even report language. With UK
Ambassador Lyn Parker chairing the working
group for RevCon preparations, the UK is
also less likely to simply close out
discussions on these topics. From
discussions over the past several months, it
is clear that the UK is interested in coming
up with an effective strategy to deal with
this matter, and UK colleagues have on
numerous occasions expressed a strong
interest in early indications as to what the
U.S. position at the RevCon might be.


24. (SBU) Several other delegations have
already expressed strong dissatisfaction
with the U.S. decision to block ICRC
participation (perceived to be motivated by
a desire to avoid these discussions). From
past discussions, del also expects some
delegations may express an interest in
codifying certain situations in which riot
control agents might be used, such as on UN
peacekeeping missions. At the RevCon

Working Group on November 15, Iran also made
vague references for the need to look at the
use of RCAs by SPs beyond their
jurisdiction, the use of RCAs in warfare,
and developments in incapacitating agents.
Although this may have$been a general
statement of principle, it is also possible
that this is an early attempt by Iran to set
the stage for criticism of U.S. policy.


25. (SBU) There are clear U.S. sensitivities
regarding any attempt to &clarify8 related
provisions in the Convention. At this
stage, we may be well served by the fact
that few with an interest in these topics
have gone so far as to propose specific
measures. To have a clear position on the
matter, without forbidding discussions
(which will frankly be impossible given the
recurrence of the topics even in official
OPCW documents),may be the best strategy in
pushing back on unhelpful suggestions while
avoiding the misperception that the U.S. is
hiding a secret non-lethal chemical program.


26. (SBU) As discussed internally and with
the Close Allies, a significant first step
in discussions, and particularly in
drafting, will be to ensure that we do not
stray beyond the terminology of the CWC.
Generalizations about &non-lethals8 and
&incapacitants8 have no place in CWC
reporting, and should be avoided. It may be
useful, depending on the direction
discussions take early next year, to begin
quietly educating others on the importance
of focusing on the provisions laid out in
the Convention. It will also be critical to
focus on the General Purpose Criterion as
providing a more than adequate safety net
when it comes to chemicels not clearly
captured in the Schedules.


27. (SBU) As has also been raised internally,
some part of these discussions can be
appropriately redirected to existing
provisions. Declarations on national
protective programs, for instance, remain
sparse, with the facilitator for Article X
calling at each consultation for complete,
accurate submissions. Effective national
implementation measures specifically related
to the General Purpose Criterion, as
outlined by OPCW Legal Advisor SantiagoQ
Onate at the November 15 meeting of the
RevCon Working Group, could also be an
avenue to constructively channel concerns.

--------------
2012 AND THE NEXT REVIEW CONFERENCE
-------------- m--,---


28. (SBU) Although discussions thus far in
the RevCon Working Group have been
surprisingly devoid of speculation about
2012, calls to begin exploring what to do
when the U.S. (and possibly Russia) fail to
meet the final destruction deadline are
almost inevitable at the RevCon. As the DG
himself has expressed concern that
discussions of this nature not dominate the
RevCon, del recommends that part of the
RevCon guidance clearly articulate how such
calls might be counteved. While it is
certainly true that 2008 is far too early to
make any sort of pronouncement on
ability/inability to meet the 2012 deadline,
delegations are likely to ask whether the

U.S. believes a separate conference or early
RevCon closer to the date would be theQ
appropriate venue for such discussions,
and/or what action the policy making organs
should take. On the latter, reiterating our
confidence i.0the policy making organs to
take appropriate action should suffice. On
the former, it may be worth steering
thinking toward simply evaluating the matter
at the CSP in 2011, or at most convening a
special session of the Conference closer to
the deadline itself.

--------------
STRATEGY DEVELOPMENT AND TIMELINES
--------------


29. (U) From an administrative standpoint,
del believes it will be useful not only to
develop a list of RevCon &shoulds8 and
&should nots,8 but also to take a
comprehensive look at the wide range of
issues that have been formally marked as
&unresolved8 or have been discussed in some
form of consultation since the last RevCon
(and, in some cases, since the Prepcom).
The spectrum runs from topics like the
&unresolved8 Challenge Inspection issues
(for several of which there is absolutely no
need for resolution) to open ended working
groups (e.g. the OEWG on Terrorism) to
issues that are traditionally in more active
facilitations (e.g. Article VII, Article
XI). To categorize these issuer and
prioritize them according to our own
interests and confidence in further progress
rehng made might be helpful in evaluating
progress made since the last RevCon and
possible areas for increased efforts or
improvement.


30. (U) Del understands that RevCon
discussions in Washington are to take place
in the coming weeks. Although RevCon
strategy will certainly be a focal point of
the next Close Allies, meeting (scheduled
for March 2008 in Washington),the timing of
the meeting may be too close to the RevCon
to have sufficient impact. Del recommends
initial, informal guidance be drafted by the
end of January to facilitate discussions
with the Close Alliew here in The Hague that
could be qsed to shape the drafting that is
scheduled to begin in earnest with weekly
meetings from mid-January on. It will also
be important to consider where it might be
most effective to take the pen on drafting
by offering text on certain topics early in
dhe drafting process, and to discuss these
efforts with the Allies.

BEIK SENDS
Arnall