CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000112

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: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR
WEEK ENDING FEBRUARY 1, 2008


This is CWC-05-07.

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


1. (U) During the week of January 28, the Open Ended
Working Group (OEWG) began to tackle the draft text
of the Review Conference report but spent more time
debating the provisional agenda than examining the
text. The German delegation has begun informal
discussion of industry inspection issues. A video-
conference between the Technical Secretariat and the
U.S. National Authority addressed logistical issues
in the first sampling and analysis exercise in the
United States.

--------------
WEOG MEETING
--------------


2. (SBU) On January 28, the Western European and
Others Group (WEOG) met immediately prior to the
meeting of the Open Ended Working Group. Few WEOG
members were prepared to comment on Block 2 of the
RevCon text. Of note was a recommendation from the
UK to include a reference (in the context of the
General Purpose Criterion) to the future possibility
of amending the schedules of chemicals. Italy
expressed support for this initiative and approached
the Del after the meeting to solicit U.S. support.
Del explained that the U.S. is not currently in a
position to support this. (Del request: Del
understands guidance on this topic has not been
finalized, but requests background information and
talking points on the U.S. position be provided as
soon as possible.)


3. (U) Kimmo Laukkanen (Finland),the Article VII
facilitator, announced his departure from The Hague
in May and noted the need for a new facilitator.
Laukkanen plans to organize a consultation before EC-
52 to discuss any activities since CSP-12, as well as
possible report language for EC-52.

--------------
OEWG: PREPARATIONS FOR THE REVIEW CONFERENCE
--------------


4. (U) On January 28, Amb. Parker (UK) chaired the
eighteenth meeting of the OEWG to discuss: (1) the
draft provisional RevCon agenda; (2) the second
section of the draft RevCon report; and (3)
participation of non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) in the RevCon.


5. (U) Discussion of the provisional agenda took far
longer than expected, re-hashing positions raised at
previous meetings. There was a marked division with
Iran and India on the one hand calling for a
simplified agenda with no deviations from that of the
First RevCon, and a number of WEOG states on the
other hand supporting the Chair's proposal to include
new points (e.g., the Scientific Advisory Board
(SAB)). Questions ran from what is meant by "the
work of the Organization" to whether the SAB should
be a sub-heading under another item, to whether it
was even appropriate to single out the SAB, given the
existence of other advisory bodies. Other points of
discussion included the relationship of the OPCW to
other international organizations (para 9f) and the
contribution of the OPCW to international efforts
against terrorism (para 9g). Near the end of
discussion, Iranian Amb. Ziaran changed tact by
requesting a laundry list of problematic additions to
skew the agenda toward CW destruction. Amb. Parker
quickly intervened, noting the obvious contractions
between the request and Iran's initial position.



6. (U) With almost no discussion on Block 2 of the
draft text, Amb. Parker announced that the complete
list of NGOs and "eminent individuals" proposed to be
invited to the RevCon would be available shortly, and
requested comments by the next meeting, scheduled for
February 8. The NGO meeting, separate from the
plenary, will likely be held at the OPCW on Wednesday
of the first week of the Review Conference, which
should allow time for completion of the national
statements, but avoid the more intense negotiations
expected during the second week.


7. (U) Parker again requested delegations to notify
the TS as soon as possible regarding the possibility
of ministerial level attendance at the RevCon. He
also informed delegations that OPCW Legal Adviser
Onate has provided legal advice on amending the rules
of procedure to establish a regional rotation of the
chairmanship. This advice should be available to the
RevCon Working Group in the near future; Del is
working to obtain an advance copy. Finally, Parker
reminded delegations that national statements can be
posted on the external server upon request. Del
understands Washington is still clearing the U.S.
paper in response to the Director General's report,
and believes its submission will be important in
adding to the list of positions that have been
articulated in writing, which currently include the
NAM and EU common positions.

--------------
INCREASING OCPF INSPECTION NUMBERS
--------------


8. (U) On January 30, Delrep participated in a
meeting called by the German delegation to discuss
"increasing OCPF inspection numbers." The French,
UK, and Japanese delegations also attended. The
paper the German delegation shared in advance of the
meeting (faxed separately to State/ISN and Commerce)
assessed their estimation of the distribution of OCPF
inspections in the future if the overall number of
OCPF inspections were to be increased. With as
little an increase as from the 2008 budget number of
118 OCPF inspections to 130, the Chinese would hit
their treaty-mandated Schedule 3/OCPF cap, with a
maximum of only 14 OCPF inspections. The number
would have to be increased to 220 before the next
country (Germany-10) would hit its cap, and a further
increase to 260 would bring Japan (17) and Korea (7)
to their caps. The U.S. would still not hit its cap
at that high inspection level. Also, this type of
significant increase would only slightly increase the
inspections in countries like Iran (2 to 4) and
Pakistan (1 to 2). The general theme was, therefore,
whether further increases in OCPF inspection numbers
could be justified given that the new methodology
does not appear to result in significant inspection
increases in some countries of greater concern.


9. (U) Japan reminded the group that the situation
presented by Germany is exacerbated by the TS
practice of only allowing 5-percent of OCPF
inspections within a given year to be subsequent
inspections (i.e., inspections at sites that have
been previously inspected). By Japanese assessment,
a country like Pakistan would be completely out of
the OCPF inspection regime in 20 years or less.


10. (U) The UK delegation acknowledged that the DG,s
new methodology will not necessarily give us what we
want in distributing inspections more broadly, but
they questioned what else could be done. In their
view, any additional numbers of OCPF inspections are
of broad benefit, even if they occur at sites in a
WEOG country or Japan, and they reminded the group
that this was consistent with the EU common position

on the matter. They also feel that the distribution
of inspections outside of WEOG/Japan would balance
out over time.


11. (U) In the end, the group concluded that the only
way to really ensure OCPF inspections in more
countries, within the current methodology, was to
work toward a decision on VA Part IX, para 11(c)
(i.e., proposals by States Parties). The group also
felt that, if consultations were to occur on OCPF
site selection, that they would be best focused on
this remaining element, giving the new TS methodology
time to be amply applied and evaluated.


12. (U) On related topics: Germany raised the fact
that they will insist during the RevCon on a strict
maintenance of the "hierarchy of risk." Although
other delegations disagreed, the UK and Delrep
pointed out that this need not be argued, as OCPF
inspection numbers could be further increased sharply
(e.g., doubled) without impacting any perceived
balance between hierarchy and inspection rate. The
German delegation also pointed out that efforts made
to improve OCPF declarations - to give more accurate
information about "main activities," for example ) in
an effort to better focus on those plant sites of
greater relevance to the Convention will likely
result in greater targeting of the more sophisticated
sites in the WEOG and Japan. The UK delegation also
reported that the TS believes they need a technical
change to the Convention to allow them to use open
source information for site selection purposes. (Del
comment: This may be why the DG included this issue
in the RevCon paper (WGRC-2/S/1, dated 27 November
2007),although it is not clear in the paper whether
the TS will request a change in the Convention to
allow them to use open source material, or whether
the DG was asserting the right of the TS to use open
source data. End comment.)


13. (SBU) At the close of the meeting, the UK
delegation shared with Delrep a "Restricted" UK non-
paper entitled "OCPFs: What They Are and Why They Are
Important." This has been scanned and transmitted
separately.

-------------- --------------
VIDEO TELECONFERENCE: SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS LOGISTICS
-------------- --------------


14. (U) On January 31, Delrep participated in a video
teleconference with TS representatives (Bill Kane,
Horst Reeps, Gary Mallard, Jutta Hauschild, Dennis
van der Vegt, Violeta Artos, Peter Boehme, Im-Suk
Yang) and the U.S. National Authority (ISN/CB and
Commerce-TCD). The participants discussed the
logistical challenges that arose during the November
2007 Schedule 2 inspection involving sampling and
analysis in the U.S.


15. (U) The meeting centered on five topics: (1) the
notification, (2) Customs-related activities, (3) the
movement of dangerous goods, (4) the performance of
TS contractors and sub-contractors throughout the

SIPDIS
process, and (5) technical equipment inspection. On
each topic, the National Authority identified the
problems that arose, the reasons behind the problems
(if known) were discussed, and clear next steps were
identified with the goal of preventing a reccurrence
of these problems in the future.


16. (U) A similar meeting (again by video
teleconference) will be held soon to address the
policy issues that arose during this inspection. Del
plans to again help to coordinate that meeting and to
participate.

--------------

COORDINATION FOR CLOSE ALLIES LUNCH
--------------


17. (SBU) Del has confirmed the attendance of
representatives from The Hague and capitals at a
working lunch hosted by Ambassador Javits on February

11. The primary aim will be to discuss preparations
for the RevCon, but any topics of particular concern
for EC-52 (e.g. Russia's Maradykovsky facility
agreement and verification plan) may also be raised.
Del requests interagency guidance on RevCon
preparations/strategy and the upcoming Executive
Council session be provided prior to the lunch.


18. (U) Javits sends.
Arnall