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