CWC: WRAP UP FOR WEEK ENDING JUNE 13, 2008

S E C R E T THE HAGUE 000521

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: DECL: 06/16/2018
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP UP FOR WEEK ENDING JUNE 13, 2008

REF: A. SECSTATE 61452


B. THE HAGUE 503

Classified By: Deputy Permanent Representative Janet E. Beik for reason
s 1.4 (B) and (D)

This is CWC-30-08

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


1. (U) This report covers the week of June 9-16.
Preparations for the upcoming Executive Council (EC)
are proceeding apace, with the first informal
consultation held on June 12 under the new EC
Chairperson. The Western European and Others Group
(WEOG) discussed the EC agenda in some detail on June
16, including the status of Russian and U.S.
documents. The June 10 meeting of the WEOG had a
lengthy discussion of industry issues with TS expert
Bill Kane, as well as a discussion of candidates for
various facilitations.


2. (SBU) The informal discussion of the Verification
Information Report on June 9 was more detailed than
has been the case in the past, with Iran raising
several objections to language in the report based on
the recent Review Conference outcome.


3. (SBU) Del also received several reports on Libya,
including an Italian visit to Rabta and the Libyan
invitation to the U.K. for a similar visit.

--------------
EC CHAIR'S PREPARATORY MEETING FOR EC-53
--------------


4. (U) On June 12 Slovakian Ambassador Oksana Tomova,
in her new capacity as Executive Council Chairperson,
held the traditional meeting to review the annotated
agenda for the upcoming EC session. Tomova stated
clearly at the beginning of the meeting that this was
an opportunity for delegations to share concerns,
raise issues, and provide clarification on agenda
items to give Council members some indication as to
issues that may require attention during the EC.


5. (U) U.S. Del offered clarification on the changes
included in the most recently circulated version of
the Newport documents, and noted that the U.S. will
be able to consider the Maradykovsky documents only
after pending changes have been incorporated.


6. (SBU) Iran provided a fairly clear indication of
its own items of interest for EC-53. On the VIR, the
Iranian delegation first suggested "receiving" the
document as opposed to "noting" it, a traditional
procedural ploy, then later suggested that further
revisions to the report were needed. Amb. Tomova
later indicated privately to U.S. Del that she did
not consider it appropriate to turn a factual
Secretariat report into a negotiated consensus
document. Iran also noted its "surprise" that the
guidelines for declaration of Schedule 2/3 imports
and exports were on the EC agenda, and indicated that
the document had no official status yet. Finally, in
yet another attempt to elevate the status of Article
X and advance its national agenda on a "victims'
network," Iran asked why Article X was not given a
separate item on the CSP provisional agenda and
indicated its intent to request that this be changed.

--------------
JUNE 10 MEETING OF THE WEOG
--------------


7. (U) On June 10, Bill Kane (TS, Industry
Verification) made a brief presentation regarding the
TS perspective coming out of the Review Conference as
related to industry issues. Kane began by stating
that the TS feels comfortable that the Review
Conference report gives the TS the mandate they need
to continue work in existing areas, as well as
commencing new work in areas they feel are important.
In doing this, the TS will continue looking for ways
of improving their work in support of the Policy
Making Organs. Of the outstanding industry items
that are referred to in the report of the Review
Conference, Kane said the TS feels that the following
are of highest priority: completing work under the
existing consultation on transfer discrepancies;
resuming consultations on concentration thresholds
for Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals; resuming consultations
on OCPF site selection (noting that the TS will
continue to operate under its recently-modified
methodology unless told to do otherwise); and
frequency and distribution of industry inspections
(noting that the TS will continue to use its current
methodology unless told to do otherwise).


8. (U) On the topic of the 2009 budget, Kane said
that he could not be too specific (given that the DG
has not yet officially announced his budget request)
but said that the requested number of industry
inspections for 2009 would increase slightly, the
increase being devoted to OCPF inspections. The TS
feels that this targeted increase is appropriate
given that their assessment shows the Scheduled
chemical plant sites inspection frequency to be
consistent with their risk assessment and the OCPF
inspections to be inadequate.


9. (U) Kane also noted that the TS would soon release
two papers: (1) a paper on timely and accurate
submission of declarations, part of which will be a
proposal to introduce six sub-codes (i.e., product
group codes) that can be utilized by National
Authorities in existing forms to better identify
industry sectors of lesser concern for verification
purposes (e.g., urea, formaldehyde, methanol, and
soap products); and (2) a paper on improving
declaration data through the use of voluntary
submission of additional data elements. Kane
acknowledged that the idea of sub-codes could be
implemented directly by the DG (presumably through
revisions to the Declarations Handbook),while the
use of additional data elements would require EC
approval. (Note: A proposed form for implementing
this will be included as an attachment to the TS
paper.) Kane also said that, included in the "sub-
codes" paper, the TS will suggest that States Parties
use group codes not necessarily to describe the final
product but rather that aspect of the process that
causes it to be declarable.


10. (U) Kane's presentation spurred a number of
questions from delegations. For example, in response
to a question regarding how changing group code focus
from products to the declarable activities would
impact verification activities, Kane acknowledged
that this would require some re-education of
inspection personnel to avoid confusion and possible
difficulties during future inspections.


11. (U) When asked about TS expectations for the
upcoming Executive Council meeting (EC-53),Kane said
that the release of these two TS papers will allow
the DG to address long-term areas of concern like the
timely submission of declarations (for which a
progress report has been prepared),ways to avoid
future "wasting" of inspections at sites that are not
or no longer inspectable, how to better reach out to
National Authorities to improve declaration quality
or motivate those not currently declaring, etc.


12. (U) When asked about how to revitalize the
Industry Cluster, Kane pointed to the outstanding
issues discussed earlier. Several delegations also
pointed to the Review Conference recommendation that
sampling and analysis be evaluated further, to which
Kane replied that this could easily be introduced
into the continually dwindling Industry Cluster
agenda.


13. (U) Following Kane's presentation and discussion,
the WEOG proceeded to other work, beginning with the
topic of current facilitation needs. The outcome of
the various pieces of information gathered by
delegations was pointing to the following slate of
new facilitators: (1) at the encouragement of the
Eastern European group, a Russian delegate (Victor
Smirnovskiy) has agreed to be recommended to take
over facilitating Article X issues upon the departure
of the current Czech delegate; (2) the African group
has decided to take just one facilitation and
decided to recommend that an Algerian delegate (Said
Moussi) fill the Article VII vacancy created upon
departure of the Finnish delegate; and (3) the new UK
delegate (Lee Litman) has agreed to be proposed as
the replacement facilitator for Universality (vacated
by Algeria in preference for Article VII). WEOG was
generally supportive of this slate of candidates
and pleased that volunteers were coming forward for
the open positions.


14. (U) On the topic of the upcoming Executive
Council meeting, several delegations spoke to pushing
forward the conclusion of the current decision within
the consultations on transfer discrepancies, noting
that it should end either in a decision or completely
isolating Iran on the matter. Several delegations
spoke to concern about the fact that Iran is already
using what they perceive as weaker language in the
Review Conference report on "non-proliferation" to
their advantage, and there was general encouragement
for picking this topic up in national or EU
statements. Although many agreed that they expected
a better mood for progress at EC-53, there was still
a discussion on tactics for dealing with Iranian
stalling tactics.


15. (U) Finally, the topic of timing of the
transition of the WEOG chair was finally addressed
directly. The current coordinator, Annie Mari
(France) said that she intends to hand over the reins
to her successor, Ruth Surkau (Germany) after EC-53.
Starting in July, France will take over the
leadership of the EU.

--------------
JUNE 16 MEETING OF THE WEOG
--------------


16. (U) WEOG Coordinator Annie Mari opened the
meeting with a discussion of the agenda for the
upcoming EC session. On destruction, U.S. Del shared
its understanding that changes to the Maradykovsky
facility agreement and verification plan had yet to
be agreed between the Secretariat and the Russian
Federation, which could mean deferral of the
Maradykovsky documents to EC-54, as well as Newport
and Leonidovka by association. Delrep also noted
U.S. plans to have the EC Chair recommend removal of
Pine Bluff Binary documents from the EC agenda.
Despite general agreement in the June 3 meeting of
the allies that this seemed to be a sensible way to
proceed, France and others expressed greater concern
in WEOG that this might set an unhelpful precedent
for Russia. Delrep noted the significant differences
between Russian and U.S. cases, most importantly the
fact that Pine Bluff Binary has been certified as
closed, and that Maradykovsky and Leonidovka will
still be operating in the coming years. Dutch
Ambassador Maarten Lak requested time to consider the
implications of this action, citing concerns about a
scenario in which Russia has destroyed all of the
first stage, but little of the second, in 2012 and
attempts to pull relevant documents from
consideration because the facilities are "finished."


17. (U) Delegations also briefly discussed the
Iranian proposal on transfer discrepancies, and there
seemed to be agreement with points made by the U.S.
Del that a decision was not worth the newly
established price of gratuitous references to
Schedule 3 transfers to States Not Party, along with
numerous other Iranian revisions.


18. (U) Sweden raised the topic of the CSP
provisional agenda, which should be agreed by EC-53.
The Iranian delegation has already made clear its
intention to use the agenda as yet another vehicle to
pursue its Article X victims network agenda. Sweden
noted that the provisional agenda in its current form
is loaded with favorite NAM topics and suggested that
WEOG consider adding topics of its own that it would
like to see discussed and pursued.


19. (U) German Amb. Burkart briefed the group on the
EC Bureau meeting earlier that morning. Of
particular note was the fact that the DG notified the
bureau that the Maradykovsky changes were unlikely to
be completed in time for EC-53 consideration. He
also informed Bureau members that the draft budget
for 2009 would not be distributed this week, but
during informal consultations on June 23. Finally,
the DG noted that he would be leaving later in the
day for Leonidovka to participate in the facility's
opening ceremony. The Bureau also discussed the
slate of new facilitators (see earlier WEOG meeting
above),which are to be circulated immediately,
considered agreed if no objections are raised this
week, and approved by the Bureau at its next meeting.


20. (U) Annie Mari, as coordinator of the Open Ended
Working Group on Terrorism, also noted her plans to
make a statement on terrorism during the item of the
EC agenda during which Vice Chairs report on the
activities in their clusters.


21. (SBU) Following the meeting, UK rep Karen
Wolstenholme also explained to the U.S. Del the
situation with establishing future verification
measures for the UK's former CW Production Facility
at Portreath (Agenda Item 5.7-5.8). Although it
won't be stated publicly, one complication is
apparently the fact that the UK is unsure as to
whether there could be additional contamination from
equipment that was buried on site well before the CWC
entered into force. Wolstenholme noted that Russia
is likely to request deferral, and that Iran has
already approached the TS for clarification.

-------------- ---
EC CHAIR'S INFORMAL CONSULTATION ON THE 2007 VIR
-------------- ---


22. (SBU) On June 9, EC Chair Amb. Tomova led a
consultation on the 2007 Verification Information
Report (VIR). In addition to routine comments by
delegations about very specific details of the report
(e.g., incorrect numbers),more specific comments by
delegations and response/action by the Technical
Secretariat are presented below by VIR section.


23. (S) Executive Summary. Regarding para 2.3 ("The
Secretariat performed ( inspections ( to the non-
proliferation goals of the Convention."),Iran took
exception with the use of the term "non-
proliferation," preferring "activities not
prohibited," and proposed the language from the
report of the Review Conference as a suggestion.
When DDG John Freeman reminded delegations that the
"non-proliferation" construction was the same
formulation used in previous reports, Iran suggested
that this not become a "mechanical exercise" but that
improved language was needed. In addition to this
exchange, the Netherlands pointed to the positive
trend regarding sequential inspections, while noting
with concern the lack of verification activities of
Libyan stockpile destruction in 2007.


24. (S) Overview of Inspections. India referenced
the text of para 3.10 regarding biomedical analysis
and suggested that a clear reference to the EC
mandate to the TS toward developing these
capabilities.


25. (S) Chemical Weapons. France commended the TS for
its optimization efforts. Iran began an interesting
exchange with France, the Netherlands, Austria, and
Germany regarding appropriate reference to the Delft
challenge inspection exercise against the issues that
remain to be resolved (particularly in light of the
report of the Review Conference - see para 9.88).
These other delegations reminded the group that the
VIR reflects the status as of the end of 2007 (the
Review Conference came after) and that the resolution
of these remaining issues does not impair a State
Party's ability to initiate a challenge inspection.
South Africa only questioned why some remaining
issues are mentioned in the VIR while others are left
out. In the detailed discussions about State Party
destruction efforts, Iran questioned the language
regarding Albania's destruction in light of their
deadline and the language regarding the Anniston
visit, in the end asking that the text more closely
reflect what is in the EC reports.


26. (S) Germany asked the TS whether they verify the
Schedule withdrawals referred to in para 4.136, to
which the TS responded that they verify these
withdrawals to the extent that they are able or
permitted. In light of the analytical problem
experienced at Newport and referenced in paras 4.141
to 4.146, Iran asked a series of questions about the
nature of the problem, the cause, whether the
procedures were in question as a result, and whether
this cast a poor light on analyses performed
elsewhere. TS Verification Director Horst Reeps was
quick to point out that the problem was created by
the mistake of site personnel, that procedures are
reviewed continually, and that this does not impact
analyses performed elsewhere. Iran will likely still
seek further TS clarification to States Parties.


27. (S) Chemical Weapons Production Facilities. Iran
asked the TS regarding its methodology for
determining the residual capacity of those facilities
which had yet to be completely destroyed, to which
the TS responded in detail.


28. (S) Industry Verification. In regard to para
7.27, Delrep, along with the delegations of the
Netherlands and South Africa, engaged the TS in what
caused the spike in the number of "wasted" OCPF
inspections in 2007. The TS said they believed that
the increase to 13 such cases in 2007 over 6 in 2006
is significant, although South Africa pointed to the
larger number of OCPF inspections as a complicating
factor. Delegations asked whether the TS was
approaching States Parties in which such inspections
occur in order to look for solutions, and the TS
confirmed that they are.


29. (S) Other Verification-Related Activities.
Germany pointed to the Schedule 3 plant sites
referenced in para 8.4 and stressed the importance of
the EC taking up this matter. Germany also pointed
to those States Parties referenced in para 8.12 that
have yet to declare the details of their riot control
agents and asked whether EC action should be taken.
DDG Freeman said that the TS regularly sends follow-
up letters to these States Parties but took note of
Germany's further suggestion.


30. (S) Delreps met with Jan Lodding of the TS twice
during the week leading up this consultation with
suggestions to strengthen the meeting and spur
discussion, as well as to give the TS a heads-up on
U.S. comments. Delrep also deployed various talking
points from guidance during the consultation. It
should be noted that some of the confusion regarding
the closing of inspection files with uncertainties or
issues requiring further attention (IRFA) is caused
by how the VIR tables are organized - when the file
is shown as closed but an issue is listed in a table,
this was the issue from the original inspection
report that was clarified to enable the file to be
closed. Future VIRs will include appropriate
footnotes to make this clearer. Also, although
Delrep discussed the matter with Lodding, there was
no immediate commitment to include an introduction
outlining the complete reporting process - timely
VIR, consultations, distribution of State Party
comments, corrigenda, etc. Lodding noted that
outlining the procedure as described would amount to
anticipating in writing the need for certain
documents (corrigendum, State Party comments) that
are highly likely to be issued, but not a foregone
conclusion. In like matter, there was no immediate
commitment regarding follow-up on the Pavlodarski
case, beyond the current TS follow-up letters.


31. (SBU) Iran asked about the process following
consultations. Amb Tomova was quick to say that she
planned no further consultations, but encouraged
delegations to get any remaining comments to the TS
as soon as possible so they can be appropriately
reflected in corrigenda. Iran pointed to the
"tradition" from 2007 of considering the VIR in the
initial EC meeting following its release, at which
time it would be deferred for further consultation
and consideration during a later EC meeting, giving
capitals plenty of time to review the document
"without rushing." Before delegations could object
to this building "tradition" of constant obfuscation
and decreasing efficiency of EC meetings and efforts,
Amb Tomova efficiently closed the meeting.


32. (SBU) On June 13, Delrep also provided the
written comments outlined in Ref (A) to the TS for
their use and distribution to other States Parties.
Del will schedule a follow-up meeting with the TS to
ensure clarity on the written comments provided, as
well as to follow-up on the earlier conversations.

--------------
UPDATES ON LIBYA
--------------


33. (SBU) Over the course of the week, Del heard
separately from the UK, Italian and Libyan
delegations that the Italian Ambassador had
participated in a very short-notice visit to the
former production facility at Rabta over the weekend
of June 7-8. Italian delegate Cornacchia added that
Libyan officials seemed disappointed that no one with
technical expertise was able to participate and that
a follow-up visit was likely, possibly as a
trilateral event with the UK. He also understood
from an initial report that the purpose of the visit
was clearly to lobby for support for retention of the
sandbag wall surrounding the facility.


34. (SBU) Libya apparently also issued a separate
invitation to the UK for June 16, and indicated that
the U.S. can expect a similar invitation, but not
until after EC-53. The UK Del has since indicated
that experts will not be available for this date, and
that a new date in early July seems more realistic,
although the UK rep was not clear as to whether this
visit would be bilateral or have broader
participation. In UK and Italian reporting, the
theme of Libyan displeasure with U.S. attempts to
broaden the agenda of the previously scheduled visit,
and subsequent Libyan unwillingness to include the
U.S. in initial site visits, has come up repeatedly.


35. (SBU) Libyan delegate Gheton also informed Delrep
that Libya is working on a more detailed national
paper explaining the nature of the delays in
conversion of the former CWPF, and that if such a
paper cannot be submitted in time for EC-53 Libya
could at least consider including a more detailed
explanation in its presentation for the informal
consultations on destruction progress scheduled for
June 23. Gheton also expressed Libya's appreciation
for the non-paper the U.S. provided on June 4.



36. (U) Beik sends.
Gallagher