CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000222 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 29, 2008 REF: A) THE HAGUE 180 This is CWC-10-08. -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (U) The week of February 25)29 primarily marched in place. Delegations spent a lot of time on the provisional agenda for the Review Conference, with no agreement except growing convergence that the only broadly acceptable agenda would closely track that of the first Review Conference. Due to the late distribution of the consolidated RevCon draft report text, discussion at the Open Ended Working Group was limited and will continue at the next OEWG on March ¶13. A second Article X meeting in two weeks on assistance lacked focus and outcome but continued the process of discussion. An Article XI facilitation discussed the Director General,s report but still planned to defer discussion by the Executive Council to the next session (June). ¶2. (SBU) Much more productive was the visit by the VCI team who met with a large array of officials in the Technical Secretariat and witnessed an actual demonstration of the Verification Information System. -------------- EC CHAIR'S MEETING ON PREPARATIONS FOR EC-52 -------------- ¶3. (U) On February 25, the Executive Council Chairman Amb. Arguelles (Philippines) chaired the informal meeting in preparation for EC-52 and quickly went through the preliminary agenda (reftel). Ireland reported on behalf of the facilitator that she plans to request deferral of consideration of the Director General,s Article X status report as there had not been time to schedule consultations to discuss the report. South Africa suggested that the same be done for the DG's Article XI status report; the Article XI facilitator (Li Hong, China) announced that he would hold consultations on February 29 which would include discussion of the report. -------------- OEWG: REVIEW CONFERENCE PREPARATION -------------- ¶4. (U) On February 26, Amb. Lyn Parker (UK) chaired an informal OEWG specifically to discuss the RevCon's provisional agenda. Amb. Javits reported on the work and progress of the "informal informal" meetings of interested parties that he chaired on February 22 and 25 (reported reftel). After extensive debate on the same issues (&complete and general disarmament,8 terrorism, science and technology, and the OPCW,s external relationships),Amb. Parker proposed a compromise text that would be forwarded to the Executive Council unless consensus could be achieved on another draft. A number of delegations welcomed Amb. Parker's efforts but cited problems with the new formulation. Amb. Javits agreed to chair another "informal informal" in the afternoon. ¶5. (U) During the afternoon meeting of interested parties (Algeria, Canada, China, Cuba, France, Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Africa, the UK as observer, and the U.S.),most delegations present indicated their dislike for Amb. Parker's compromise from the morning. Only Algeria spoke out strongly in its favor, apparently because the compromise addressed its desire to include terrorism on the agenda. Cuba and other NAM delegations reiterated that their agreement not to press for "full implementation of Article XI" in the agenda was part of a package deal and should not be taken for granted as a concession if other items re-open for discussion. With no agreement on Parker's proposed agenda, a number of delegations (including Iran, Mexico, and South Africa) spoke in favor of returning to the agenda of the First RevCon, noting that it is broad enough to still be relevant. ¶6. (U) At the beginning of the February 27 OEWG meeting, Amb. Parker announced that,contrary to previous information, the OEWG does not require an extension of its mandate following EC-52 due to the broad terms of the working group,s creation. He noted that the next OEWG meeting on March 13 will be the last opportunity to discuss the composite draft text for the RevCon report as the Technical Secretariat (TS) needs the text for translation and SIPDIS distribution to all States Parties in advance of the Review Conference. ¶7. (U) Turning to the draft report text, Amb. Parker reiterated the need to move forward with discussions given the short timeline and called on all delegations to provide feedback. He specifically noted that the NAM had only provided comments on blocks 1 and 2; Cuba responded that the NAM still had not finalized its views on blocks 3 and 4. ¶8. (U) Only Korea, Japan, and some WEOG delegations provided any substantive comments, and there was no debate on the points they raised. Most delegations indicated that they and their capitals were still reviewing the consolidated text and would aim to provide substantive comments by the March 13 OEWG meeting. The only discussion focused on procedural issues, with Iran and South Africa again calling for a "rolling text" with all proposed amendments. ¶9. (U) At the end of the meeting, Amb. Parker returned to the issue of the provisional RevCon agenda. Amb. Javits reported on the outcome of the previous days' "informal informals" highlighting the growing support for returning to the First RevCon agenda along with the agreement at the agenda would not preclude discussion or report text on any issue relevant to the convention. Amb. Parker noted that even the First RevCon agenda would require a few minor alterations and expressed his deep disappointment that despite five years of change, the group could not agree on any new language. -------------- MEETING WITH WEOG &OTHERS8 -------------- ¶10. (U) On February 29, Del reps met for coffee with Mike Byers (new Australian delegate),Angela Peart (Canada),and Bronwyn Shanks (New Zealand) to discuss the upcoming EC session and RevCon. The discussion focused on the growing EU-NAM polarization apparent in the large meetings and a role for more moderate, independent voices. -------------- ARTICLE X ASSISTANCE -------------- ¶11. (U) Following a meeting earlier in the month to discuss ways to achieve closer coordination between donors and the Assistance and Protection Branch (APB),the Article X facilitator Jitka Brodska (Czech Republic) invited interested parties to attend a meeting to consider the concept in the context of Article X. The Netherlands representative emphasized that the intention of the meetings was to be informal, inclusive, constructive, and non- confrontational. ¶12. (U) The facilitator had prepared a paper with suggested topics for discussion. Delegations had received e-mailed copies of this paper and it was agreed to present it immediately to Gennadi Lutay (Head, APB). Several members of the APB then joined the meeting. Lutay had little time to consider the content of the paper and his subsequent comments were little more than a description of successful past practices. ¶13. (U) Several delegations commented that the APB could do a better job of presenting information in a form more easily digested by capitals. Italy pointed out that better information, particularly on Article X success stories, could help States Parties justify greater commitments in the future. The group agreed to continue the discussion in May. -------------- ARTICLE XI -------------- ¶14. (U) On February 29, facilitator Li Hong (China) held a consultation to discuss the DG's Report on the status of implementation of Article XI (EC-52/DG.4, dated 7 February 2008). Natalia Gordienko (Senior Officer, International Cooperation Branch) made a comprehensive presentation on ICB's programs, including information on monitoring and evaluation of the programs, funding details, and plans for 2008. Points of interest: 12 former participants in the Associates Program are now TS employees (11 within the Inspectorate); and the number of participants in the 2008 Associates Program will be increased from 24 to 28, made possible through program consolidation and shortening the program from ten to nine weeks (eliminating the one-week segment in The Hague). ¶15. (U) Many delegations welcomed the additional information in the presentation and requested this in writing and in future reports. South Africa and China noted that they need more time to review the report and suggested that the facilitator make request from the floor to defer consideration, as will be done for the DG's report on Article X. Germany was quick to point out the differences between these situations, as there have been no Article X consultations since release of that DG Report. ¶16. (U) The facilitator announced his intention not to hold further consultations until after the Review Conference. In the meantime, he will work on a draft of "concrete measures" to direct discussions leading up to EC-53, with the goal of a follow-on decision at CSP-13. -------------- VCI TECHNICAL VISIT -------------- ¶17. (SBU) Lisa Von Colln, Rose Ann McHenry and Dean Otey visited The Hague 26-29 February for meetings with the TS about the Verification Information System (VIS). They met with the VIS Development Team, including Per Runn (Head, Policy and Review Branch), Sandor Laza and Sally Elford (Information Evaluation Industry, Declarations Branch),Leo Espinoza (Information Processing and Validation, Declarations Branch),Philipp Amann (Documents Registration and Archiving, Declarations Branch),Jose Bento da Silva and David Leon Sanchez (Software Development, Information Services Branch),and Paul Raines (Head, Information Systems Security). Highlights of the discussion with the VIS Development Team included: - initial release of VIS is scheduled for late 2008; - the TS is developing a tool for National Authorities to submit electronic declarations and plans to release it in all official languages except Chinese; - China is in the final stages of implementing its system for electronic declarations; - Russia also has a system in place which the TS expects can be used for electronic declarations; - States Parties will continue to receive paper, in addition to electronic, declarations information; - electronic information will be periodic snapshots of the declarations database; - States Parties will receive evaluated final-version data, not initial declared data; - the format of the Verification Implementation Report (VIR) will change, but the information provided will not be reduced. ¶18. (U) Sanchez, Elford, and Runn also demonstrated a test version of the VIS, including the new Document Tracking System (DOTS) for auditing and archiving all declarations-related documents. They plan to demonstrate the VIS at the next Industry Cluster meeting in May. ¶19. (SBU) During the VCI team,s debrief to the delegation following their meetings, Amb. Javits requested language about the VIS for his statement to the Review Conference. Del recommended that the demonstrations be offered early and often, including at the Review Conference, to increase awareness of the project and to mitigate any concerns about it through the opportunity to see it and ask questions. We will follow up with the Technical Secretariat on possible demonstration opportunities. ¶20. (U) Javits sends. Schofer