CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR THE

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 002047

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 THE
WEEK ENDING DECEMBER 7, 2007


This is CWC-92-07.

--------------
REVCON WORKING GROUP
--------------

1. (U) On December 4, UK Ambassador Lyn Parker chaired a
meeting of the Open Ended Working Group on Preparations for
the Second Review Conference to discuss initial reactions to
the recently distributed &Note by the Technical Secretariat:
Review of the Operation of the Chemical Weapons Convention
since the First Review Conference8 (WGRC-2/S/1). Director
General Pfirter introduced the paper by reviewing its general
outline, and highlighting challenges that lie ahead in
several key areas: complete destruction of chemical weapons
by the 2012 deadline; the future shift in the Organization,s
focus from disarmament to non-proliferation; encouraging
States Parties with significant chemical industries to
fulfill their Article VII obligations; and working toward
universal implementation of the Convention.


2. (U) Amb. Parker suggested that future discussions on the
paper might be organized by the major headings used in the
paper itself. He added that it will be important for him to
develop a sense of how many of the policy issues raised
within could realistically be addressed at the RevCon itself,
and which might be better treated by simply laying out a path
for future work.


3. (U) A surprising number of delegations had fairly
detailed comments, in all cases caveated as preliminary.
Most delegations offered support for consideration of the
future shift in the OPCW,s focus, with Japan noting its view
that with the shift in focus, the Organization will also need
to undergo a structural adjustment. Many also noted the
importance of resolving the site selection methodology for
OCPFs and the possibility of refining declarations for these
facilities. It was also encouraging to hear a number of
delegations (mainly WEOG) state up front that they agree that
2008 will be too early to establish or even discuss possible
courses of action for the U.S. (and perhaps Russia) in 2012.
Canada also noted that the possibility still exists that
other states possessing chemical weapons may come into the
treaty at a later date, which will also necessitate
consideration of post-2012 destruction.


4. (U) A number of other specific comments were provided.
Australia and France both raised the importance of exploring
and enhancing the OPCW,s role in the global fight against
terrorism. Australia, Canada and the Netherlands recommended
that the topic of Schedule 2A/2A asterisk be taken up again
as an urgent matter. Australia, later echoed by Italy, also
expressed concern that a ban on Schedule 3 transfers to
States Not Party might be detrimental for efforts to achieve
universality, and that it could even encourage the growth of
unregulated indigenous production in the states that remain
outside the Convention. France and Germany said they were
not fully convinced of the utility of sampling and analysis
during Schedule 2 inspections and, as such, stressed the
importance of a TS report on their experience during the
trial period. Germany and China both expressed some concern
over the use of &open source8 information for verification
activities.


5. (U) Germany made a lengthy intervention in which it
highlighted its disagreement with the concept that industry
and destruction verification are or should be treated in a
similar manner, noting its view that the industry
verification regime was intended to be more of a confidence
building measure. Germany also recommended that the industry
issues be considered as a package; on OCPF inspections, for
instance, a simple increase in the number of inspections is
not the solution. The German delegation noted its view that
in Schedule 2 inspections with sampling and analysis, the
possibility to use the blinded mode of the software should
absolutely be retained.


6. (U) India also made an intervention that focused almost
entirely on stressing the importance of completion of

chemical weapons destruction as the top priority for the
Organization. In fairly stark contrast to other statements
indicating the RevCon should not be consumed with the issue
of 2012, the Indian Ambassador stated that without the luxury
of knowing when destruction will be complete, the
Organization cannot afford to focus on other issues. India
also made token references to the hierarchy of risk in
industry inspections and the possibilities of assistance to
states with growing chemical industries.


7. (U) Also noteworthy were the delegations who did not
comment; Iran, Cuba and Russia were conspicuously silent.
The Director General closed with remarks that the paper was
intended to provide a full spectrum of issues as &food for
thought8 for the States Parties to decide the RevCon
priorities. The Chair noted that the Work Plan for the
Working Group has been updated, and that an updated outline
of the draft report will be circulated prior to the next
meeting of the group on December 12. A note summarizing
discussions so far and papers submitted (national, academic,
NGO) will also be issued soon, primarily for the benefit of
States Parties that do not attend the Working Group meetings.


--------------
WEOG DISCUSSIONS
--------------

8. (U) The WEOG meeting on December 4 reviewed the results
of EC-51, briefly discussed the report of the EC visit to
Anniston, and discussed the RevCon Working Group meeting
immediately following. Under EC-51, Germany noted that a way
ahead has yet to be established for the approval of Russia,s
Maradykovsky Facility Agreement and Verification Plan.


9. (U) On the visit report, there was widespread agreement
that the report should not be subjected to further
negotiation, although Germany noted its expectation that some
capitals (read: Berlin) may have comments or further
questions for the visited State Party. When the U.S.
suggested that the writing of the report might be improved by
accomplishing as much drafting as possible in country (with
memories still fresh, and without the inappropriate
involvement of capitals),WEOG Chair and representative on
the Anniston visit Annie Mari stated this would give the
visited State Party &too much influence.8


10. (U) In the context of the RevCon Working Group, the Chair
raised the topic of the recent NGO meeting, and the growing
number of references to &non-lethals.8 U.S. Rep noted the
importance in future discussions of adhering strictly to
Convention terminology, and avoiding the inappropriate
combination of issues (e.g. &incapacitants8 and riot
control agents) that are clearly intended by the CWC to be
treated separately. The UK delegation also made a pitch for
delegations to make substantive interventions at the upcoming
meeting, and also to agree where possible with the DG,s
introduction to the TS paper, which the Chair would
apparently take as tacit approval to incorporate much of the
text (or at least general concepts) in the draft outline
report.

--------------
REVCON CHAIR UPDATE
--------------

11. (SBU) Japanese delegate told del reps that Pakistan, as
chair of the Asia regional group, had formally circulated the
candidacy of the Saudi Ambassador for the chair of the Review
Conference. With rumors of Indian interest in the chair, it
may well have been a pre-emptive move by Pakistan to prevent
India,s coming forward. The Asia Group has not yet
scheduled a meeting, but it will likely be in January.


12. (U) BEIK SENDS.
Arnall