CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000180

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 22, 2008

REF: A) STATE 17328

This is CWC-09-08.

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


1. (U) The week of February 18 saw quite a number of
meetings and consultations, several of which were
convening for the first time this year ) Article X
(February 18),the entire industry cluster followed
by sampling and analysis and transfer discrepancies
(February 19),the Host Country Committee (February
20),Article VII (February 20),and the Open Ended
Working Group on Terrorism (February 21). Discussions
are detailed below. The U.S. delegation also invited
the Chinese delegation to a meeting to share views on
the Review Conference; the productive discussion
lasted more than two hours with a close convergence
on key issues.


2. (U) The Open Ended Working Group for the Review
Conference met February 21 but failed either to agree
on the preliminary agenda or to allow the chairman,s
draft agenda to be forwarded to the Executive
Council. Informal meetings on the agenda followed,
among the NAM and in an &informal informal8 meeting
of interested delegations that Amb. Javits chaired on
Friday afternoon and again on Monday morning.
Meanwhile, Chairman Parker advised the group that due
to the large number of comments on the draft report,
the revised text would be distributed later in the
week. The new draft appeared at 6:00 p.m. on Friday
after many delegations had gone home for the weekend.
Del expects that this will limit discussion of the
report at the next OEWG on February 27.


3. (U) This cable also includes a scene setter for
Executive Council 52 March 4 ) 7.

--------------
ARTICLE X CONSULTATIONS
--------------


4. (U) On February 18, facilitator Jitka Brodska
(Czech Republic) chaired the first Article X
consultations of 2008. Agenda items included:
submissions on national protective programs, the
concept of qualified experts, and a general
discussion of readiness to provide assistance
(designed by the facilitator to broaden what was
otherwise destined to be a monologue by the Iranian
delegation on its proposal to establish a network for
the victims of chemical weapons). The consultation
was well attended, with active participation from
many delegations. TS expertise present included
International Cooperation and Assistance (ICA)
Director Amb. Mworia and Assistance and Protection
Branch (APB) Head Gennadi Lutay.


5. (U) Under the first agenda item, the facilitator
noted that the number of submissions on national
protective programs actually dropped from 75 in 2006
to 63 in 2007, a troubling reversal of a trend of
gradually increasing numbers over the past several
years. Lutay expressed concern at this development
and stressed that the TS is using every possible
opportunity to encourage States Parties to submit
this information. Brodska suggested that perhaps an
email reminder directly to National Authorities,
copied to delegations, might be helpful. Del Rep
noted U.S. disappointment and recommended
highlighting concerns in EC-52 and/or RevCon report
language, a suggestion the facilitator took on board.
In response to a U.S. query, APB staff assured
delegations that national protective capacities (i.e.
the existence or lack thereof of a program) are

always assessed prior to provision of further
assistance.


6. (U) On the concept of qualified experts, the TS
stated that 112 nominations were received and
eighteen individuals finally selected as the core
group of experts. Experts were selected from three
fields: medical, chemical munitions/explosive
ordnance disposal, and disaster management. The
first round of training was held at the OPCW from 28
January to 1 February 2008. Information provided on
the nature of the training itself was limited; the TS
explained that some administrative issues are being
worked out but that trainees signed a secrecy
agreement and received medical clearance, and that
the group visited Rijswijk, where equipment set aside
for their use is stored separately.


7. (U) Experts are placed on SSA contracts, which
have a maximum term of 24 months within a 36 month
period. When the prospect of additional training
(e.g. toxic chemical training similar to that
undergone by inspectors, at a sum of c. 5,000 Euros
per person) was raised, this led to an interesting
discussion regarding the potential waste of resources
training a temporary employee who would have to
separate from the OPCW for at least a year following
the first two years of the contract. The concept of
temporary employment was, however, supported by NAM
delegations who stressed the importance of regional
representation in order to take advantage of training
offered to the group which could, in turn, lend
itself to building national and regional capacities.
The TS explained that regional representation is
taken into account to the extent possible, and that
these experts can also participate in regional
workshops, another way in which their expertise can
contribute to capacity building.


8. (U) Under the third agenda item, the TS was first
to take the floor to provide an update on its program
of paying visits to SPs to inspect their Article X
offers of assistance. In a welcome development from
past presentations and discussions, Lutay
acknowledged that the TS needs to prioritize these
visits, focusing first on offers of actual equipment
as opposed to more general offers, such as training.
Several SPs later reiterated the importance of
differentiating qualitatively between offers of
assistance so as to use TS resources most
effectively. The TS also confirmed that whenever
possible, these visits will be coupled with other
training events or meetings, or be scheduled
sequentially in a particular region. In general, the
TS briefing and responses to questions took a

SIPDIS
slightly defensive tone, whereas delegations clearly
wanted evidence of the utility of this practice, to
include transparent reporting and a possible
assessment after one year.


9. (U) Lutay also briefly mentioned the results of
the TS participation in the TRIPLEX exercise last
year, the scenario of which was a natural disaster
that led to the release of toxic industrial
chemicals. Germany pointed out that caution should
be used to avoid straying from the basic mandate
under Article X to provide assistance in the case of
use or threat of use of chemical weapons, and not an
industrial accident. Lutay acknowledged this and
explained that, scenario aside, the response training
was still valuable. In the context of such
exercises, Del Rep noted that an update on TS
readiness to provide assistance or to conduct an
investigation of alleged use would be useful at the
next meeting, as well as an outline of TS planned
activities and/or areas of focus for the coming year.


10. (U) Iran then presented its proposal (circulated

separately to delegations) for establishment of a
network for the victims of chemical weapons attacks.
The Iranian delegate recalled his country's own
experience, and the fact that many doctors expressed
regret that they had so little knowledge at the time
of best practices for treatment (long and short
term). He added that victims may not realize at the
time that they have been exposed to chemical agent,
and that the need for assistance is not confined to
the exposure scenario alone, but could extend to
long-term disabilities and follow-up medical and even
psychological care. Iran acknowledged that the OPCW
cannot provide for all of the possible needs of
victims, but suggested that it might establish itself
as a natural central point for the sharing of
relevant expertise and information. Iran then
proposed that the Secretariat assess the likely
immediate, short-term and long-term needs of victims,
and also who in the international community might be
able to provide expertise and assistance.


11. (U) In an articulate and effective intervention,
Italy noted that Iran itself has admitted that the
Sec retariat has no inherent competence in many of the
areas envisioned in the proposal, and that Italy's
view is that any action taken would be an expression
of goodwill on the part of member states, and not/not
fulfillment of any mandate under Article X. The
Italian delegate used the topic of landmines as an
example, noting that the support of victims in this
and other areas has always fallen outside of the
relevant treaty. He added that his understanding is
that this is essentially an effort to "attract
sympathies" and noted the substantial amount of work
that remains to be done within the Organization's
actual competencies. Switzerland and Germany
supported this general assessment, with Germany
adding its interpretation that paragraph 11 speaks to
emergency assistance, which is by definition of an
immediate nature.


12. (U) This led to an unfortunate digression by Iran
into questions such as how we define "emergency" and
"victim," when one ceases to be a victim, and how to
distinguish between immediate and other needs. Iran
agreed that some activities discussed are outside the
mandate of the CWC, but reiterated that the
Organization does have the mandate to assist the
victims of CW attacks, and its view that the proposal
is in line with the mandate of the Article X
consultations. Iran then recommended that the OPCW
coordinate efforts and create a mechanism for the
exchange of information on assistance to CW victims,
adding that the OPCW could "take credit" with minimal
effort. The discussions concluded with a reference
by Lutay to the fact that medical assistance or
equipment has been offered by a number of SPs under
Article X, and the facilitator's suggestion that the
TS might provide a general assessment and legal

SIPDIS
opinion regarding further work.


13. (SBU) Del comment: Iran continues to demonstrate
a good sense for tactics, although it may have
overplayed its hand by referring too quickly to long
term treatment. The idea that the Organization has
some inherent expertise in the treatment of chemical
casualties is valid, and the Iranians were careful to
cast the entire proposal as forward-looking. (Had
they not done so, the proposal might be more easily
discredited as transparently self-serving.) The
overarching concept of providing assistance to the
victims is a positive one, and the Del's initial read
is that Iran will be able to keep the proposal on the
table by tacking around this core concept while
seeing how far the limits of goodwill can be pushed.
The more immediate concern is that Article X
consultations not become little more than a forum for
lengthy Iranian interventions on this topic, a good

reason to continue to provide concrete
recommendations for other topics future consultations
can explore. End comment.


14. (U) Under Any Other Business, the facilitator
recommended the recently issued report on
implementation of Article X in 2007 be discussed in
the next meeting, which would necessitate deferral
from EC-52 to EC-53, as the next meeting will be
scheduled some time between EC-52 and the RevCon. In
addition to the U.S. request for information on TS
readiness and training plans, the Netherlands
recommended more information also be provided on the
Voluntary Fund in advance of the next consultations.
Brodska also announced that she would be stepping
down as facilitator this summer.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER ) GENERAL
--------------


15. (U) On February 19, Amb. Dani (Algeria, Vice-
Chair for the Industry Cluster) held a general
consultation regarding the work of the Cluster and
its future.


16. (U) The DG took the floor first, giving some
issues that might be looked into in the near future:
continued monitoring of progress made under the EC-51
decision on late declarations (Note: he mentioned
that two SPs have submitted their declarations since
the decision was taken); low concentration of
Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals; OCPF site selection; risk
assessment and inspection frequency; and improvements
in the handling of industry declarations (e.g., the
VIS project, expanding the information in OCPF
declarations). He later pointed to OCPF site
selection as an issue of highest priority; he noted
the need to give the current TS efforts time for
evaluation, but said that results to date have been
very positive.


17. (SBU) Del comment: The DG mentioned in his
intervention the TS paper regarding OCPF
declarations. Bill Kane (IVB) had previously told
Delrep privately what the paper would contain
generally and that TS staff would give the document
to the DG by the end of January. The expectation was
that the document would then be released generally
fairly quickly, so as to be further discussed in
advance of the Review Conference. In his
intervention, the DG said that this paper would not
be released until summer, well after the Review
Conference. Del is not aware of the reasons behind
this change but will try to discretely find out why.
End comment.


18. (U) A number of delegations took the floor,
pointing to those issues they consider to be of
highest priority. Those topics that were mentioned
included: risk assessment and inspection frequency;
low concentration of Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals; OCPF
site selection (focusing on element (c) ) SP
proposals); OCPF declaration improvements; evaluation
of sampling and analysis as a tool for industry
verification; continued monitoring of progress made
under the EC-51 decision on late declarations (with
both Germany and the Netherlands calling for further
consideration of "nil" declarations); and transfer
discrepancies.


19. (U) Iran asked the TS to provide a paper that
would give more details about the approximately 18
issues that are shown as outstanding at this time.
The DG agreed to this request and said it would take
just a few weeks to prepare. The UK pointed to these
issues as areas industry depends on to strengthen
their image to the public, while cautioning that this

list will likely expand at the Review Conference.
Australia noted that a recent meeting of IUPAC
mentioned the increasing relevance of OCPF facility
development to the CWC.


20. (U) Amb. Dani closed the meeting with a general
call for facilitators to take on as many of the
topics mentioned as possible. He also asked that
delegations continue to prioritize their work on
these matters.

--------------
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
--------------


21. (U) On February 19, Bill Kane (IVB) chaired a
closed meeting of those countries who have hosted
Schedule 2 inspections involving sampling and
analysis to date. The countries who were in
attendance were Korea, Italy, France, India, Germany,
Japan, China, the Netherlands, the UK, Australia
(which was finalizing its inspection as the meeting
was being held),Switzerland, and the U.S. Kane said
that the TS plans to carry out one more such
inspection in March to close out the "trial period."
However, the DG has requested the staff to prepare a
report on this period and present it to him by the
end of February. Kane also mentioned briefly some
areas they have identified to date as needing further
work to ensure smooth operations in the future:
realization that logistical issues create the biggest
disruption to operations; the need to plan for
equipment reliability issues (including the carrying
of spares); the need to continually add to the
analytical database (i.e., OCAD); and the TS
perception of the benefits of working in the "open
mode"; and the ability to provide technical
explanations for the presence of low-level
impurities.


22. (U) The discussion then went around the room to
allow each delegation to share something about its
experience. Delegations were generally positive
about the experience, pointing to the work they did
with the TS in advance as the reason for general
success (although several delegations still found
confusion with the TS during the inspection).
Several delegations, however, noted their concern
that smaller plant sites (which Schedule 2 sites tend
to be) will generally not be able to lend the level
of support (nor bear the cost) that these generally
larger sites did during the trial period. Many
called for a general rationale or criteria for how,
when, why, etc. these tools would be used at future
Schedule 2 inspections, as more general application
seems unfeasible. Several delegations called for a
process of evaluating the relative cost of using
these tools against the verification benefit
achieved. Some delegations called for a careful
evaluation of the trial period and future Schedule 2
inspections before considering application of these
tools during Schedule 3 or OCPF inspections. A large
number of the SPs noted that their "on-site"
laboratory space was actually at a location sometimes
at considerable distance (as much as two hours) from
the plant site. Similarly, many delegations noted
that they designated a temporary point-of-entry just
for this inspection to allow easier processing and
inspection of the additional equipment.


23. (U) More specifically, France suggested that the
use of an auto-injector would improvement the
analytical process. Germany made a very detailed
presentation about their experience (faxed to ISN and
Commerce) which touched on: additional burden,
conceptual doubts, technical problems, questionable
verification benefit, and results. (Del comment:
This discussion also highlighted a number of

technical issues that were unique amongst the group
to the German experience but which, as they are
resolved, should serve to be very educational to
other delegations.)


24. (U)Japan also pointed out that their industry is
greatly concerned with the unwanted rumors these
types of activities create and their potential damage
to company reputations. India and China both noted
that transportation issues could be a significant
hurdle in their countries during future inspections.
The Netherlands noted that their National Authority
was asked to procure solvents and carrier gases for
the inspection team, and then the inspection arrived
with its own supplies. The UK, in its self-appointed
role as the champion for sampling and analysis, noted
for the group that it is not the role of SPs to
approve the use these tools and that British
industry supports the general use of these tools,
including their expansion to Schedule 3 and OCPF.
Australia echoed these thoughts. Although pragmatic
about the application, Switzerland stated their view
that the TS is limited in what it can say about a
plant site without the use of these tools.
Switzerland also pointed out that their inspected
site had been inspected five times before under
various regimes and, thus, emphasized the need for
applying logic to the selection of sites for these
types of inspections. Switzerland also called on the
TS to find ways to be more self-sufficient.

SIPDIS


25. (U) During the open discussion, France asked if
there were any plan or option of considering
quantitative analysis in addition to qualitative.
The TS pointed to the rough quantitative evaluation
possible with the current methods (if needed to deal
with an ambiguity) but did not indicate any plan to
move beyond that. As questions arose, Kane explained
that the stock presentation the inspection team gave
at most sites was introduced after the third or
fourth inspection because sites had mentioned that
some sort of primer by the inspection team might be
useful.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER ) TRANSFER DISCREPANCIES
--------------


26. (U) The new co-facilitator for this matter,
Rebekka Wulliman (Swiss National Authority),chaired
a consultation on February 19. The focus of the
meeting was to present the Co-Facilitators' Note and
Draft Decision (both dated 1 February 2008 and are on
the OPCW external server). After a brief
introduction of these new materials, the floor was
opened for comments.


27. (U) The Netherlands, U.S., UK, Italy, Germany,
and Switzerland all spoke favorably of the draft
decision. Some offered minor editorial suggestions,
while some specifically asked that the decision (OP-
5) include a deadline for implementation so as to
give the TS a vehicle to start assessing the
effectiveness of the revised guidelines.


28. (U) The Indian and Iranian delegations both
stated they were awaiting instructions, although they
were generally positive.

--------------
MEETING OF THE HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE
--------------


29. (U) The Host Country Committee meeting February
20 was dominated by discussion on delegates' access
to the OPCW commissary. Amb. Romeo Arguelles
(Philippines) opened the meeting by stating that
there appears to be two different ways to address

commissary access for delegates: finalizing a formal
agreement with the Government of the Netherlands, or
simply implementing administrative measures.


30. (U) Amb. Javits noted that entering into a formal
agreement would provide clear guidelines and
procedures. Referring to a draft agreement put
forward by the Dutch Government in September 2007, he
asked for some points to be clarified and others to
be changed. There was general agreement on insuring
access to the commissary for delegates -- without
diminishing any existing rights and privileges -- and
having clear procedures in place. Amb. Dominik Alder
(Switzerland) briefly shared details on the
commissary in Geneva, which is open to staff and
delegates from all international organizations there.
Amb. Maarten Lak (Netherlands) was present and
promised to communicate the views of the Committee to
the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


31. (U) The Committee will have an informational
meeting on 19 March with officials from the
Municipality of The Hague. Members will send
suggested items for the agenda.

--------------
ARTICLE VII
--------------


32. (U) Facilitator Kimmo Laukkanen (Finland) chaired
a meeting on February 20 and announced that this was
likely his last formal meeting as facilitator. He
plans to continue through the March Executive Council
and make his report there, but he will leave The
Hague in the summer.


33. (U) Legal Advisor Onate (LAO) made his usual
report on progress that has been achieved, this time
since the decision of CSP-12 in November. Some of
the highlights were:

- The total number of States Parties (SPs) has
increased to 183 with the addition of Congo this
month.
- 176 SPs have National Authorities (NA).
- 125 SPs have made an Article VII submission.
- 80 SPs have reported the enactment of
comprehensive legislation.
- On November 29, the Legal Office sent out notes
verbale regarding the CSP-12 decision. Since that
time, one SP (Central African Republic) has
designated their NA; two SPs have informed the TS of
the enactment of legislation (Cook Islands and
Qatar); six SPs have submitted to the TS the text of
their implementation legislation (which LAO is now
reviewing),administrative regulations, and adoption
measures; and 35 SPs have informed the TS of the
steps they have taken to date.
- Five other SPs have asked LAO for assistance in
reviewing existing legislation with an eye toward
recommendations on what else needs to be done.


34. (U) Turkey followed this presentation by
announcing that its government had adopted
implementing legislation and corresponding
regulations on December 19, 2007. A notification to
the TS will follow soon.


35. (U) India and Iran raised a series of questions
about the presentation, basically trying to put as
positive as spin on the progress made as possible.
Given that these two countries have been vocal in the
past about their desire to mark the Article VII
progress made to date and move on to focus on other
matters (e.g., Article XI),it seemed fairly
transparent that this effort was made to set the
stage for the discussion on this subject at the
Review Conference.



36. (U) Del rep deployed the guidance provided and
also cautioned delegations that any effort to
marginalize the focus on Article VII will result in
marginalizing discussions on other areas in which

legislation and administrative measures are
fundamental ) for example, declarations and
verification, transfer of Schedule 3 chemicals to
States not Party to the CWC, and Article XI.


37. (U) Amb. Mworia (ICA) made a detailed
presentation on the outreach efforts of her group in
Article VII assistance to SPs. These efforts
include: technical assistance visits, bilateral
visits with delegations in Brussels and London,
National Authority meetings, parliamentarian
meetings, thematic workshops, and training sessions.
(An electronic copy of this presentation was e-mailed
to ISN and Commerce). These efforts are being funded
through the general funds, as well as voluntary
contributions by the European Union, Japan, and
Korea. The Dutch delegation encouraged continued
work to combine efforts and look for other
efficiencies.

--------------
MEETING WITH CHINESE DELEGATION
--------------


38. (U) As part of our series of pre-RevCon bilateral
meetings with key delegations, Amb. Javits and Del
reps met with Chinese Ambassador Xue Hanqin and three
members of the Chinese delegation on February 20.
Amb. Xue announced that she will be departing just
before the RevCon for a posting back in Beijing. She
also speculated that Cheng Jingye, the new Director-
General for Arms Control in the Chinese Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, might head the Chinese RevCon
delegation. Amb. Xue suggested arranging a bilateral
meeting with Mr. Cheng on the sidelines of the
RevCon.


39. (U) The Chinese del asked about the provisional
agenda. Amb. Javits stressed the need for a balanced
agenda that would allow discussion of all states,
issues. Amb. Xue responded that China has no
difficulty with the agenda as it stands and is
flexible with regard to inclusion and phrasing of
particular points, specifically terrorism. At Amb.
Javits, suggestion, Amb. Xue said that she could
encourage the NAM to be flexible on the agenda. She
commented that resolving the current impasse over the
agenda should not be difficult but that it is
important to look at the background motivators to
discover the real points of contention.


40. (U) Turning to the Chairman's draft report text,
Amb. Xue said that while dividing it into four blocks
was procedurally convenient, they want to see "the
forest as a whole" and are awaiting the complete
version. Her deputy, Li Hong, noted that some NAM
delegations feel there is a lack of transparency
regarding inclusion of their comments and proposals.
Amb. Xue said that some other ambassadors feel that
things are out of control and that they are
frustrated with the process. She once again
suggested moving to a "rolling text" to keep track of
all suggested edits, additions and deletions. Amb.
Javits explained that a "rolling text" would be too
unwieldy at this point in the process. Amb. Xue
stated that China has one substantive concern
regarding the final text: the Convention's objectives
need to be maintained in a balanced manner.
Specifically, the main task of the OPCW is
destruction; everything else should be kept in
balance.


41. (U) Speaking about Article XI, Amb. Xue said that

some States Parties feel that they should be rewarded
for their commitment to the Convention, noting that
industry-related assistance is of little interest to
them. Turning to OCPFs, she stated China's concern
with the increasing number of inspections. While
Chinese industry and local government positively view
inspections as a form of external control and seal of
approval, on a national level China has limited
resources to support inspections. Both delegations
agreed that the RevCon will only be able to have a
general discussion of OCPF site selection and of
sampling and analysis in the absence of the TS papers
expected on these issues.


42. (U) Amb. Xue expressed her appreciation for Amb.
Javits' remarks on U.S. destruction. She noted that
it is too soon to look at shifting the OPCW's focus
and that the priority of destruction (including of
old and abandoned chemical weapons) needs to be
reiterated. Amb. Xue also said that possessors
should try to stick to their deadlines but agreed
that it is too early to assess the situation or
discuss how to react if they do not complete
destruction in time.


43. (U) Briefly touching on challenge inspections,
Amb. Xue and Amb. Javits agreed that they are a good
tool and should be ready for use if needed. However,
Amb. Xue suggested that full-scale exercises should
be used sparingly in order to not diminish the
deterrent effect of challenge inspections.

--------------
OEWG: REVIEW CONFERENCE PREPARATION
--------------


44. (U) Discussion during the February 21 OEWG
meeting focused primarily on procedure for forwarding
the provisional agenda to the Executive Council. Of
note were the increasingly polarized positions of the
NAM and the EU, whose members supported one another
with nearly identical talking points. Cuba, speaking
on behalf of the NAM and China, stated that the rule
of consensus had been violated as the draft
provisional agenda forwarded for EC-52 consideration
was not a consensus document. Slovenia, speaking on
behalf of the EU, responded that many delegations had
made compromises on the agenda in order to reach
consensus and called on remaining delegations to do
so, too. Slovenia specifically noted that there had
been no substantive dissent in previous meetings to
discussing science and technology, terrorism, or
external relationships.


45. (U) Amb. Javits spoke in favor of keeping the
agenda simple and suggested convening informal
consultations with interested delegations to iron out
differences. He went on to say that the agenda
should not force discussion on any favored topic but
should also be broad enough not to suppress or
preclude discussion.


46. (U) After protracted debate, during which the
meeting recessed to allow the NAM to caucus, Amb.
Parker agreed to hold an informal OEWG on Tuesday
(February 26) to discuss the substance of the agenda
in hopes of reaching consensus on that before moving
to discussion of the consolidated draft text on
Wednesday (February 27). Supported by the TS, he
made clear that, if no consensus is reached on the
agenda, he is prepared to move forward with sending a
chairman,s draft to the EC for consideration.


47. (U) On February 22 and 25, Amb. Javits chaired
&informal informal8 consultations with interested
delegations (Algeria, Canada, China, Cuba, France,
Germany, Guatemala, India, Iran, Italy, Mexico,
Morocco, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia,


Slovenia, South Africa, and the U.S.). He urged
delegations to pledge to one another that all states,
issues would be discussed at the Review Conference,
and that the agenda would not limit discussion in any
way and stated that this informal group would take no
decisions, but merely share views. He stressed that a
simple agenda would cover everyone,s issues better
than specific textual additions of favorite items.
The NAM had met at length before the first
&interested party8 meeting and planned to meet again
on Monday after the broader group. While the NAM
agreed to drop &full implementation of Article XI,8
at issue are whether items on terrorism (on which the
NAM is split),the OPCW,s relationships with external
bodies, and science and technology should be
included. The U.S. (represented by del rep with Amb.
Javits in the chair) continued to object to the
disarmament clause added to &international peace and
security8 (item 9a),urging simplification and noting
that terrorism would naturally come under that item.
Through both meetings, Amb. Javits reminded
delegations that the agenda will disappear and that
the final report and political declarations will be
the living products of the RevCon. All delegations
present generally agreed that the agenda should not
suppress or preclude discussion of any relevant
issues during the RevCon.

--------------
OEWG: TERRORISM
--------------


48. (U) On February 21, Annie Mari (France) chaired
the first meeting of the Open Ended Working Group on
Terrorism of 2008. The meeting focused primarily on
a presentation by Amb. Dato Hussin Nayan, Director
General of the South East Asia Center for Counter
Terrorism (SEACCT) in Kuala Lumpur. The presentation
was followed by some questions, and the expected
implication from India and Iran that efforts against
terrorism were outside the mandate of the OPCW.


49. (U) The Chair opened by reminding delegations of
the utility of the OEWG as a forum for exchanging
experiences, and the fact that the OEWG is in no way
intended to indicate that the OPCW is an anti-
terrorist organization. Mari recalled that previous
meetings had involved speakers from UNICRI, the 1540
Committee, and the African Center for Study and
Research on Terrorism in Algeria, and in that vein
welcomed the presentation from South East Asia. Mari
noted that the work of the group tapered off last
year, as the Office of Special Projects (TS office
with primary responsibility for this subject) was
focused on Tenth Anniversary Activities. She
expressed her intent to re-invigorate the
consultations this year, focusing on three main
areas: strengthening relations with other relevant
organizations, building on the role that national
implementation and assistance and protection play in
preventing or mitigating the effects of terrorism,
and establishing closer links with chemical industry.


50. Amb. Nayan provided an overview of the founding
and funding of SEACCT, which was established in 2002
and is fully funded by the Government of Malaysia,
endorsed by ASEAN. He emphasized that the vision of
SEACCT is to become an effective counter-terrorism
training and research center, not an operational
counter-terrorism unit. The center's mission is
based on four general goals: to develop and conduct
training programs, to promote public awareness, to
advise and assist the Government of Malaysia, and to
network with similar institutions.


51. A number of details were provided on the size of
the center's staff (45 personnel),past and planned
training courses, and countries who partnered with

the center to provide training, including the U.S.,
U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan. Amb.
Nayan noted that the closest ties to the OPCW existed
in CBRNE specific training, and pointed to the
implementation of the CWC as one of the topics
covered in this training. He listed the following as
possible areas of cooperation:
- the prevention, response to and investigation of
chemical incidents;
- strengthening practices governing industry and
professionals;
- emergency response (best practices, exercises,
training for first responders); and
- investigation and prosecution.


52. The speaker concluded by noting that SEACCT and
the OPCW do have opportunities for cooperation, and
that the stability fostered by vigilance in counter-
terrorism is key in creating an environment conducive
to economic development. Delegations had relatively
few questions, the most relevant of which came from
the Algerian Ambassador, who asked for the speaker's
assessment of the new threat of chemical terrorism
and his expectation of the OPCW's role. Amb. Nayan
stated that in his view the active threat of chemical
terrorism is negligible, but that a real passive
threat exists in the lack of comprehensive industry
regulations. He noted that the greatest resource the
OPCW can provide is its expertise.


53. Iran and India both attempted to call into
question the mandate of the OEWG and the OPCW's role
in the fight against terrorism, with Iran going one
step further with a clumsy attempt to turn the
discussions toward its proposal for a "CW victims
network." Del Rep, drawing on the Revcon Objectives
Cable (Ref A),noted the U.S. view that the OPCW can
contribute to the fight against terrorism in a number
of ways that clearly fall within the scope of the
CWC, and encouraged further work and the continued
use of the OEWG as a useful forum for exchanging
ideas on the increasingly relevant topic of chemical
terrorism.

--------------
SCENESETTER FOR EC-52
--------------


54. (U) On destruction issues, Del expects deferral
of documents and possible trouble on the report of
the EC visit to Anniston. Following a meeting with
the Russian delegation early in the EC week, Del
expects the U.S. and Russia will agree to mutual
deferral (preferably done from the EC Chair) of the
facility agreements and verification plans for
Maradykovsky, Leonidovka and Newport. On Newport,
Del has already advised deferral due to changes
necessitated by emergency destruction at Blue Grass;
Del will script remarks for the EC Chair. The Pine
Bluff Binary (PBBDF) documents have also remained on
the agenda for consideration, despite the fact that
PBBDF completed secondary treatment operations in
December 2007. Del has noted this during the EC
Chair's preparatory meeting February 25, and expects
to request from the floor that these items be removed
from the agenda.


55. (U) Del expects minimal comment on the third
round of quarterly destruction updates submitted by
the possessor states which requested extensions to
their final destruction deadlines. However, the U.S.
update, as well as the DG's semi-annual note on
progress in meeting revised deadlines, have been the
victim of Iranian posturing during previous sessions.
It is more likely, though, that the Iranians will
focus on finding fault with some aspect of the report
of the EC visit to Anniston, one possible outcome of
which would be an Iranian request to "receive" the

report instead of "noting" as indicated by the
agenda.


56. (U) As noted above, the facilitator for Article X
intends to request deferral of consideration of the
report on implementation of Article X to the
following EC, to allow for discussion in the next
round of consultations. During the EC Chair's
preparatory meeting, South Africa recommended similar
steps be taken with the Article XI report;
facilitator Li Hong (China) requested this be
postponed until after this week's Article XI meeting
(scheduled for February 29).


57. (SBU) Del comment: With the deferral of Newport,
the removal of Pine Bluff Binary documents, the
likely deferral of the Maradykovsky and Leonidovka
documents, and the deferral of the Article X report
and possibly the Article XI report, the agenda for
EC-52 is rapidly losing substance. It is too soon,
however, to predict a short EC, given the continued
lack of consensus on a provisional agenda for the
RevCon. It is also possible that deferral of Article
X will only build a stronger Iranian case for
immediate action on a "victims network" at the
RevCon. End comment.


58. (U) Javits sends.
Schofer