CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR TWO

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000152

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 TWO
WEEKS ENDING FEBRUARY 15, 2008


This is CWC-08-08.

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


1. (SBU) This report covers the first two weeks in
February and quite a number of meetings at the OPCW
and behind the scenes. The Open Ended Working Group
for the Review Conference met on February 8 and 14,
primarily to review the final three blocks of draft
text for the conference report, but the group failed
to come to consensus on the provisional RevCon
agenda, which will be discussed once again on
February 21. Ambassador Javits began actively
reaching out to a variety of delegations to discuss
issues related to the RevCon, and he hosted lunch and
an afternoon discussion with close allies on February

11. The facilitator for Universality convened a
meeting on February 13 to discuss progress. At the
request of the Netherlands, a group of donor
countries met February to compare notes on activities
funded and priorities for the next year. The U.S.
delegation also met with the new Head of Media and
Public Affairs in the Technical Secretariat, American
Michael Luhan, who is taking a very pro-active
approach to his new job.

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


2. (U) In the Open Ended Working Group meetings on
February 8 (which lasted all day) and 14, Amb. Lyn
Parker (UK) marched the group through the three
remaining blocks of draft text for the Review
Conference Report. A businesslike atmosphere
prevailed through most of the sessions, with each
section of text taken in turn and delegations
presenting their comments. As with the first
discussion of the text in January, delegations are
sending textual changes to the chair via e-mail.
Iran, Cuba and other NAM members were noticeably
silent during most of the debate, noting that they
had only "preliminary" comments; there were not many
of those. (Del comment: This could spell trouble
ahead with very late interventions from NAM states,
or the excuse that the revised draft report
represents only western input ) which may well prove
true if only western countries provide comments to
the chair).


3. (U) GENERAL DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT TEXT: Cuba's
preliminary comments included their belief that the
text should be a "rolling draft" reflecting all
proposed changes, along with a request for additional
time for consideration of the text. Chairman Parker
responded that the next draft of the whole text will
take into consideration all comments received, but
that including all the comments as bracketed text at
this point would be impossible tQwork with. He said
the goal was a clean baseline text for future
discussion, as had been provided at the first RevCon.
Iran, South Africa and China all spoke in favor of an
immediate rolling text. Amb. Javits spoke on the
utility of bracketed text at the proper time in the
process, including identification of the states
proposing the changes, but not yet. Mexico
reiterated a proposal it had made earlier for a
drafting group to assist the chair. South Africa
noted that the NAM comments represent quite a number
of countries. Amb. Javits responded that, while it
is useful to hear collective views in the general
debate, states parties should be the actors in the
decision making process, including approving the text
and supporting amendments. Cuba responded somewhat
testily that the NAM operates on consensus, only
representing common concepts and positions, and that
E

all members have the ability to state their national
positions.


4. (U) PROVISIONAL AGENDA: The NAM requested a break
to caucus late in the afternoon of February 8 to
discuss the provisional agenda. Following the break,
Cuba presented new additions from the floor, but
admitted that the caucus had not agreed on the agenda
item on terrorism. (Del comment: This admission of
division in the NAM was new and may have reflected
the morning's discussion noted above, since only a
handful of NAM members were present by the afternoon
session. Del later learned that the split on
terrorism was between African and Asian delegations).
Several delegations (Germany, U.S. and other WEOG
members) objected to the "full implementation of
Article XI" as an agenda item, and questions were
raised (Russia, US and others) on the focus on
"complete disarmament" added to the agenda item on
international peace and security. Russia questioned
whether we were now to discuss small arms as well as
chemical weapons. Chairman Parker stated that he
would provide a compromise draft agenda based on the
new input and the working group's discussion.


5. (U) At the February 14 meeting, Amb. Parker
presented the new draft agenda for discussion. Cuba
stated on behalf of the NAM that they had not reached
a common position and member states needed more time
to consider the text; he noted that some might speak
to their concerns. Iran intervened to note that, as
there was no consensus agenda from the working group,
it should not be forwarded to the Executive Council.
Director for the Policy Making Organs Alexander
Khodakov explained the procedural rule that the EC
should prepare the draft agenda for the RevCon, but
that it could be amended until the Review Conference
itself approved it. Amb. Parker agreed to keep the
draft agenda open for discussion at the February 21
OEWG, but that if there is no consensus then, he will
send it forward as a chairman's draft to the EC. Del
has faxed the new draft agenda to ISN and requests
guidance for the February 21 meeting.


6. (U) OPEN FORUM: The forum, which will include
NGOs, industry representatives and "eminent
individuals" is tentatively scheduled for the
afternoon of April 10, and the TS will send out
invitations and organize the event's program and
agenda. At the February 8 OEWG, after Del privately
noted to the chair the incorrect footnote in the TS
paper, Amb. Parker clarified that the ICRC had
participated in the Open Forum at the First RevCon.
The TS also noted that the Sunshine Project was no
longer operational, and that UNPO had no association
with chemical weapons, and neither would be invited.
There were no objections from the working group to
four additions to the list of participants: Ian
Kenyon and Shakut Umer (put forward by the Del),and
Amb. Von Wagner and the Berlin-based Stiftung
Wissenschaft und Politik (put forward by Germany).


7. (U) BLOCK 2 TEXT: The February 8 discussion of
this section highlighted differences among
delegations on the role of the Scientific Advisory
Board, the status of its report, and how the report
should be cited in the text. Japan proposed that the
SAB report be treated all together, rather than
selectively quoting from it through the different
sections. The Chair agreed that the SAB is one of
the issues that needs to be considered "horizontally"
in the report as a whole once the draft is complete.
Also of note, Russia stated its preference not to
include any reference in the report text to the EC
visit to Anniston, stating that it viewed the visit
as an "additional transparency measure" rather than
oversight.


8. (U) BLOCK 3 TEXT: The February 8 discussion of
this section again included input mostly from WEOG
delegations, Japan, South Africa and India. The
interventions were primarily focused on textual
changes eliciting few responses or comments from
delegations. In its only intervention, Iran stressed
that destruction is the central issue and should be
the focus of the RevCon.


9. (U) BLOCK 4 TEXT: The February 14 discussion of
this section again was dominated by the same
delegations as the previous two sessions. A notable
exception was the call by both Sudan and Algeria for
giving preference to African nationals in staffing.
Algeria specifically called for "positive
discrimination in favor of Africa," to which the
Director-General noted the Convention's emphasis on
qualifications. Discussion also highlighted
differences among delegations on linking Article VII
and Article XI: EU delegations and Russia supported
the linkage and referring to the interdependence of
the two articles; Mexico, Algeria, Sudan and China
spoke up against making Article VII compliance a
prerequisite for receiving Article XI-related
assistance.

--------------
UNIVERSALITY
--------------


10. (U) On February 13, the facilitator for
Universality, Said Moussi (Algeria),held a meeting
for the TS and delegations to share information on
recent activities. Malik Elahi (Head, Government
Relations and Political Affairs Branch) gave an
overview country-by-country of TS efforts to engage
non-States Parties. The TS is planning upcoming
visits to two African countries, Guinea-Bissau (the
end of February) and Angola (June). Elahi noted that
contacts with the Angolan government have been
facilitated by the German Ambassador in Luanda. He
also said that Guinea-Bissau's law on ratifying the
CWC is currently awaiting final presidential
approval.


11. (SBU) The Netherlands and the UK both shared
recent high-level contacts with the Bahamas
(Netherlands),and Syria and Egypt (UK). However,
only the Dutch push seems to have borne fruit, with
the Bahamas very close to finalizing ratification of
the CWC. Del rep noted continued U.S. engagement
with the Bahamas and the Dominican Republic.
Slovenia said that the EU is planning to deliver a
joint demarche to the Dominican Republic in the
coming weeks; Canada indicated interest in supporting
the push on the Dominican Republic.

--------------
MEETING WITH CLOSE ALLIES
--------------


12. (SBU) On February 11, Amb. Javits hosted a lunch
for the Close Allies. All delegations participated
at the ambassadorial level, with Germany, France and
the U.S. including representatives from capital. The
primary purpose of the lunch was to provide a venue
for discussions on the RevCon early enough to be
influential in the drafting process. U.K. Amb. Lyn
Parker provided an update from his position as Chair
of the RevCon Working Group. Discussions also
included a proposal by the U.S. for revisions to the
Russian Federation,s verification plan for the
Maradykovsky CW destruction facility.


13. (SBU) PREPARATIONS FOR THE REVCON: Several
issues were highlighted as challenges/priorities.
U.K. Amb. Parker noted that the topic of CW
destruction will present a significant challenge,

even if efforts to actually dominate RevCon
discussions with talk of destruction delays and 2012
will probably be limited to a handful of problematic
delegations. Germany in particular was very
concerned as to how the U.S. intended to handle the
topic of 2012 at the RevCon, particularly if the NAM
focuses on the U.S. inability to meet 2012. Parker
also noted the need for further work on Article VII,
and the danger that this will be brushed aside by the
NAM.


14. (SBU) Germany noted its view that despite a need
to adapt the organization to a shift in priorities
over time, destruction is the number one priority,
followed by non-proliferation. The Germans shared
thoughts on getting away from the term &non-
proliferation8 (which elicits a negative reaction
from much of the NAM) and focusing on phrases like
&confidence in compliance.8 The U.K. later added
that the safest option would obviously be to stick to
treaty language, or at least to concepts like &non-
acquisition8 that are clearly consistent with
existing CWC obligations. Germany also noted the
importance of supporting the provisions of Article VI
with the provisions of Article IX.


15. (SBU) France highlighted the need to set a course
for the shift in verification, and the importance of
non-proliferation, as well as the need to avoid
undermining the Australia Group.


16. (SBU) Amb. Parker reminded delegations that the
mandate of the OEWG is only until EC-52; the EC will
need to extend the mandate to the beginning of the
RevCon. Apparently the TS needs both the draft
report and the political declaration by March 21 for
translation and distribution before the RevCon.
Parker hopes to shift focus after the EC from the
Chair,s text to the political declaration, although
he thought one more meeting on the consolidated text
might be necessary following EC-52.


17. (SBU) STRATEGIES FOR WORKING WITH LIKE-MINDED
COUNTRIES, PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF IRAN AND THE NAM:
There was general agreement that it will be very
helpful to get like-minded smaller delegations to
speak up, even if it is simply to reinforce an EU
position. Delegations also discussed the need to
keep the Iranians from dictating the pace and end
game of negotiations. Suggestions included taking a
harder position on questioning the credibility of
eleventh hour, vague requests; and refusing to play
into the Iranian desire to immediately whittle the
negotiations down to a small group. Parker and
German MFA rep Beerwerth both talked about the
possibility of isolating Iran and/or other
troublemakers, and having the Chair deal with them
one-on-one, and also discussed the value of keeping
any negotiating group that may arise open to maintain
better oversight.


18. (SBU) OCPF INSPECTION FREQUENCY: The discussion
was very similar to that of the German-led meeting of
January 30. The general German theme, as in their
earlier paper, was 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. The UK asserted again that the DG,s
new methodology will not necessarily give us what we
want in distributing inspections more broadly, but
any additional numbers of OCPF inspections are of
broad benefit. The French were more supportive of
the UK view.


19. (SBU) U.S. Del suggested a possible way in which
the EC could specify in the annual budget inspection
intensity per category (given as a percentage range),

thus giving the TS more flexibility in selecting
sites of greater concern for inspection and how those
inspections would be carried out. Also, Del
requested that delegations be careful to keep the
matters of the OCPF site selection methodology and
the annual budget for inspections as separate
discussions. Both of these Del suggestions are hoped
to work as a safer argument against the general NAM
concern over &hierarchy of risk.8


20. (SBU) SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS: This discussion was
fairly brief, as delegations have often shared their
experiences with each other in the past. Delegations
generally questioned each other on the types of
issues they anticipate discussing during the February
19 meetings on the topic of experiences during the
trial period.


21. (SBU) TERRORISM: The French delegation spoke
briefly about their upcoming seminar, and also their
intent to play up the connection to Article VII and
Article X in upcoming meetings of the OEWG on
Terrorism. Amb. Javits mentioned the possibility of
tying in the provisions on Investigations of Alleged
Use as related to combating terrorism.


22. (SBU) RIOT CONTROL AGENTS AND INCAPACITATING
AGENTS: France referred to its previously stated
concern that the ability of troops to use RCAs on
peacekeeping missions not be restricted. The French
Del also made a passing reference to the importance
of WEOG solidarity on this point. Germany,s position
seemed to be very similar to the U.S., in that Berlin
believes substantive discussions on these and related
topics should be avoided at the RevCon. German MFA
rep Beerwerth did, however, note that in internal
discussions the concern has been raised that the
provision on law enforcement not become a loophole
(ref. the possibility of unscheduled chemicals of all
sorts being passed off as law enforcement
substances). Informally, Beerwerth offered that one
possible solution would be to clearly limit the scope
of chemicals appropriate for law enforcement to riot
control agents only.


23. (SBU) U.S. Del made clear that the U.S. will not
accept the establishment of follow-on processes or
discussions, or any attempt to clarify terminology
such as &method of warfare8 or &law enforcement.8
The U.K. still seemed more focused on developing an
effective strategy to contain the topic if it gets
out of hand at the RevCon, and noted plans for a
meeting in London later in the week to discuss this.


24. (SBU) RUSSIAN CW DESTRUCTION: U.S. Del presented
the U.S. proposal for revisions to the Maradykovsky
verification plan and accompanying draft decision.
Reactions were mixed, and not entirely supportive;
the concern expressed by all delegations was that
there is simply no impetus for Russia to agree to any
changes at this point and, as per discussions in
Berlin, the next opportunity to apply any sort of
political pressure will come with the 45 percent
deadline.


25. (SBU) The U.K. seems inclined to avoid pressing
the issue, and expressed doubt that publicly
highlighting the difference in interpretation between
the DG and the Russians on the terms of the agreement
would be constructive. Germany was concerned at the
lack of reference to Article IV, and the space that
leaves for Russia to assert in the future that
verification after the first stage actually means
Article VI verification. The U.S. noted that the
text had been crafted to achieve shared objectives
without getting into the fundamental difference in
definitions of destruction. France suggested simply
welcoming or underscoring the DG,s interpretation of

the &provisional8 counting arrangement, perhaps in
report language. Del reminded the French of
previous, unsuccessful attempts along these lines.


26. (SBU) Although there were a number of minor
tactical questions raised, the other recurring theme
in the discussion was the question of whether it
might be the appropriate time to bring this
discussion into the open by explaining concerns from
the floor during the EC. Germany seemed to be in
favor of articulating the fact that interested States
Parties have actually been quite flexible in not
questioning the 20 percent accounting, a flexibility
offered to take into account the political
necessities of the Russian Federation, and that a
number of concerns have not yet been addressed.
Delegations agreed that most States Parties are
largely unaware of the implications of the
Maradykovksy documents, some of whom might be
supportive if educated on the matter. The U.K.,
however, expressed concern that this would only serve
to undermine the DG,s &understanding.8 Del agreed to
share the proposal with the DG to get his feedback
before proceeding further.


27. (SBU) On the following day, Amb. Javits met with
the Director General and shared the draft text on the
Maradykovsky documents. The DG was not opposed to
the proposal but questioned the timing, noting that
it might be inadvisable before the Review Conference.
He alluded to the fact that the text of the
agreements was negotiated at length with the TS,
which would have views on changes to that text. He
felt that the Executive Council session following the
RevCon (June) would be a more opportune time to
propose and debate the changes.



28. (SBU) On Leonidovka, discussions were limited, as
most delegations had not had the opportunity to
review the recently distributed verification plan and
facility agreement. There was some speculation about
whether the terms of these documents would provide
more or less assurance than those for Maradykovsky,
and general agreement that it is important to
consider both sets of documents together,
particularly given the role these two facilities will
play in Russia,s 45 percent deadline.

--------------
WEOG MEETINGS
--------------


29. (SBU) The February 8 WEOG meeting immediately
preceded the Open Ended Working Group meeting and
focused on delegations' views on Blocks 2 and 3 of
the draft report. Of note, Canada cited the "two
major possessor states" serious arrears in their
Article IV and V obligations. Del responded that the
U.S. is current on those payments.


30. (SBU) On February 12, the WEOG met at its usual
time for a more general brainstorming discussion of
positions on the Review Conference. The Irish
delegation first reported from the bureau meeting
that Slovakia is in line to chair the Executive
Council this year and other regional groups should be
choosing their vice chairs, and that Brazil would be
volunteering to facilitate the OPCW office in Africa.
Russia had been asked by the bureau about timing of
the EC visit to one of their chemical weapons
destruction facilities; the Russian response quoted
the decision language that it would be "no later than
2008." The UK del reported that the OEWG for the
Review Conference should produce a chairman's text of
the report by 21 March to allow translation and
distribution before the Conference. A revised draft
text based on the current discussions of the four

blocks will be prepared for the meeting next week
(February 21) with one additional meeting to discuss
it before the EC. The political declaration would be
drafted after the consolidated report text, with
discussion probably taking place after the EC.


31. (SBU) The brainstorming portion of the meeting
lasted over two hours, and while there were few
surprises, it did provide a useful opportunity to air
views on both substance and tactics. Delegations had
different views on how serious the NAM attack on non-
proliferation is and whether and how it should be
countered. There were also differences of view on
explicit linkage between Articles VII and XI, from
the German statement that there should be no
transfers if legislation is not in place in a state,
to the Canadian advice that explicit linkage would
likely backfire. There was general agreement that
the NAM is not unified and can be split. One
delegate noted that the current NAM delegates are
easier to work with and more constructive than their
predecessors. On Article X, no one had further
information on the Iranian proposal submitted before
the Conference of States Parties in November. Germany
advised that Iran is likely to raise Article X
directly at the Review Conference despite the fact
that the CSP reinforced the ongoing facilitation.
The French delegate inquired about terrorism and
outlined the OEWG on Terrorism's upcoming series of
presentations. Amb. Lak of the Netherlands noted
that his delegation is developing a paper on outreach
for the OPCW based on the successful academic and
industry forums last year.


32. (SBU) The WEOG met again on February 14
immediately before the OEWG to consult on Block 4 of
the draft report text. The UK noted that NAM
delegations had met the day before but many had not
received instructions from capital and they had
failed to agree on the provisional agenda.

--------------
DONOR COORDINATION MEETING
--------------


33. (SBU) On February 15, the Dutch delegation
organized an informal meeting of donors as part of
its effort to coordinate assistance and share
experiences. Amb. Maarten Lak (Netherlands) reviewed
input received from a number of donors on their
priorities for assistance in 2008. Slovenia briefly
described the current EU Joint Action voluntary
contribution, which has been supporting eight
projects focusing on outreach, universality, national
implementation and technical assistance; it also
provided support for the Academic Forum held in
November 2007. The Del circulated a paper on U.S.
assistance activities and priorities.


34. (SBU) Several delegations (Netherlands, Germany,
U.S.) spoke to the need for more information from the
TS, specifically for assessing the impact and results

SIPDIS
of assistance programs. They also noted the need to
look at funding comprehensively, taking into account
both the regular budget and voluntary contributions.
The facilitators for Articles X and VII promised to
include discussion on article-specific assistance
during upcoming consultations for each article (note:
Article X consultations are scheduled for February
18, Article VII for February 20).

--------------
BILATERAL MEETINGS
--------------


35. (SBU) Amb. Javits has launched active outreach to
other delegations to share views and encourage close
working relationships to resolve issues arising from

the Review Conference. With members of the
delegation, the Ambassador has met with the Indian,
Slovenian, Saudi, Costa Rican, Mexican and Slovakian
delegations during the past two weeks. The Mexican
meeting will be reported septel.


36. (SBU) INDIA: On February 6, Amb. Javits hosted
lunch for Indian Ambassador Neelam Sabharwal and her
deputy Riva Das, along with del reps. Amb. Sabharwal
expressed support for broader views than the NAM
position her deputy normally takes. While stating
that a basic discussion about CW destruction will be
vital in the RevCon, she also noted that they wanted
this discussion to be limited and focused on the
situation at hand. On industrial topics, Das shared
recent efforts by Indian industry to augment the
implementation of the Convention. In Gujurat, which
has the most developed chemical industry of any
region, the chemical association has set up a full-
time "help desk" whose role is to advise individual
companies so that they understand and meet their
obligations under the Convention. Amb. Javits and
del reps encouraged her to share this experience with
the OPCW and delegations as a way in which industry
can take the lead in ensuring appropriate CWC
implementation, along with programs like Responsible
Care. OPCW can assist such programs but the
initiatives are much more successful when the
chemical industry itself initiates something it can
use. Amb. Javits also emphasized the importance of
individual States Parties being involved in the
RevCon process and asked Amb. Sabharwal to consider
organizing an informal meeting for some key Asian
delegations to discuss how to ensure a positive
outcome for this RevCon.


37. (SBU) SLOVENIA: On February 7, Amb. Javits and
Delreps met with Amb. Tea Petrin and OPCW delegate
Andreja Purkart Martinez at Slovenia's request.
Slovenia, as current EU president, will be taking a
more active role in OPCW matters and is focusing on
coordinating a common EU position for the RevCon.
Amb. Petrin and Martinez reported that a recent
meeting in Ljubljana had been successful in this
regard. Describing the NAM's approach, Amb. Javits
encouraged Slovenia and other smaller EU members to
intervene and add their views during consultations
instead of normally leaving the role to France,
Germany and the UK. In response, Amb. Petrin floated
the idea of non-WEOG EU members sitting in on WEOG
meetings as "observers." Amb. Javits indicated that
having "WEOG Plus" -- or "EU Plus" -- meetings on an
ad-hoc basis would be preferable to a number of WEOG
members and could insure coordination among like-
minded States Parties. Appreciating Amb. Javits'
suggestion, Amb. Petrin said that she would plan to
host a pre-RevCon "EU Plus" meeting.


38. (SBU) SAUDI ARABIA: On February 12, Ambassador
Waleed Elkhereiji called on Amb. Javits; del rep sat
in. As the future chairman of the Review Conference,
Amb. Elkhereiji asked for U.S. views on the issues
and expressed his desire to stay in close touch with
Amb. Javits as things progress. He was particularly
interested in why the U.S. might not meet the 2012
destruction deadline and whether any other possessor
states might be in the same position. Amb. Javits
explained the U.S. position and ongoing destruction
efforts and expressed doubts about whether Russia can
meet the 2012 deadline despite their assurances that
they will. He stressed that 2012 should not be the
end of the work of the OPCW, whether or not all
possessor states complete destruction. The Saudi
Ambassador described his experience in dealing with
Iran in past negotiations and as a neighbor, and he
said that his delegation would be attending the NAM
meetings as an observer to understand better their
positions. He hoped that the report for the

conference would be complete before it egins. Amb.
Javits suggested that a friends of he chair group,
representing the five regional goups rather than the
NAM or EU, could be helpfulin finding resolutions to
contentious issues.


39. (SBU) COSTA RICA: Laer on February 12, Costa
Rican Ambassador Jose Auilar called on Amb. Javits,
with del rep sittin in. Costa Rica will be joining
the Executive Concil and will take the vice chair
currently heldby Chile, although Amb. Aguilar was
not sure he ould have the same cluster issues. He
describedthe polarizing split within GRULAC between
Cuba nd Venezuela on one side and most of the rest
holing very different views, with Cuba advocating
te end of the Convention in 2012. Amb. Aguilar sai
the key issues for him and Costa Rica are modifying
the convention to be relevant beyond 2012 and
terrorism. Amb. Javits outlined U.S. views,
particularly on 2012 not being the end of the CWC or
the OPCW, and urged Costa Rica and other smaller
states to speak up in the working group and at the
conference. They agreed that delegations would stay
in close touch both in the EC and the RevCon.


40. (SBU) SLOVAKIA: Ambassador Oksana Tomova and
OPCW delegate Michal Komada met with Amb. Javits and
del rep on February 13. Amb. Tomova has been
selected by the Eastern European regional group to be
the next EC Chair and she is actively preparing for
the role. Amb. Javits described U.S. positions on
key RevCon and EC issues, particularly the importance
of active involvement by the chair and vice chairs in
moving the work of he EC forward between sessions.
Del rep noted U.S interest in finding ways to help
delegates and acilitators improve their multilateral
skills. omada, as a delegate new to multilateral
issues,said he would appreciate periodic workshops
on isues and skills and thought the EU and Russia
migt be able to provide expert speakers and
trainer. Amb. Javits offered any help the del can
provie to the Slovakian delegation on both issues
andprocess.

-------------- ---
MEETING WITH OPCW MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFIRS BRANCH
-------------- ---


41. (U) On February 5, Amb. Javits nd Del reps met
with Michael Luhan (U.S.),the new Head of Media and
Public Affairs, and Aabha Dixit, Media and Public
Affairs Officer. The meeting's primary purpose was
to introduce Luhan to the Del and to hear his views
on how to promote the OPCW and raise awareness of the
CWC. These included finalizing a public service
announcement to be aired on CNN; developing a media
plan for the upcoming RevCon; distributing DVDs of
the Columbia OPCW Symposium as teaching tools on
successful multilateralism; and organizing a think
tank seminar, most likely in Washington, on the CWC
and its role in disarmament and global security.
(Del comment: Luhan has also been actively meeting
with WEOG representatives, who are interested in
scheduling a meeting of the WEOG with him in the next
few weeks.)


42. (U) Javits sends.

Arnall