CWC: GOVERNMENT EXPERTS MEETING TO CONSIDER THE

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000107

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 AND DENYER)
NSC FOR FLY
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: GOVERNMENT EXPERTS MEETING TO CONSIDER THE
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD (SAB) REPORT TO THE SECOND
REVIEW CONFERENCE

REF: A. STATE 12311

B. NOTE BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL RC-2/DG.1 DATED 28
FEBRUARY 2008

This is CWC-08-09.


1. (U) This cable reports on subject meeting held
in The Hague 11-13 February 2009, and is organized
along the lines of the meeting agenda. Ref A is
U.S. guidance for the meeting. US officials
attending the meeting were Richard D'Andrea
(Department of State ISN/CB) and Larry Denyer
(Department of Commerce BIS).


2. (U) Agenda Items 1 and 2 were Opening of the
Session and Adoption of the agenda respectively,
and both were conducted by the Executive Council
Chairman without comment.


3. (U) Agenda Item 3, Welcome address by the
Director-General. The DG welcomed the delegations,
stressed the importance of the SAB work and the
review by Government Experts, and said that he
looked forward to a meaningful report to the
Executive Council on future SAB work.


4. (U) Agenda Item 4, Introduction to the Note by
the Director-General. The DG gave a cursory review
of his Note on the SAB Report (ref B),and ended
with a request for continued support for the SAB.
The DG's review was comprehensive and did not add
any new topics or issues. Next, Philip Coleman,
SAB Chairman, reviewed the SAB report and like the
DG was comprehensive and did not add any new topics
or issues.


5. (U) Agenda Item 5, Advances in science and
technology was deferred in favor of Agenda Item 6,
Schedules of chemicals, which was handled by Ralf
Trapp, the meeting moderator. Working from the SAB
report text (contained in ref B),Dr. Trapp covered
paragraphs 3.1 ) 3.14 to determine if any States
Parties had any changes to the content and
recommendations for further SAB work. Dr. Trapp
skillfully moved through the paragraphs deftly
dealing with interventions predominantly from Iran,
India, Canada, and Italy, and concluded that there
were no changes.


6. (U) Agenda Item 6, Issues related to
Verification, specifically On- and off-site
sampling and analysis, and Analysis of biomedical
samples. Again Dr. Trapp, working with the SAB
report text, covered paragraphs 4.1-4.13
successfully addressing all interventions from
Italy, France, Iran, and India; and concluded that
there were no changes needed to the SAB report.


7. (U) Agenda Item 7, Destruction of chemical
weapons. When Dr. Trapp opened discussion of
paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the SAB report, Iran
intervened to ask for an interpretation of the
meaning of the word, "technologies" as addressed in
paragraph 5.1. Dr. Trapp agreed to put an
explanation in the report. Ukraine then intervened
to propose that the SAB look into increases in the
size of temporary storage areas for chemical
weapons pending destruction and the impact on
destruction schedules. The U.S. intervened to
explain that for the United States at least the
sizes of temporary storage areas were fixed and had
no impact on the destruction schedule.
Additionally the U.S. pointed out that paragraph
5.1 specifically addressed chemical weapons
destruction technologies, and for the United
States, those included CW destruction by
incineration or by neutralization followed by
destruction of the neutralization products. Dr.
Trapp promptly moved on to paragraph 5.2 dealing
with technologies associated with the recovery of
old and abandoned chemical weapons (OACW). China
intervened to underscore the importance of further
SAB work in this area. Japan also intervened to
express their support for the report of the 11th
meeting of the SAB as adopted at EC-54. There were
no further interventions and the meeting adjourned
for the day.


8. (U) Agenda Item 8 Assistance and protection
against the effects of chemical weapons, and
international cooperation. Dr. Trapp opened this
topic with a brief overview of SAB report
paragraphs 6.1 ) 6.4 and then invited comments.
Iran launched a protracted intervention in which
Iran reminded everyone that Iran was victimized by
chemical weapons, that discussion of detection and
other protection technologies was insufficient
without also addressing equal availability of
detection instruments to all States Parties. The
intervention continued by stating that the SAB
should propose cooperative efforts among States
Parties (read: including Iran) in the development
of antidotes, medical treatments for victims,
decontamination, and the like. The intervention
went on to state what was becoming a recurring
Iranian theme concerning the sharing of technical
information among all States Parties; and concluded
with an assertion that the Director-General has a
mandate under Article X to help States Parties, and
that the Technical Secretariat should be doing more
in this regard. Dr. Trapp responded that the
information in the literature is available to
everyone and was fully discussed in the Zagreb
workshop. The Czech Republic intervened pointing
out that SAB considerations of protection against
the effects of chemical weapons should include
response to CW attack and industrial chemical
accidents, intelligence gathering, chemical safety,
protection of civilians and infrastructure,
emergency medical response, forensic science,
response to alleged use, and called for the
establishment of a Temporary Working Group to study
these issues. Dr. Trapp responded that the SAB's
focus is on the underlying science as opposed what
amounts to policy-driven responses to these issues,
and while he agreed in principle with both
interventions he reminded everyone that the SAB is
not resourced to undertake these issues. He then
deftly moved the discussion on to the next agenda
item.


9. (U) Agenda Item 9 Advances in science and
technology. Because of the size and complexity of
this item (paragraphs 2.1-2.14 of the SAB Report)
Dr. Trapp divided the discussion into sections.


A. Convergence of chemistry and biology. Dr. Trapp
opened this topic with a brief introduction and
Iran intervened stating that Iran was unclear as to
what the SAB was trying to accomplish. The Russian
Federation intervened to ask that the SAB identify
practical consequences of this convergence. Iran
again intervened with a request for information on
again intervened with a request for information on
this convergence. Dr. Trapp made the point that
ever more biological molecules are being
synthesized in laboratories and that there is
increasing overlap between the CWC and BWC. Dr.
Trapp recounted the IUPAC study on this topic that
preceded the First Review Conference and concluded
that the convergence is well documented. He then
moved on to the next section.



B. Accelerated discovery of chemicals. Having made
the point previously about more biologically active
molecules being synthesized in laboratories, Dr.
Trapp opened the topic for discussion. Italy
intervened to make the point that this is something
that National Authorities should track and that the
SAB should recommend best channels and topics
within the voluminous amounts of data. Iran
intervened to ask what the SAB meant by new
chemicals for law enforcement pointing out that the
CWC allows use of riot control agents (RCA). A
back and forth exchange ensued between Iran and the
moderator in which each tried to get the other to
introduce the term, incapacitating agent, and
neither side did. Finally Dr. Trapp called for a
break and the discussion was terminated.


C. Nanotechnology and other matters. Dr. Trapp
introduced this topic and Iran intervened to
request information. The Czech Republic intervened
with an example of how they use nanotechnology to
get oxidation states of iron from zero to plus
seven and then derive water purification
applications using these unusual ions. Dr. Trapp
maneuvered the discussion into technology for
delivery systems and then added production
technology thereby covering all the remaining SAB
report paragraphs (2.5 ) 2.14) to the discussion.
Paragraph 2.13 on other chemical production
facilities (OCPF) drew the most attention with
interventions by China, France, Iran, India, and
Italy, but in the end there were no changes to the
SAB recommendations. India had called for the
deletion of paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13 as not
reflecting the current state of play of OCPF
discussions. Dr. Trapp refused and pointed out
that the SAB report was written prior to the Review
Conference and reflected the thinking at the time.
He then adjourned the session to prepare the draft
report which he proposed to let delegations review.
While he said he would welcome comments he pointed
out that this would be his report as opposed to a
consensus report.


10. (U) Agenda Item 10, Education and outreach in
the context of the Convention. This agenda item
involved a cursory discussion of SAB report
paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2. Dr. Trapp highlighted
IUPAC efforts and Iran intervened to point out that
outreach efforts go beyond the scientific issues
and touch on ethical and moral issues better left
to policy making organs. Experts concluded that
policy making organs and National Authorities need
to be involved in outreach efforts to raise
awareness of the Convention.


11. (SBU) Agenda Item 11, Adoption of the report.
Dr. Trapp produced and distributed a draft for
experts review and comment making it clear that
this would be his report rather than a consensus
report. While he welcomed comments he reserved the
right to take them or not at his discretion. The
U.S. intervened to request that a summary list of
topics that the SAB should further assess and
topics the SAB should continue to monitor be added
to the report, and Dr. Trapp agreed. The draft
report was a factual account of the proceedings
free of objectionable content. U.S. experts agreed
on several minor edits, discussed these with Dr.
Trapp privately the following morning before the
meeting, and Dr. Trapp accepted them.
Additionally, Dr. Trapp handed out the list of
topics that had been previously requested. The
meeting convened and a paragraph by paragraph
review ensued. Dr. Trapp tried to accommodate any
reasonable edits and was surprisingly flexible. At
the end of the review process Iran proposed adding
a paragraph about the importance of the meeting
implying that further such meetings should occur.
Dr. Trapp declined to add such a paragraph or any
other "judgmental" characterizations. The U.S.,
France, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, UK, Canada, and
Japan intervened in support of Dr. Trapp. The
report is yet to be finalized to incorporate
comments from experts.


12. (U) Closure of the meeting. The Chairman of
the Executive Council resumed control of the
meeting from the moderator intending to close the
meeting. Iran intervened to object that the report
was not finished and therefore could not be agreed.
Dr. Trapp intervened to explain that the report
would be a moderator's report as opposed to an
approved report. Iran continued to argue for a
consensus report. The U.S. intervened pointing out
that this was a meeting of experts from capitals
simply exchanging views without any official
standing and that reference to consensus was
inappropriate. Japan, France, Sweden, and Ireland
intervened in support of this view. Iran continued
to argue to the bitter end and finally requested
that the report reflect that there were divergent
views. The meeting was closed at 1408 hours local
time on 13 February 2009.


13. (SBU) Comment: There was a sense of relief that
the meeting had actually gone better than many
experts had expected. The moderator's report will
go to the Executive Council for its consideration.
Ultimately the Director-General will decide what
work the Scientific Advisory Board will take on in
the future.


14. (U) This cable was drafted and cleared by
Richard D'Andrea and Larry Denyer.


15. (U) Beik sends
GALLAGHER