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