CWC: MEETINGS ON THE MARGINS OF THE CONFERENCE

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 001021

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 AND DENYER)
NSC FOR FLY
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/15/2018
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: MEETINGS ON THE MARGINS OF THE CONFERENCE
OF THE STATES PARTIES (CSP 13) DECEMBER 1- 5, 2008

REF: THE HAGUE 1015

Classified By: Ambassador Eric M. Javits for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D)

This is CWC-61-08.

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


1. (SBU) As always, the Conference of the States
Parties offered a platform for a variety of meetings
on its margins. The European Union hosted a day of
meetings for National Authorities on December 1 that
bridged the gap between the official National
Authorities' meetings and the CSP; notable among its
presentations were a session devoted to the UN
Security Council Resolution 1540 and another by
Sergei Batsanov on his new role in developing a
working group on chemical security issues and
combating chemical terrorism. Lithuania hosted a
meeting December 3 on sea-dumped chemical weapons
that engendered a lively discussion.


2. (C) The U.S. delegation had bilateral meetings
with delegations from the United Kingdom, Israel,
India, Libya and Iraq. Delreps also met with
Krzysztof Paturej, the Director of Special Projects
for the Technical Secretariat (TS),on his plans for
promoting chemical security. The French hosted both
a dinner (December 2) and a lunch (December 4) with
representatives of close allies to discuss issues of
mutual interest. Delreps met bilaterally with
representatives of the UK, Canada, Greece, Kuwait and
Germany to discuss the status of each Host Country
Agreement.


3. (U) This report accompanies the wrap up for CSP-13
(reftel) and will be followed by another report on
the meetings of Department of Commerce Director Doug
Brown.

--------------
EU Day for National Authorities
--------------


4. (U) On Monday, December 1, the EU hosted an
additional day for National Authorities. The meeting
focused on industry and implementation related
topics, and was well attended. Mr. Berhanyun
Andemicael, a member of the UN 1540 Committee, gave a
lunchtime presentation on the ways in which
implementation of the CWC complements UNSCR 1540
implementation. Thanks to the make-up of the
audience (national authorities and industry experts,
as opposed to local delegations),the presentation
met with less political resistance than a
1540/terrorism discussion at the OPCW ordinarily
would, and questions were pragmatic and
implementation-focused.


5. (U) Sergei Batsanov, a former member of the OPCW
Secretariat, also explained his new role as a
contracted advisor to the OPCW in developing a
working group for enhancing chemical security at
industry sites and combating chemical terrorism. The
working group is to be formed next year, bringing
together State Party representatives and chemical
industry experts to determine how best to address
these topics. Among several possible approaches,
Batsanov plans to discuss these topics in the
framework of Article X and XI.

--------------
Bilateral Meeting with the UK Delegation
--------------


6. (C) On December 2, Delreps met with the UK

delegation to discuss Iraqi accession to the CWC and
other issues. On Iraq, the delegations briefly
discussed the upcoming visit by U.S. officials to
Iraq to review CWC and National Authority obligations
and the proper handling and reporting of recovered CW
munitions in Iraq. UK MOD rep Clive Rowland asked
what format the U.S. intended to use to present its
own finds, and noted that continued coordination of
U.S. and UK presentation strategy would be critical,
particularly given the difference between the U.S.
and UK in the legal basis being used for recovery and
destruction of CW. Rowland also asked about a cover
letter for declarations. Delrep said that the U.S.
will likely use the standard OPCW form for
declarations, and noted that the U.S. has not sent
any letters to the TS since the initial letter
informing the OPCW of ongoing recoveries. The UK
also raised the difficulty of handling supplier
country issues after Iraq submits its initial
declaration. Delrep noted that the UNSCOM "Full,
Final, and Complete Disclosure," which contains these
details, had just been posted on the internet.


7. (C) The UK also asked whether the U.S. position on
incapacitants had changed or been further developed.
Having received several detailed questions from
British groups following the Second Review
Conference, the UK is working on an options paper to
lay out possibilities for a constructive way forward.
Delegations discussed the fact that NATO and SIPRI
papers dealing with this subject had recently been
published, and that the DG had mentioned in his EC-54
statement that the Secretariat was working on a
paper.

-------------- -
Lithuanian Presentation on Sea-Dumped Chemical
Weapons
-------------- --


8. (U) During the lunch break December 3, the
Lithuanian Ambassador hosted a meeting to discuss
chemical weapons dumped in the Baltic Sea. While the
meeting was not officially part of the CSP, the OPCW
did publish it on its official daily Journal and lent
space for the meeting at the World Forum alongside
the CSP. Ambassador Verba began the hour long
meeting with a brief introduction on the importance
of this issue to the Baltic Region for health,
safety, environmental, and security concerns. He made
it clear that he hoped that the OPCW could be used
simply as a forum for interested State Parties to
voluntarily discuss and share information on this
issue. A Lithuanian MFA official provided a
PowerPoint presentation on the outcome of the Vilnius
seminar on this topic, followed by an abbreviated
version of the TS presentation at that seminar
outlining what the TS can and can not do regarding
chemical weapons dumped in the sea. This
presentation clearly stipulated that the chemical
weapons dumped in the Baltic are not/not subject to
the Convention, unless and until they are surfaced,
at which time they must be declared and then
verifiably destroyed.


9. (U) A Polish representative delivered a prepared
statement offering support to Lithuania, stating that
Qstatement offering support to Lithuania, stating that
the OPCW can and should serve as a forum for
voluntary cooperation on this issue. A Russian
delegate commented that her country was frankly
surprised that this issue was even raised at the CSP
and argued that the OPCW was an inappropriate forum
to hold such discussions. Paul Walker, a
representative of Global Green, stated that sea-
dumped munitions, not just chemical, were a big issue
facing the United States; he argued that governments
are reluctant to discuss this issue, which he ranked
third behind stockpiled weapons and buried munitions

as a concern. Delrep intervened, drawing on the
presentations made at the Vilnius seminar, that the
scientific evidence presented concluded that the
weapons are best left where they are -- remaining at
the bottom of the ocean. Delrep noted that where the
presentations in Vilnius differed was on the impact
of "commercial activity" on the integrity of these
weapons.


10. (U) The Lithuanian Ambassador concluded the
meeting by urging delegations to look for other
opportunities and within other international
organizations to continue to discuss the impact of
sea dumped CW in the Baltic Sea.

--------------
Bilateral Meeting with the Israeli Delegation
-------------- -


11. (C) On December 3, ISN/CB Director Mikulak,
Commerce Treaty Compliance Division Director Brown
and Delreps met with the Israeli delegation,
attending the CSP as observers. Participants from
Israel included Tamar Rahamimoff-Honig (Deputy
Director, Arms Control Department, MFA),Tali Messika
(CBRN Policy and International Cooperation, Systems
and Technology Bureau, MOD) and Yair Even (DCM at the
Israeli Embassy in The Hague). Rahamimoff-Honig
asked about the state of a number of OPCW issues,
including budget discussions, non-proliferation and
the recent trend to openly discuss the possibility of
voting. She also mentioned Lebanon's accession to
the CWC as part of its broader approach recently to
disarmament issues, and asked whether the TS was
aware of possible CWC-related activities on the
Syria/Lebanon border. Referring to reports of
pressure on Lebanon not to accede to the Convention,
Rahamimoff-Honig also asked if similar pressure was
being exerted on Iraq. She also asked about whether
Egypt or Syria had signaled a change in policy
towards accession.


12. (C) On the topic of terrorism, delegations
discussed the slow progress of the Open-ended Working
Group on Terrorism, and Mikulak shared U.S. views on
using the OPCW as a discussion forum for issues
related to chemical safety and security. On
destruction, Delrep noted that while discussion of
2012 did not dominate the Review Conference as
expected, it is likely to take center stage again in
the near future. Mikulak also noted that, in
addition to a future shift in OPCW verification
activities from destruction to non-proliferation, the
OPCW needs to adapt in general to the evolving
security environment.


13. (C) Rahamimoff-Honig asked about additional
restrictions on Schedule 3 chemicals; Mikulak assured
her that the issue had been dormant and will likely
remain so. On universality, he noted that the U.S.
is not convinced of the benefits of repeated
workshops and sought Israeli views. Israel noted
that there is some value, but not when discussions at
the workshop become overly politicized. Finally, the
delegations discussed the fact that the process for
selecting a new Director General will need to start
early next year.

--------------
Meeting with TS Office of Special Projects
--------------
Q --------------


14. (SBU) Directors Mikulak (ISN/CB) and Brown (DOC/
BIS),accompanied by Delreps Robinson and Weekman,
met with Krzysztof Paturej, Director of the Office of
Special Projects, on December 4, 2008, to discuss his
ideas for the role of the OPCW in advancing chemical
safety and security issues. Paturej explained that

the OPCW can contribute to enhancing chemical safety
and security at chemical facilities, developing the
role of the OPCW as platform of support for global
cooperation in this area. Such support could include
reducing the chemical threat by promoting awareness
of chemical security best practices and fostering
cooperation between chemical professionals and
related industrial associations. Paturej made clear
that there would be 3 key areas in which the OPCW
would have NO involvement:
--no independent role,
--no (additionally hired) internal expertise on
chemical safety and security, and
--no inclusion of chemical safety and security issues
in the inspection and verification aspects of the
OPCW mission.

In the course of discussion, Delrep recommended that
a fourth "red line" be added: no establishment of
regulatory standards on chemical safety and security.
Paturej concurred that the proposed fourth redline
should be added. In addition, a fifth was added
later in the week: the OPCW will not provide
guidance to States Parties on chemical safety and
security issues.


15. (SBU) Paturej also outlined his vision for the
OPCW's role in chemical safety and security for the
2009 ) 2012 timeframe. Paturej argued for the
creation of a "core group" that is politically
balanced with representation from all regions and
consisting of substantive experts and representatives
from chemistry councils. The core group, over
several years, would work toward the creation of a
global network on chemical safety and security.
Delreps advised Paturej that the name "core group"
would likely need to be changed to reflect a more
inclusive nature (vice exclusive). While no name for
such a group was proposed, Paturej took the comment
on board.


16. (SBU) Paturej proposed that the coming year would
be utilized to get organized, gain experience,
promote external activities and host an OPCW activity
on chemical safety and security in a key country.
The 2009 National Authorities Meeting could also have
a module on the agenda devoted to chemical safety and
security where views, experiences, and best practices
would be exchanged. Over time, the National
Authorities could be the gateway to national
agencies, could provide information on chemical
safety and security issues, and serve to establish
links with other relevant regimes. Delrep commented
that it would be important to ensure that the right
experts, including counterterrorism experts, are
invited to participate in events. The U.S. Del made
no commitments to any of Paturej's proposed concepts,
and informed him that they needed to carefully review
the papers he passed to them.

--------------
Quad Dinner and Quad Lunch
--------------


17. (SBU) French delegate Annie Mari hosted a dinner
on December 2 for representatives of close allies to
meet the new National Authority for France, Jacques
Raharinaivo. DOC Director Brown and Delrep Beik
attended for the U.S. Discussion was broad-based as
Raharinaivo is quite new in the job, but focused on
Qindustry issues, including the site selection for
inspections of Other Chemical Production Facilities
and experiences with Sampling and Analysis by the TS.
The group also discussed the selection process for
the new Director General.


18. (SBU) On December 4, Amb. Javits, ISN/CB Director
Mikulak, and Delrep Robinson attended a French-hosted

lunch for the Close Allies. Amb. Javits and others
discussed the period of transition the OPCW will
enter as destruction winds down, and what this will
mean for the Organization in terms of focus and
staffing. Delegations also discussed the selection
of a successor for the current Director General.
There was general agreement that DG Pfirter has done
very well, and been supportive of Western interests,
and that finding an equally capable replacement will
be critical. There was some discussion of the
general timing and sequence of events leading up to
the selection of a new DG, as well as a speculation
about what would happen if the EC was unable to
present a consensus candidate to the CSP in 2009.

--------------
Bilateral Meeting with Libyan Delegation
--------------


19. (SBU) On December 4, Delrep met with Libyan
National Authority representative Dr. Hesnawy to
follow up on several issues discussed on the margins
of EC-54. On the conversion of the former production
facility at Rabta, Dr. Hesnawy said that the site had
been visited by the Technical Secretariat (TS) the
week of November 24. The TS indicated that the
conversion was farther along than has been reported
by the Libyans (specifically at the last session of
the Destruction Informals prior to EC-54). Hesnawy
said that this was due to the difference in TS and
Libyan methods of assessing progress/completion. The
Libyans will only report complete conversion when the
facility involved is in working order. The TS views
completion as occurring at the point where all the
units are simply installed.

20.(SBU) On progress toward destruction of Libya's CW
stockpile, Dr. Hesnawy indicated that the final
engineering review of the mustard dilution and
tankage equipment at the Ruwagha storage site has
been completed and that dilution and tanking of the
solution will begin January 17. The solvent may be
either naphtha or kerosene; the decision has not yet
been made. The construction of the Rabta CWDF is
being worked on two tracks. The infrastructure that
is being put in by Libyan contractors is underway at
Rabta. The Italian firm SIPSA is assembling the
chemical process units and incinerator in Italy. The
incinerator, which is the critical unit, is not yet
completed. Hesnawy plans that the Rabta CWDF will be
completed and ready for final engineering review
September 2009 and that startup will occur March

2010. He expects to easily meet the May 2010 1%
destruction deadline.


21. (SBU) The Libyans are also planning to construct
additional facilities to produce Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API). These new
facilities will utilize the proliferation sensitive
equipment currently stored in Tripoli that has been
of concern to the Trilateral Steering and
Coordination Committee (TSCC) since 2003. Hesnawy
said that the API tri-venture between Pfirter, Oman
and Libya is still in the planning stage. He said
negotiations with Indian nationals representing
Pfister have been difficult. He has no idea when an
QPfister have been difficult. He has no idea when an
agreement will be reached. The Rabta complex remains
the likely location for the enterprise due to
available common infrastructure.


22. (SBU) Regarding the Libyan Nuclear and Chemical
Defense School at Tajura, Dr. Hesnawy said that he
had made enquiries about its completion status in
response to U.S. questions on the margins of EC-54.
He said he has not been able to get responses from
the "other ministries" and suggested that the U.S.
might want to make the inquiry via the U.S. embassy
in Tripoli or through the agency the TSCC.


--------------
Bilateral Meeting with Iraqi Delegation
--------------


23. (SBU) Delrep met with Iraqi First Secretary Abbas
Fadhil Al-Khafaji to enquire about the status of the
Iraqi CWC accession process. Mr. Al-Khafaji said that
the articles of accession were completed and that the
cover letter was awaiting signature by an official in
the President's office or the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. He had no idea when signing would occur.

-------------- ---
Host Country Agreements on Challenge Inspections
-------------- ---


24. (SBU) DOD Rep Deborah Ozga and Delrep met with
several States Parties to discuss the status of
bilateral agreements on the conduct of challenge
inspections.


25. (SBU) UK: The UK presented the U.S. with a paper
in response to the US cable of Feb 2008, providing
clarifications as necessary. The UK was generally
pleased with the language that the U.S. proposed on
engagement with public affairs coordination and
requested a minor amendment. The UK also expressed
appreciation for the US explanation of their approach
to sampling and offered language based on the U.S.
cable. The U.S. delegation noted that the amendments
seemed to be workable. The language proposed on the
sampling appeared to be a basis from which the U.S.
could work, and will be taken back to capital for
further review.


26. (SBU) Canada: Del met with Canadian
representatives James Junke, Adrian Ghita-Duminica
and Don Neill. The U.S. expressed appreciation for
Canada's response to the most recent U.S. proposal.
and asked for clarification as to how the U.S. would
engage with the OPCW when its assets were involved in
a challenge inspection. The Canadian delegation
provided an explanation based on Canadian CWC
legislation, noting that their Host Team leader would
be the point of communication but that the U.S. would
be integrated in host team and sub-team activities.
The Canadians requested the document be left as an
exchange of notes, as a binding document would have
to go through the Canadian Parliament. The U.S. Del
noted that the U.S. could be flexible on this matter.


27. (SBU) Greece: The U.S. briefly spoke with Prof
Ioannis Seimenis of Greece, who noted that the Greek
government was still reviewing the U.S. proposal.


28. (SBU) Kuwait: The U.S. reviewed a series of
translation questions with the Kuwaiti representative
Salem Shiblis. There appeared to be very few
problems, with the exception of the translation of
the paragraph concerning sovereign vessels. Mr.
Salem noted he would need to review and requested
that the scheduled meeting in Kuwait revisit the
matter.


29. (SBU) Germany: The German delegation explained
that they had not circulated the draft within their
relevant ministries because of staff turnover, so
they did not have national position. They did note
that their main concern was the definition of assets.
The U.S. delegation explained why "facility" was too
limited and suggested that additional language could
Qlimited and suggested that additional language could
be crafted on consultations regarding the other State
Party's assets caught in an inspection. The German
delegation expressed appreciation for the explanation
and said the explanation helped to clarify the issue.
They indicated that they would work the matter
expeditiously.



30. (U) Javits sends.
CULBERTSON