Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08THEHAGUE455
2008-05-29 15:21:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR TWO

Tags:  PARM PREL CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0455/01 1501521
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 291521Z MAY 08
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1526
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000455 

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: DECL: 05/30/2018
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR TWO
WEEKS ENDING MAY 23, 2008

REF: THE HAGUE 396

Classified By: Ambassador Eric M. Javits for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D)

This is CWC-24-08.

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

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000455

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: DECL: 05/30/2018
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR TWO
WEEKS ENDING MAY 23, 2008

REF: THE HAGUE 396

Classified By: Ambassador Eric M. Javits for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D)

This is CWC-24-08.

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


1. (SBU) While OPCW has had a very lean schedule
since the Review Conference, the U.S. delegation
continued to meet May 13 - 23 with Technical
Secretariat officials and other delegations on
upcoming issues. Ambassador Javits met with the new
Executive Council Chairperson to discuss future
activity in the Council. DelReps met with TS
officials to discuss Libya's conversion progress, and
with other delegations to review the aftermath of the
Review Conference and to discuss industry issues,
particularly low concentration thresholds for
Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals. DelRep also called on TS
officials to discuss the draft facility agreement for
an industry Schedule 1 facility in the U.S., and a
possible visit by the U.S. Technical Equipment
Inspection team in August.

--------------
U.S./UK/SECRETARIAT MEETING TO DISCUSS LIBYA
--------------


2. (SBU) On May 16, DelReps and a UK delegate met
with Technical Secretariat officers Bill Kane,
Santiago Onate, Dominique Anelli and Oleg Ukharov to
discuss the status of Libya's former Chemical Weapons
Production Facility (CWPF) conversion and CW
destruction efforts. Discussions covered the
upcoming (July) deadline for conversion of the former
CWPF at Rabta and its possible political
implications; additional equipment being added to the
conversion plan; Libya's desire to retain the sandbag
wall around the Rabta facility; and an assessment of
Libya's progress to date.


3. (SBU) There was a lengthy discussion of the legal
aspects of Libya's inability to meet the conversion
deadline established by a CSP-9 decision. Legal
Advisor Onate noted that while the Conference had
established the July 2008 deadline, the technical
change to the Convention that provided a legal basis
for Libya to convert its facility actually allowed
for the full six year conversion period, which would

end in 2011. There is no provision in the Convention
for a request to extend a conversion deadline that
falls prior to the expiration of the six year period.
Libya likely believes itself to have met any
requirements by noting in an EC-50 national paper
that it would be unable to meet the July 2008
deadline, but anticipates completion of conversion by
December 2009. There was also some speculation
during the meeting regarding the potential for
Iranian trouble-making at EC-53, which is always
difficult to predict.


4. (C) DelRep sought clarification on the addition of
several sets of equipment that are only now being
added to the Libyan conversion plan. The TS
explained that on successive inspections of the
former CWPF at Rabta, the inspection teams have been
able to go deeper into the facility, only recently
discovering additional equipment that, by virtue of
its presence within the declared perimeter, must be
declared. However, in a private conversation later,
Chem Demil Branch Head Anelli noted his
dissatisfaction that inspection teams had only made
this recommendation now, instead of much earlier,
considering there have been several years of
inspections of the facility.



5. (C) U.S. and UK reps also inquired as to why the
current request to correct the conversion plan
covered only the addition of equipment, and not the
Libyan stated intent to retain the sandbag wall
around the facility. The TS replied that Libya was
unwilling to circulate this request until the U.S.
and UK had agreed, and implied that this reason for
the delay had been expressed by Libya to several
delegations.


6. (SBU) The UK delegate requested a TS assessment of
Libyan progress on conversion, and indicated that the
general lack of transparency in Libyan reporting had
led to greater concern regarding the conversion
deadline than might otherwise be warranted. The TS
was quite positive, and noted that the most recent
inspection in April 2008 showed that several
buildings have already been converted in accordance
with the conversion plan and that new equipment is
being delivered; this new progress will be
highlighted in the TS presentation at the EC-53
destruction informals.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER ISSUES
--------------


7. (SBU) On May 16, DelRep met with representatives
of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan,
Netherlands, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the UK at a
lunch hosted by Italy. The purpose of this meeting
was to informally take the pulse of the group
regarding two Industry Cluster issues -- transfer
discrepancies and low concentration thresholds for
Schedule 2A/2A*. Although general plans for the
transfer discrepancies consultation were discussed
briefly, the heart of the discussion was 2A/2A*.


8. (SBU) On the 2A/2A* topic, the discussion
confirmed the experience coming out of previous
consultations that the matter hinges on the
concentration threshold for PFIB. However,
delegations pointed to the recent mischief that Iran
and others seemed ready to create around this topic
in an effort to highlight WEOG internal
disagreements. Several delegations pointed to the
fact that some NAM delegations (China and India) are
hiding behind the WEOG on this matter, as its
resolution would likely impact their industry as
well. The following positions were expressed by the
various delegations:


9. (SBU) Canada was quite frank in stating that a
PFIB threshold of any level would have no impact on
Canadian industry. They see this strictly as a
"matter of principle," and, as such, they do not
envision changing their current regulatory level of
0.5 percent. The delegation is quick to acknowledge
that the technical expertise on this matter lies in
Ottawa, which seems quite passionate on the issue.
During the Review Conference, the Canadian delegation
suggested taking the language from the last
facilitator's draft decision (fall 2006) and
inserting it into the report as an interim measure.
Although this was supported by many delegations,
including some at this meeting, it was seen mostly as
a measure to motivate quick resolution of the matter
more generally and, thus, was not sustained. (Del
note: Discussions with representatives from Ottawa
during the Review Conference showed that their
concerns may not be directly tied to current industry
practices related to PFIB but rather historical
issues and related chemicals.)


10. (SBU) France was rather quiet about their
position, except to say that they were not convinced
about the urgency of this matter. Clearly, the real

expertise on this matter lies in Paris. It was
unclear whether this delegation was following
Germany's lead, as they often do.


11. (SBU) Germany was surprisingly quiet. It was
clear that they were not motivated to solve this
problem or discuss it in any detail. However, it
appears that they are still looking for a clear
rationale to move lower from their current threshold
of 30 percent.


12. (SBU) Italy's position has clearly shifted in
recent months. In Rome, they are receiving repeated
and more intense petitioning from their industry to
move to a "level playing field." Because they need
an EC or CSP decision in order to change their
legislation, this delegation is ready to move to any
threshold value (from their current 0.5 percent to
even as much as 30 percent) that can reach timely
consensus.


13. (SBU) Japan was rather quiet, except to state
that their capital still views this as a technical
matter. In the end, it is expected that Japan will
follow Germany and the U.S. in reaching a solution.


14. (SBU) Netherlands also views the matter as one of
a "level playing field." Their current threshold
(0.5 or 1 percent) represents their early thoughts
about the toxicity of the 2A/2A* chemicals. However,
some bits of pragmatism shone through in their
discussion, and there seems to be room to negotiate
with them.


15. (SBU) Slovenia's delegation was apparently
invited to attend in their role as Chair of the
European Union. Beyond that, their contribution was
mainly on matters of strategy, particularly in
dealing with the NAM.


16. (SBU) Switzerland had spoken in favor of the
Canadian proposal during the Review Conference. They
also published a discussion paper on risk assessment
in the run-up to the Conference. They presented no
new argument points during this meeting. (Del note:
The Swiss discussion paper supports the TS position
that multipurpose plants are of higher risk than
dedicated plants, a position that raised questions
later in the discussion.)


17. (SBU) The UK delegation has the clearest position
on this matter. However, their technical expertise
lies in London. London uses as part of their
argument that their industry is "happy" with the
current standard of 0.5 percent and, although they
want a "level playing field," the National Authority
is not likely to consider a standard above the
current one. When questioned whether they might be
able to acknowledge that their standard of 0.5
percent was wrong or at least over-aggressive, they
stated that their capital's original technical
analysis pointed in this direction, and they have no
reason to believe that this assessment has changed.
Although probably without instructions, the UK
delegate offered that they might be willing to
consider an intermediate threshold for PFIB (e.g., 10
percent) as a compromise. However, they were quick
to say that, even with such a compromise, they would
not likely raise the threshold for their own
industry, feeling that a field closer to level was
better than nothing and would send a better signal.


18. (SBU) For the U.S., seeing his role more as one
of facilitating than negotiating, DelRep pointed to a
couple of apparent inconsistencies that came out of
the discussion: 1)arguments based solely around the
relative toxicity of PFIB play into the hand of the
NAM idea of a "hierarchy of risk"; 2) given the

current TS methodology of assessing plant site risk,
PFIB plant sites fall into what the TS would consider
as having low-risk characteristics (i.e., large-
volume, dedicated facilities); 3) the SAB report on
this matter (SAB-IV/1, dated 6 February 2001)
concluded that, in the end, a decision was a policy
call rather than technical. Also, DelRep cautioned
that, even if an agreement could be struck within the
WEOG and Japan, such an agreement would then force
China and India to stop hiding behind the WEOG, not
necessarily to take the proposal at face value.
Given that there appears to be a sizeable industry
within those two countries (and probably others),
they are not likely to accept some WEOG-generated
standard without a fight in the name of their
industry.


19. (SBU) The group did conclude that reopening
consultations without some sort of draft agreement
between WEOG countries and Japan would be a recipe
for disaster. Given the need for some delegations to
have greater input from their capitals in these
discussions, the idea was proposed to prepare for
another session of these interested delegations on
the margins of EC-53, if another earlier venue could
not be found.


20. (SBU) Subsequent conversations with the Canadian
delegate indicate that the Japanese National
Authority may be moving toward the 10 percent level
for PFIB given more recent changes in technology
associated with this industry within Japan. DelRep
also met May 27 with Stephen Wade (TS, Head,
Declarations),who was the most recent facilitator on
this matter before joining the TS staff. Some of
these concerns and inconsistencies were raised with
him, although his overall positions on the matter
still closely mirror those of the UK National
Authority, of which he was once part.

--------------
PACIFIC LUNCH
--------------


21. (SBU) On May 16, the Japanese Delegation invited
DelRep and delegates from China, Korea and Australia
to lunch to share views on the Review Conference.
Previous informal meetings of this group, a local but
less formal version of the JUSCANZ, had not included
China, but the others agreed that it would be useful
to add China for this discussion. All agreed that
the RevCon report was truly a compromise text,
acceptable, but without new initiatives. The Chinese
delegate noted there were "no great leaps" but that
the report keeps things moving forward in smaller
steps. The Korean delegate noted that in terms of
its specific mandate to review the work of the
Organization in light of advances in science and
technology, the RevCon had failed, as there was no
real discussion of scientific issues and the
Conference avoided the Scientific Advisory Board's
report completely. He said his government found the
final report acceptable, nonetheless.


22. (SBU) Japan considered the lack of a political
declaration a step back from the first Review
Conference. The Australian delegate agreed that the
Conference was a "public relations failure" in that
respect. He noted that while the final report was
"okay," the process was unacceptable in its lack of
transparency and the expectation that the majority of
delegations would rubber stamp a document to which
they had not been allowed to contribute. The group
discussed at length the shortcomings of the Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole and what might have
improved the process. China noted that the NAM's
repeated request for a rolling text, including at the
Executive council meeting, along with the resistance

by the Chairman of the Working Group (UK's Amb.
Parker),and the lack of transparency in the editing
process during the working group, had led the NAM to
produce the counter-text just before the RevCon. The
Chinese delegate disagreed with DelRep that a few
delegations had wanted to hold back NAM comments
until very late in the process for leverage.


23. (SBU) All present agreed with DelRep's suggestion
that earlier facilitation and delegation of work into
small groups by both the Amb. Parker and Amb. Dani
would have helped in reaching earlier agreement on
the majority of the text. The Chinese delegate noted
that the countries invited to the small negotiating
group had no sense that they were to represent anyone
except themselves. The Australian (who had not been
invited to the small group but sat in to observe at
several points) noted that the COW should have been
informed regularly of what the small group was doing;
the COW had been informed that their work on the
introduction was feeding into the small group's
deliberations -- which, he said, was "clearly not the
case." China also voiced concern, with some nods
from others, that the Director General's role in
negotiating text in the small group was not an
appropriate one for the Technical Secretariat.

--------------
NEW EC CHAIR
--------------


24. (SBU) Amb. Javits invited the new Chairperson of
the Executive Council, Amb. Oksana Tomova of
Slovakia, to lunch on May 19 to discuss preparations
for the EC. Slovakian delegate Michal Komada and
DelRep also attended. Amb. Tomova, who formally
became Chair on May 12 the week before, had been
actively meeting with her new Vice Chairman (Algeria
-- a holdover from the previous EC, Costa Rica,
Germany and Iran),and with senior TS staff and key
delegations. She told Amb. Javits she intends to
engage ambassadors more actively in the work of the
Council and not allow them to depend totally on their
staff for reports. She also plans to meet with the
regional group coordinators to be sure that they are
playing their role in informing the groups of events
and openings for which they needed to elect
candidates.


25. (SBU) Amb. Tomova said the bureau would hold its
first formal meeting later that week to allocate the
clusters of issues, and she asked Amb. Javits if he
thought the cluster that was formerly chaired by the
Russian Ambassador (legal and organizational affairs)
would be appropriate for the Iranian. In discussing
the other vice chairmen and the other clusters, Amb.
Javits agreed that the legal issues were probably
best for the Iranian. Amb. Tomova said in her
meeting with Iranian Ambassador Ziaran that he had
expressed willingness to help on "anything" where he
might be needed. The issues he had raised with her
included the budget and the Scientific Advisory
Board. Amb. Javits described Iran's past interest in
increasing the budget for assistance programs, and
the RevCon discussions of the SAB that included the
Iranian proposal (agreed in the final report) for a
meeting of experts to discuss the SAB report. He
noted that we had not objected to expert discussion
but that we and others had blocked adding a permanent
layer of bureaucracy to review the SAB reports in
future.


26. (SBU) Amb. Javits raised the U.S. desire for
better management of the inter-sessional work of the
EC and CSP, along with improved mentoring and support
for facilitators. He gave Amb. Tomova a copy of
ISN's checklists of annual work for the EC and
specific items coming up in EC 53 and EC 54. She

also liked the U.S. suggestion of using the formal EC
agenda meetings more actively to identify problem
areas with more time to try to actively resolve them
than during the EC itself. She was most appreciative
for the discussion and expressed her strong interest
in keeping in close touch with the U.S. delegation.


27. (SBU) In a meeting later in the week with
DelReps, the German delegate who had attended the EC
Bureau meeting confirmed that the new vice chairs
would retain the clusters of their regional
predecessors and that the Iranian would take the
cluster of the Russian Ambassador. Thus, Algeria
retains chemical industry issues, Costa Rica takes
the budget and administrative cluster, Germany will
have chemical weapons issues, and Iran will take
legal and organizational matters. The German
delegate also noted that Amb. Tomova had very deftly,
but pointedly, mandated that the vice chairs were to
report regularly to their regional groups and that
she would also be in touch with the regional
coordinators for this purpose.

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


28. (U) The May 13 and 20 weekly WEOG meetings were
sparsely attended and were chaired by Patrick Comoy
of the French Embassy, while Annie Mari was on
vacation. The agendas for both meetings included
continued discussion on Review Conference follow-up
and preparations for the upcoming meeting of the
Executive Council (EC-53) in late-June. Several
delegations were complimentary of the U.S.-generated
summary of items to be considered by EC-53 or EC-54,
stating that there was much more work to be done than
it might seem and that this was a good check-list for
organizing priorities for the EC.


29. (SBU) There was some discussion on the topic of
revitalizing facilitations and recruiting new
facilitators, although the outcome was somewhat
disappointing. Suggestions were floated for possible
facilitators for Article VII, Article X, and other
topics. Several delegations confirmed that Li Hong
of China will continue to facilitate Article XI
discussions. The UK delegate noted that Article X
has increased in importance with the RevCon and needs
an experienced facilitator to deal with Iran's
machinations; Article VII is now less important, in
the UK's view, and perhaps could go to a NAM country.
DelRep raised the importance of the budget
consultations and how useful it had been to have co-
facilitators for this issue in the past. Martin
Strub (Switzerland) volunteered to co-facilitate the
budget consultations. Amb. Javits welcomed Strub's
willingness to take on this difficult position, and
reported on his discussions with Amb. Lomonaco
(Mexico) about the possibility of Blanca Polo of his
staff being a co-facilitator. There was wide support
within the WEOG for this pairing of facilitators.
(Del note: Unfortunately, despite active
encouragement from Amb. Javits, Strub and others,
Blanca Polo decided that she was not yet ready to
take on this responsibility).

-------------- --------------
UPCOMING CERTIFICATION OF TS INSPECTION EQUIPMENT AND
TS REORGANIZATION
-------------- --------------


30. (U) On May 14, DelRep met with TS officers Kangi
Makiyama and Julian Tangaere to discuss a possible
visit of the U.S. Technical Equipment Inspection team
in August to certify equipment listed in S/679/2008
and S/690/2008. Makiyama indicated additional
equipment may come in over the next several months

and be available for U.S. certification; DelRep noted
that any additions would need to be received as soon
as possible to ensure the proper team composition.


31. (U) Makiyama also used the meeting to introduce
Del Rep to his successor, Jerzy Jastrzebski, who will
take over Makiyama's functions following his
departure in September, in keeping with the planned
shift of the Equipment Store from the Technical
Support Branch in Verification to the Operations and
Planning Branch (OPB) in the Inspectorate. This
reorganization seems to be widely supported, as it
ties the management of the equipment more closely to
the mission planning cycle; it is still awaiting
official DG approval, but has already been reflected
in the draft budget for 2009.


32. (U) OPB Head Tangaere also noted that in the
coming months/year, the Council is likely to see an
increasing number of notifications on the procurement
of new equipment. Given the mandate from the Review
Conference to review the operational requirements and
technical specifications approved by CSP-I, the TS
will be reviewing the equipment list line by line.
Tangaere expressed hope that this could be used as an
opportunity to be a bit more forward looking, as
opposed to reacting when parts or spares for
equipment procured in 1997 go out of production (e.g.
Polaroid film). Del Rep inquired as to whether the
TS experienced a significant operational impact as a
result of, or was merely inconvenienced by, outdated
equipment. Tangaere replied that the latter was more
accurate, but noted the second order benefits of
lighter, more portable updates on shipping costs; and
also the impact of better functioning equipment on
inspector morale.

--------------
SCHEDULE 1 FACILITY AGREEMENT
--------------


33. (U) On May 20, DelRep met with a representative
of the TS Policy and Review Branch (PRB) to discuss a
draft facility agreement for an industry Schedule 1
facility in the U.S. This draft, based on an earlier
draft by the TS and formatted after last year's
successfully finalized Schedule 2 facility agreement,
contains relevant input from the facility. PRB led
the TS review of this draft over the past two weeks,
and the recommended edits were acceptable. A few
last-minute details centered on health and safety
matters are being addressed at present. The goal is
to place this on the agenda for the upcoming
Executive Council (EC-53) meeting for consideration.
If that is not possible, it is hoped that the
document can at least be distributed in advance of
EC-53 so as to increase the chances of the facility
agreement being approved at EC-54 in October.


34. (U) Javits sends.
Foster