CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR TWO

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000067

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 TWO
WEEKS ENDING JANUARY 18, 2008


This is CWC-01-08

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


1. (U) January 14-18 saw a gradual increase in scheduled OPCW
activities following the December/January holiday period.
Discussions during the French-hosted P-5 meeting seem to be
an early indicator that the objectives of the P-5 States
Parties for the Second Review Conference will be marked by a
general desire to maintain the status quo, as opposed to
proposing new initiatives.


2. (SBU) U.K. Ambassador Lyn Parker used the first RevCon
Working Group meeting of the year to lay out the work plan
for the next several months. The distribution of large
sections of text at each of the next four meetings will
eventually afford delegations two opportunities to review and
comment on the text. In some cases, the time for review will
be quite limited, indicating a need for us to have an
effective clearance mechanism in place for sections as they
are distributed, particularly in cases where the U.K.
provides an advance copy on issues of sensitivity to the U.S.



3. (U) Discussions in WEOG revealed a general dissatisfaction
with the lack of accountability in the International
Cooperation and Assistance Division, marked most recently by
a TS initiative to travel to States Parties to inspect their
offers of assistance made under Article X, many of which are
so general as to cause delegations to question the utility of
such an undertaking. The Dutch delegation has proposed
meeting in the coming weeks to discuss how contributions in
general could be better coordinated, tracked and evaluated.


--------------
P-5 MEETING
--------------


4. (SBU) The French Ambassador hosted the P-5 (China, France,
Russia, U.K., U.S.) on January 15. At the last meeting in
October, the group agreed to focus on the Review Conference
at this session. There was a brief discussion of
universality, the usual topic for the P-5, with general
agreement that all should pursue opportunities to encourage
the remaining twelve states to join the Convention, but that
the time is not yet ripe for concerted joint efforts in North
Korea or Middle Eastern countries.


5. (SBU) On the Review Conference (RevCon),U.K. Ambassador
Lyn Parker, the chairman of the RevCon Open Ended Working
Group (OEWG),presented an outline of the work program:
weekly meetings on "chunks of draft text" for discussion with
plans for a full draft text by mid-February; this will allow
two rounds of discussion on the report before the next EC
session in March. Parker also mentioned his intent to guide
the working group through the drafting of two separate
documents, as was done for the First Review Conference. The
political declaration will follow after the first full draft
of report language, and the two will progress in tandem as
capital reviews and the second round of discussions take
place. A draft agenda for the conference has been
circulated, based on the First RevCon. After the meeting,
Delrep asked privately who would be doing the drafting; Amb.
Parker said the U.K. delegation with assistance from Ralph
Trapp. The Russian delegation had previously expressed
interest in a P-5 role in drafting, but the Russian
Ambassador did not raise it during the meeting.


6. (SBU) The Chinese Ambassador noted that their domestic
departments and the military are still studying the Director
General's paper on the RevCon. The Chinese view is that the
RevCon should plan for the next five years. The main purpose
of the Convention remains destruction of chemical weapons and
old and abandoned CW. This is an important issue for China
since nothing has yet been destroyed there. The Chinese

Ambassador emphasized that international cooperation issues
are important for the majority of countries. She described
inspection mechanisms as "good" but they need to be
strengthened; China "understands" the issue of OCPFs but does
not feel it is yet time to shift the OPCW's focus from
destruction to non-proliferation.


7. (SBU) China also reported on the Asian Group's
deliberations for the chairmanship of the RevCon. The Saudi
Ambassador is the only formal candidate. The Indian
Ambassador had initially expressed interest but has not
followed up; the Chinese Ambassador did not rule her out yet,
though. There is no meeting scheduled yet for the Asian
Group's discussion of the chairmanship. Amb. Javits raised
the other leadership positions (COW, etc.) that should rotate
as well. Amb. Parker said that normally, the chosen chairman
would consult with each of the regional groups for their
candidates; the U.K. hopes this will play out "in good time,
ahead of the EC."


8. (SBU) The Russian Ambassador said that Moscow is also
still studying the DG's paper but feels it has too much
interpretation of the Convention by the TS and should be
"more balanced." Amb. Javits briefed the group on U.S.
objectives based on the guidance.
The French Ambassador agreed with the U.S. emphases. He also
noted that the DG's paper was a good stimulus for discussion
and that the RevCon should be looking to the future and the
role of the Convention beyond destruction of stockpiles. He
raised the question of a special conference before 2012, as
suggested in the DG's paper. Amb. Javits responded that the
2011 CSP will provide an opportunity to assess where we are
closer to the destruction deadline and whether a special
session is necessary, advising that it would be best to make
the decision then. He seemed to get agreement around the
table on that point.


9. (U) Russia will host the next P-5 meeting on March 18,
specifically requesting that it take place before the RevCon.


-------------- --------------
MEETING WITH TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT PROTOCOL BRANCH
-------------- --------------


10. (U) Delreps met with Milijana Danevska (Head, Protocol
and Visa Branch) and Ester Borst-Kadijk (Visa Assistant) on
January 16. Danevska and Borst-Kadijk discussed some
difficulties that the TS has experienced recently in getting
2-year official visas for inspectors and asked for our
assistance.


11. (U) Delreps also inquired about the procedure for
updating the U.S. listing in the OPCW Directory, as we had
assumed that the official list for the Conference of States
Parties would be published. Danevska noted that any
changes should be communicated through a note verbale to the
Protocol Branch and would be updated immediately in the
OPCW's electronic directory and by the next CSP in the
printed directory.

--------------
WEOG MEETING
--------------


12. (U) There was little discussion during the first Western
European and Others Group (WEOG) meeting on January 17, with
Chair Annie Mari (France) and Dutch Ambassador Maarten Lak
taking the lead. Mari announced that a French-sponsored
seminar in Paris on the shifting balance in the OPCW would be
postponed from February to 25-26 March and encouraged
delegations to send participants. She noted that the seminar
would be of interest to military and diplomatic experts from
"the expanded WEOG, Russia, and China."


13. (U) Mari also announced that the meeting of the Expanded
WEOG (including non-WEOG EU member states, Japan and South
Korea) would take place on January 22. Amb. Lak briefly

touched on the NAM's RevCon statement that he had distributed
to the WEOG and encouraged discussion of it during the
Expanded WEOG meeting. He also spoke about a Dutch proposal
to coordinate donor efforts, particularly in International
Cooperation and Assistance. The proposal was borne out of
meetings the Dutch delegation had with Amb. Mworia (Director,
ICA) during which the Dutch del determined that ICA could
benefit from follow-up and assessment mechanisms for its
assistance programs.


14. (U) The Canadian del informed the WEOG that it had been
approached by the TS to arrange for a "technical visit" to
Canada to "confirm its offers of Article X-related
assistance." Other dels (France, Germany, Portugal and the
UK) also noted having received similar requests, though no
one seemed to understand why the TS wanted to embark on this
world-wide tour.

--------------
OEWG: PREPARATIONS FOR THE REVIEW CONFERENCE
--------------


15. (U) Amb. Parker (UK) chaired the first meeting of the
OEWG for the year on January 17. There was good turnout but
almost no discussion. Amb. Parker outlined the work program
much as he had for the P-5 (see above) with a little more
detail. The first round of discussion for the draft report
should be completed by February 15, allowing two weeks for
discussion of the full text, and then three weeks for
capitals to review it. The "chunks" of draft text will be
distributed at each meeting for discussion at the next one.
The four pieces of text will roughly divide as follows: (1)
the opening sections and universality (distributed on January
17 for discussion January 24); (2) general obligations and
verification; (3) national implementation methods and
activities not prohibited by the Convention; and
(4) assistance and international cooperation, the Scientific
Advisory Board, the functioning of the organization and final
paragraphs. The precise divisions may shift a bit during the
drafting. Amb. Parker noted that the key documents being
used as resources for the drafting are the final report from
the first RevCon, excerpts from the DG's RevCon paper with
the TS annex, and comments from all of the OEWG discussions
over the past year.


16. (U) On procedures, Amb. Parker asked for comments on the
draft agenda at next week's meeting. NGO participation will
also be on the agenda. Parker said the TS will propose
modalities for an NGO "event" along the lines of the first
RevCon ) a half day session at another venue. They are
considering holding it at the OPCW headquarters to make
movement back and forth to the Conference easier than the
Peace Palace, which was used during the first RevCon. It
would also be less expensive. Both the modalities and choice
of potential participants will be open for comments next
week. A related but separate issue is the participation of
observers, including NGOs, at the RevCon itself. A decision
on observers will be taken by the Conference itself, but
Parker would appreciate early views on this matter.


17. (U) The French del raised the matter of ministerial-level
attendance at the RevCon. Amb. Parker encouraged all
delegations to let him know as soon as possible of any
possible ministerial-level participation.

--------------
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS (S&A)
--------------


18. (U) Delrep has worked with Bill Kane (IVB, TS) to
organize a video teleconference on January 31 at 1530 local
(0930 EST) for TS representatives and State and Commerce
representatives in Washington. The purpose of this meeting
will be to discuss logistics issues that surfaced during the
November 2007 routine Schedule 2 inspection in the U.S.
during which S&A activities were carried out. It is expected
that another such meeting will be scheduled soon to discuss
the policy and other practical issues from this same

inspection.


19. (U) By the end of February, the TS plans to report on the
outcome of the 18-month trial period for carrying out S&A
activities during routine Schedule 2 inspections. Given that
several delegations whose countries have hosted Schedule 2
S&A inspections (e.g., Germany and Japan) have called for an
opportunity to discuss this report in an open forum, Del
expects the TS to respond in some appropriate fashion. This
could be done in advance and/or as part of the formal agenda
of the upcoming Review Conference.


20. (U) Delrep has learned that the TS has taken the mandate
it has received in the 2008 OPCW budget and implemented it in
a way that could have a significant impact on the U.S.
According to the Japanese del, Kane (IVB) has advised them to
expect one or two Schedule 2 inspections during 2008
involving S&A activities. He also informed them that the
U.S. will receive the same number of such inspections, and
that more such inspections will occur in future years.
Regarding the S&A site selection process, Kane told the
Japanese del that those Schedule 2 plant sites selected for
routine inspection during 2008 were reviewed to determine
whether their technical characteristics warranted use of S&A
during the planned inspections. The final list was tempered
to give some geographical balance; Kane told the Japanese del
that Japan otherwise could have received as many as four S&A
inspections. Japan is anxious to build upon the discussions
of the TS trial period report to determine the appropriate
methodology to be used for the future integration of S&A in
Schedule 2 inspections. The Japanese del has mentioned
previously in their RevCon OEWG statements that they believe
the TS S&A activities should be halted until a full
evaluation of the TS trial period report is completed by
delegations and consultations held.

--------------
OCPF DECLARATION MODIFICATIONS ) TS PAPER
--------------


21. (U) Delrep learned from Bill Kane that the TS staff has
completed its technical work on its paper regarding
"improvements" to the OCPF declaration requirements. The
paper is now being drafted, with the goal of having it on the
DG's desk for review and sign-off by the end of January. The
paper includes two sets of recommendations: (1) a proposal on
how product group codes (PGC) could be modified, based on
existing categories in use elsewhere, to better describe the
declared industries, a major goal of which is to better
identify those smaller industries whose activities are of
lesser relevance to the object and purpose of the Convention
(and thus give those sites less consideration for
inspection); and (2) a proposal on new data elements that
could be added to the declaration regime that would give
additional technical characteristics, the goal again being to
improve the ability to better select the most relevant sites
for inspection. Kane acknowledges that the first proposal is
not likely to be very controversial and could possibly be
implemented through a simple DG Note. However, the second
proposal will likely meet significant opposition by many
delegations because it increases the declaration burden for
these sites. India has already expressed strong opposition
to adding declaration elements to the OCPF regime, as they
see it as meant to be the simplest of the declaration
regimes. This second proposal, however, could lie fallow
until such time as delegations see a need to consider its
implementation.

--------------
UPDATE ON RUSSIAN CW DESTRUCTION
--------------


22. (SBU) In meeting with a representative of the Chemical
Demilitarization Branch (CDB),Delrep confirmed that Russia
continues to experience problems putting the incinerators at
its Maradykovsky Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility into
operation, particularly the largest incinerator designed to
destroy reaction mass from the VX neutralization process

employed on site. The reaction mass is being stored in
sealed tanks, checked regularly by the TS inspection team.


23. (SBU) The TS is also engaged in discussions with Russia
on the facility agreement and verification plan for its
destruction facility at Leonidovka. A TS visit to Moscow is
tentatively scheduled for the end of January, and Russia is
pressuring the TS to agree to final text in order to
circulate the documents in time for consideration by the
March session of the Executive Council. In confidence, the
CDB officer indicated one significant point of disagreement
centers on a Russian desire to receive credit for destruction
prior to any mutilation or thermal processing of the munition
bodies; discussions are ongoing.


24. (U) Javits sends.

Gallagher