CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): CONVERSION OF

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 000482 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 FLY WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: LY PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): CONVERSION OF THE RABTA CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITY REF: STATE 058476 This is CWC-28-08. -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) On June 3 and 4, U.S. Delreps met with representatives of the UK and Italy, and separately with Libya, to share the non-paper from Reftel and discuss Libyan steps necessary for the U.S. to approve the request to retain the sandbag wall around the former chemical weapons production facility at Rabta. Delreps received little new information, but the Libyan representative said he would transmit the non-paper promptly to Tripoli and report on any follow-up. -------------- MEETING WITH UK AND ITALY -------------- ¶2. (SBU) On June 3, Delreps met with members of the UK and Italian delegations to share the U.S. proposed approach and non-paper. The UK and Italian reps were grateful for the non-paper and seemed to agree with the approach outlined. All agreed that it would be important to continue close communication regarding positions on Libyan delays and transparency. Of note, the Italian rep mentioned that Libyan expert Dr. Hesnawy had admitted in a recent conversation that Libya was in fact two months behind schedule on its destruction program. While not significant in terms of time, this admission is a departure from Hesnawy,s usual conviction that nothing could possibly take the destruction project off track. -------------- MEETING WITH LIBYA -------------- ¶3. (SBU) On June 4, Delreps met with Mr. Mohadeb Gheton, the sole Libyan representative remaining in The Hague following their Embassy,s closure. Delreps conveyed the points in paragraph 7 of Reftel, and provided a copy of the non-paper. Delreps noted that the U.S. was also requesting an audience in Tripoli, and hoped this would occur without delay. Gheton committed to transmit the non-paper immediately, and to contact the U.S. Del with any reaction from Tripoli. ¶4. (SBU) On the topic of transparency, Gheton offered his view that the delays were probably not tied to any specific problems, but more likely a result of the process simply taking longer than expected, both bureaucratically and operationally. He underscored Libya,s commitment to its CWC obligations. Delreps noted the scrutiny CWC deadlines tend to receive in the Executive Council (EC),and that providing a clear explanation for delays and future work in the form of a national paper could be very helpful for Libya in the event of queries from other States Parties. Gheton was obviously unclear as to what precisely was required in terms of a national paper; Delrep clarified that it would be important to have an official document, as outlined in the non-paper, that would have a standing that the informal presentations would not. ¶5. (SBU) On the scheduling of a visit to Rabta, Gheton stated frankly that he understood the last visit to have been canceled because of U.S./UK attempts to broaden the agenda. He also shared his understanding that Tripoli is still working toward a visit before the June EC, and that there may now be a series of bilateral visits offered to the U.S., UK and Italy. Finally, he expressed his appreciation for U.S. assistance and guidance, and committed to share any feedback he receives from Tripoli. ¶6. (U) Javits sends. Foster