CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): OPCW

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000741

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR ISN, ISN/CB, VCI/CCB, 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: DECL: 04/20/2017
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC IS
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): OPCW
DISCUSSIONS WITH ISRAELI DELEGATION

Classified By: Ambassador Eric M. Javits, Permanent Representative to t
he Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Reasons 1.4 (B
) and (D).

This is CWC-33-07.


1. (C) Summary: On April 18, Rogelio Pfirter, the Director
General of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW),hosted discussions with an Israeli delegation
headed by Miriam Ziv, MFA Deputy Director General for
Strategic Affairs. The Israeli delegation was largely in a
listening mode and emphasized the desire to remain engaged
with the OPCW. However, they left no doubt that Israel is
not in a position to ratify the CWC, outlining the threats
from other countries in the region, including WMD
capabilities. End Summary.


2. (U) DG Pfirter and senior OPCW officials met with the
Israeli delegation (listed at para 10 below) before
initiating a larger discussion with a number of Ambassadors
to the OPCW. After introductory remarks from Pfirter, Ziv
expressed appreciation for the work of the OPCW and
emphasized that Israel wants to be engaged with the
organization. She noted that she was in The Hague for
bilateral discussions and had covered export controls,
nonproliferation, and regional issues. She then introduced
the other members of the delegation, making a particularly
detailed presentation on the work Mr. Shai Cohen, deputy
director of the MFA export control department. Ziv noted
that there is legislation in the Knesset which covers
munitions, and that Cohen's department has doubled in size
due to the new requirements in the legislation.


3. (C) Ziv emphasized that the Israeli position regarding
the CWC is quite clear. It had signed in 1993, which was a
very different time. She turned the floor over to Ms. Tamar
Rahaminoff-Honig, deputy director of the MFA arms control
department, who emphasized that there had been positive
signals in 1993 and Israel had indicated its support for the
CWC, viewing it as a confidence-building measure. However,
other states in the region subsequently made clear that even
if Israel ratified, they would not ratify the Convention.
The regional situation had obviously worsened since then and
"some states in the region have CW." Israel, she continued,
assess the possible contribution to its security by looking
at two factors:

-- Intention: There is a unique set of threats from
neighbors faced by Israel.

-- Capabilities: Some other states in the region have
developed WMD arsenals. The question for Israel is if
existing mechanisms can protect Israel against hostile
intentions.


4. (U) The DG then called on the Ambassadors to discuss
various specific issues, in addition to any points each
Ambassador wished to make. He called on U.S. PermRep Javits
to comment on the consensus-based approach in the OPCW.
After Amb. Javits addressed that topic, he added that the
intention of the meeting was not to second-guess Israel's own
assessment of the security situation and the benefits of CWC
accession. Instead, he hoped Israel would consider that the
more strands that are added to safety nets, the more security
would be available for Israel. What is critical is
continuing the dialogue and clearly expressing the hope that
Israel will join the Convention.


5. (U) Chinese Amb. Xue Hanqin seconded the point that the
intention is not to persuade Israel, but to exchange views.
She stressed that China attaches great importance to the CWC
and believes it would be important for Israel to also join.
This can indeed serve as a CBM. She then cited the example
of the CWC serving as the framework for cooperation between

China and Japan on abandoned CW. Russian Deputy PermRep
Konstantin Gavrilov discussed Russian efforts on destruction
and noted the role played by international assistance.
Gavrilov also emphasized that universality is important to
Moscow, which supports dialogue to convince them to join the
CWC.


6. (U) UK Amb. Lyn Parker reported on preparations for the
Second RevCon in April 2008, stating that the OPCW has made
great progress. He also noted that whether to ratify is
Israel's sovereign decision, but commented that there are
many public, transparent processes within the Convention and
the operations of the OPCW. The UK echoed the statements by
Amb. Javits on the clear, common purpose of the OPCW. He
concluded by noting that destruction will be key until 2012,
and that nonproliferation as well as chemical industry issues
will become more prominent thereafter. Ziv asked if any
changes had been made in Scheduled chemicals, and the DG
replied that there had been no changes. Indian Amb. Neelam
Sabharwal also reiterated the line that ratification is a
sovereign Israeli decision, and then focused on the
importance of a growing chemical industry in India, stressing
that the CWC does not inhibit responsible growth.


7. (U) Ziv then asked about verification measures, and the
DG noted that there is a provision for challenge inspections
(CI). It has not been used yet, and there are concerns about
the political aspects of having a CI. However, there is
consensus on the need for the TS to develop the ability to
conduct a CI. Amb. Javits noted that a CI is viewed as a
sword of Damocles, which, in some respects, has generated
movement on other issues. Measures short of a CI have also
been used to address concerns. Ziv then asked if there is
some similar measure regarding industry and identifying
illegal activity. The DG reported on high level of
established National Authorities, open-source information,
and declarations.


8. (U) Brazilian Amb. Gilberto Saboia noted that Israeli
accession would be a major step forward. He cited Article X
assistance and the framework provided by the OPCW. The DG
then added that OPCW support in countering terrorism has also
received more attention. French Amb. Jean-Michel Gaussot
commented that the OPCW should consider what more it can do
to contribute in this area. He also supported the comments
of strengthening a safety net. Gaussot noted the accession
of Libya and projected accession of Iraq. He then commented
that Israeli accession would weaken the arguments of critics
of Israel in the region. And it would be beneficial to
de-link CW from other regional security issues. The DG added
that he had emphasized de-linkage in Cairo on April 17.
China added that the TS itself serves as a CBM.


9. (C) Ziv replied that others have a different view of a
CBM, taking it much more lightly than Israel. The politics
of the region are not allowing Israel to move forward.
Israel faces hostile neighbors who do not recognize its
existence; are avowedly seeking their destruction; and with
whom they cannot even have a dialogue. The sine qua non is
for them to recognize Israel. And Israel was aware of
reports that unconventional weapons have become conventional.
Syria could assemble and mobilize BW for use in 12 hours,
said Ziv, and this is obviously a critical matter for Israel.
The Syrian weapons capability is being modernized, and
Israel believes Iran has a CW stockpile. Ziv noted that
other nations in other regions have an opportunity for
discussion. Israel does not have that option, and Israel
does not view CBMs as do other countries. However, Ziv
concluded, Israel would continue to stay engaged with the
OPCW and would certainly continue to want to learn more about
its activities.


10. (U) Israeli Delegation:
Ms. Miriam Ziv - Deputy DG for Strategic Affairs, MFA

Mr. Benny Dagan - Deputy Director, Center for Policy
Research, MFA
Ms. Tamar Rahaminoff-Honig - Deputy Director, Arms Control
Department, MFA
Mr. Shai Cohen - Deputy Director, Export Control Department,
MFA
Mr. Yair Even - Political Counselor, Israeli Embassy, The
Hague


11. (U) Javits sends.
ARNALL