Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
10THEHAGUE65
2010-02-01 17:32:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CWC: WRAP-UP FOR THE WEEK ENDING JANUARY 29, 2010

Tags:  PARM PREL KTIA OPCW CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0065/01 0321732
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 011732Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3729
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFISS/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY
C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000065 

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 (BROWN, DENYER AND CRISTOFARO)
NSC FOR LUTES
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/01/2020
TAGS: PARM PREL KTIA OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR THE WEEK ENDING JANUARY 29, 2010

REF: A. THE HAGUE 51

B. THE HAGUE 29

C. GRANGER-ISN/CB E-MAIL (01/15/2010)

D. MIKULAK-DEL E-MAIL (01/22/2010)

E. SMITH-ISN/CB E-MAIL (11/22/2009)

F. STATE 7592

Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D)

This is CWC-08-10

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

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 000065

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 (BROWN, DENYER AND CRISTOFARO)
NSC FOR LUTES
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/01/2020
TAGS: PARM PREL KTIA OPCW CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR THE WEEK ENDING JANUARY 29, 2010

REF: A. THE HAGUE 51

B. THE HAGUE 29

C. GRANGER-ISN/CB E-MAIL (01/15/2010)

D. MIKULAK-DEL E-MAIL (01/22/2010)

E. SMITH-ISN/CB E-MAIL (11/22/2009)

F. STATE 7592

Classified By: Janet E. Beik for reasons 1.4 (B) and (D)

This is CWC-08-10

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


1. (SBU) After the positive opening meeting of the
destruction deadline consultation (Ref A),
delegations at the Organization for the Prohibition
of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) turned their attention
to the next potentially difficult consultation on
"situations not foreseen" by the Chemical Weapons
Convention (CWC). U.S. Delreps met with the
facilitator for that consultation, Michael Hurley
(Ireland),privately on January 22, and then
sequentially with the OPCW Legal Advisor, and the
UK, South African and Russian delegations on
January 25 and 26. The Western European and Others
Group (WEOG) also discussed the issue again (Refs A
and B) on January 26. Hurley convened the second
meeting of his consultation, and his first of the
new year, on January 27. Details of all of these
meetings follow.

--------------
FACILITATOR ON HIS DRAFT PAPER
--------------


2. (C) Delreps Beik, Granger and Legal Counselor
Kim met with Michael Hurley (Ireland) on January 22
to discuss his draft paper for the "situations not
foreseen" consultation (Ref C),having received
Washington's initial guidance to request that he
return to earlier drafts from the UK and South
Africa (Ref D). Hurley said he fully expected
major changes to be proposed to his draft, but
cautioned against going back to the South African
draft (particularly the latest version with the
Iraq paragraph, sent to the Department in Ref E).
The UK draft was never public, shared in confidence
only with a small handful of delegations, and
Hurley said the South Africans would not accept it.



3. (C) Hurley explained that he is trying to steer
a careful line between the South African agenda and
potential "mischief" from Iran and others. Many
delegations, he said, have concerns about the whole
exercise, feeling blindsided by the small group
discussion at the Executive Council (EC) session in
October and not understanding what the EC
agreed. In December, when he was about to share
his draft paper with the U.S. and UK, he said he
was called by the Director-General (DG) and sent to
the Legal Advisor. The delay in his paper was due
to consideration of the draft by the OPCW Technical
Secretariat (TS). The Legal Advisor, he said, was
comfortable with the shape of the paper and the
content. The Verification Branch has also been
actively interested in it. Delrep asked about a
connection to future verification of the bunkers in
Iraq. Hurley responded that the TS had not overtly
included Iraq as part of the picture; he felt the
South African attempt to add Iraq to their draft is
more problematic in that regard than his draft.
Even if the guidelines were cited for avoiding
standard verification procedures in Iraq, he said,
the Council would still have to take up the
Qmatter. He also said he did not see the Iraqi
bunkers as falling under the "discovery" of new
weapons that he emphasizes throughout his draft.


4. (C) Hurley believes South African Ambassador
Goosen will honor his commitment to keep this
process oriented toward the future. Goosen, in his
view, wants to claim credit for producing a set of
guidelines that plug a gap in the Convention as the
outcome of this consultation. If crossed, Hurley
said, Goosen would not hesitate to gin up support
for more extreme avenues of discussion (of what
occurred in Iraq after 2003),which Iran and others
might gladly pursue. The Iranian delegation to
date has been positive, Hurley said, in his
meetings with them.


5. (C) Hurley agreed that the draft paper is too
long and perhaps overly repetitive; he thought it
easier to remove language than add in later. He
was following a logic-gram that does mirror the
verification annex. In response to Delreps'
questions, Hurley said that the proposed guidelines
are not intended to be legally binding, and that he
is open to ways to make that intention clear. He
noted that the guidelines probably would be
appended to an EC decision and the language of that
decision could help frame the status of these
guidelines and their relationship to the
Convention. He was open to the prospect of working
on the decision language along with the guidelines,
rather than sequentially, if that would help. He
did not see this text as legally binding in any
sense, but remains open to language suggestions
that would ease that concern. One of the strong
points of consensus he found in the November
facilitation meeting was agreement that any
guidelines would not in any way impact the sanctity
of the Convention.


6. (C) On "force majeure", Hurley intended to frame
the concept of "unforeseen situations" which, he
said, "makes everyone nervous." He tied it to new
discoveries, also a deliberately chosen term to
avoid the legal issues of "possession and
control." He expressed his openness to other
formulations that would limit the situations for
which the guidelines would apply. When Delreps
asked why the limitation to non-States Parties had
dropped out of the draft, broadening the paper
immensely, Hurley was genuinely surprised, citing
the language from EC-58 that mandated this
facilitation which is not limited to non-States
Parties. He thought returning to that narrow a
scope might require taking his remit back to the
Council.


7. (C) After a lengthy discussion of the 30-day
reporting requirement included in the draft
guidelines, Hurley said he had tried to meet
earlier U.S. concerns about any set timelines by
adding the safety considerations and a potential
series of reports with no real information other
than that CW had been discovered. South Africa, he
said, feels strongly that reports have to come back
to OPCW and the political bodies. Again, he said
he was open on how to capture that but felt there
will be strong pressure for some kind of reporting
requirement (deadline).


8. (C) Hurley described his plan to introduce the
draft paper on January 27, expecting delegation
comments and reactions from capitals at the next
meeting, February 3. He would then take
Qmeeting, February 3. He would then take
changes/proposals both in the meetings and
privately. Delreps discussed a pause after these
sessions for a new draft for discussion after the
February EC, with the possibility for bilateral
meetings with experts on the margins of the EC, but
without discussion in the EC itself except his
report that consultations have taken place and that
he is working on a new draft. Delrep expressed
appreciation to Hurley for all of his work and said
that we want him to remain in control of the
process; Delreps would be consulting with others on
possible ways forward and would stay in close touch
with him as things progressed.

--------------
LEGAL ADVISOR'S VIEWS
--------------


9. (SBU) Delreps Beik, Granger and Legal Counselor
Kim met with OPCW Legal Advisor Santiago Onate on
January 25 to discuss USG concerns with the draft
paper on "situations not foreseen" by the CWC.
Onate confirmed that his office had advised Hurley
on the drafting of the paper and would attend the
discussions, but said the lead office in OPCW for
the issue is the Verification Branch. Onate drew
the critical distinction between policy and legal
issues, understood the questions and concerns posed
by Delreps, and confirmed that the draft guidelines
prepared by Michael Hurley are simply a starting
point for discussion that can be revised along the
way to reflect the appropriate scope and mandate of
this facilitation.


10. (SBU) Onate stated that the threshold issue
regarding this paper is the policy question of the
desired scope of this exercise. Is it limited to
conflicts involving a state party on the territory
of a non-state party, or will it be more expansive
to cover other sorts of situations? All the other
issues or decisions flow from this threshold
question, but Onate noted that the EC-58 language
is ambiguous and could proceed in different
directions. He emphasized that the scope is a
"political question, not a legal one."


11. (SBU) Onate stated that no one is interested in
imposing new legal rights or obligations on the
States Parties, nor is anyone interested in making
amendments to the Convention. He said that he
viewed the guidelines as not legally binding and
"unenforceable." In Onate,s view, any guidelines
should be implemented without prejudice to the
Convention. Accordingly, the guidelines should
focus on technical and procedural details. In
response to Delreps' question, Onate agreed that
the language of the guidelines could be revised or
"softened" so that it would not have the "shalls"
and other language indicative of legally binding
intent; rather, the guidelines could say that the
States Parties are "expected to" or "should" do
certain things under certain circumstances. He
thought this a fairly simple fix that the
consultations could easily make.


12. (SBU) On the issue of "force majeure", Onate
said that the term is not used in the proposed
guidelines, but the concept of an irresistible
force or unforeseen event is used throughout
Hurley,s draft paper. Onate noted that, in his
view, force majeure was used in accordance with
what he understood to be the traditional
international law definition of the term. Onate
confirmed that he had spoken to Hurley about the
concept, and noted that Hurley did not want to
expressly refer to the term, as he was concerned
that force majeure could be extended by certain
states parties to cover or excuse almost anything
under the Convention. Onate also explained that he
Qunder the Convention. Onate also explained that he
could think of only one precedent where the OPCW
had relied on a force majeure in order to suspend a
treaty obligation; in that case, the OPCW agreed to
temporarily postpone an inspection of a facility in
France because there was labor unrest and potential
for trouble at the facility.


13. (SBU) Onate agreed with Delreps that the

current draft guidelines could be read more broadly
than conflicts involving non-State Parties, and in
fact could be read to cover other types
of situations. When asked specifically about
future inspections in Iraq, he said that those
would be covered under the security provisions of
the Convention and did not require guidelines such
as these. When asked about the concept of
"discovery" and its potential application to
Abandoned Chemical Weapons (ACW),Onate replied
that ACW is clearly envisaged by the Convention and
has a well-established practice. He did not see
these proposed guidelines affecting that issue, as
their focus is related to verification.

--------------
UK DELEGATE
--------------


14. (C) Following the meeting with Legal Advisor
Onate, Delreps met with UK Delegate Karen
Wolstenholme to discuss Hurley's draft paper and
the upcoming consultation. Delrep broadly conveyed
Washington's concerns with the paper to
Wolstenholme, who posited that South Africa just
wanted some text on the table and seems willing to
accept almost anything as long as they get a final
product. According to Wolstenholme, London could
live with the draft paper but has some concerns
with its inconsistencies, sees no need to include
provisions for storage of CW, and would prefer to
limit any use of force majeure. She said she
planned to say nothing in the consultation and let
others voice their concerns, including Germany and
Italy, who have very strong feelings about the
whole exercise.


15. (C) When Delrep asked about introducing text
from the UK's draft paper -- which was only shared
confidentially with a few delegations in October
and never formally circulated -- Wolstenholme
responded that it might be possible to table it as
an alternative to, or modification of, the South
African draft paper, but only if and when
resistance to Hurley's paper strengthens. She said
she would check with London on whether they would
agree to the UK sponsoring text in the
consultations. Wolstenholme noted that Hurley's
first consultation in November had discussed the
scope of the consultations but had not reached any
agreement aside from needing to continue the
discussion. She suggested that further discussion
could be engineered to pave the way for introducing
new draft language, whether the UK paper or another
facilitator's draft.

--------------
SOUTH AFRICAN AMBASSADOR
--------------


16. (C) Delreps Beik and Granger met with South
African Delegate Marthinus van Schalkwyk on January
26; South African Ambassador Peter Goosen, who
insisted on attending the meeting as well,
dominated much of the discussion. Throughout,
Goosen continued to take potshots at the U.S.
position as often as possible while alternately
portraying himself as a friend and looking out for
U.S. interests. After Delrep gave a broad overview
of U.S. concerns with the scope, length and
legalistic tone of Hurley's draft paper, Goosen
retorted "that's what you get when you choose an
honest, transparent facilitator" and added, "You
should have taken Marthinus (as facilitator) when
Qshould have taken Marthinus (as facilitator) when
we offered him but now you're stuck with Hurley."


17. (SBU) When asked about the status of the South
African draft paper, Goosen said he sees only one
paper on the table currently: the facilitator's.

Like the U.S. and the UK, Goosen had expected to
see a draft of Hurley's paper before it was
circulated but didn't. He had thought that
Hurley's draft would merge the South African and UK
papers, and he agreed that Hurley's paper needs to
be revised. Goosen would not oppose the
reintroduction of the South African paper -- only
if done by Hurley -- but said pointedly, "You just
like ours now that you've seen Hurley's." Delrep
noted that Washington would want changes to some of
the substance and specific language in the South
African draft but liked its length and format.
Goosen suggested that it would be best to have only
a very general discussion on Hurley's paper during
the consultation and then give the facilitator a
chance to redraft it. Goosen expressed no sense of
urgency but admitted wanting to have guidelines to
agree by the Conference of the States Parties in
December.


18. (SBU) Goosen stressed his key concern in the
whole exercise is addressing an issue of principle.
According to Goosen, U.S. and UK destruction of
chemical weapons (CW) in Iraq took place outside of
the CWC; he admitted that the rules of the
Verification Annex did not work in the situation
but countered that States Parties still need to
play by the rules. Goosen claimed that India,
Russia and others feel similarly, though he
recognized Indian and Russian unease at the broad
scope seemingly conferred by the consultation's
title. Regardless of its title, Hurley's
consultation, in Goosen's view, should make sure a
similar situation does not happen "with vague
reports delivered six years later."


19. (SBU) Goosen then spoke against reopening
discussion on the scope of the consultation for
fear that it would turn into an interminable,
circular debate similar to what he saw as a
complicated discussion during the first
consultation in November. Van Schalkwyk added that
opening up the scope would give Russia, India,
China and others a chance to target the U.S. and
the UK on what was done in Iraq. Both Goosen and
van Schalkwyk were adamant that they wanted to
avoid this. Goosen told Delreps that Iran, India
and Russia believe the U.S. was non-compliant in
Iraq and that they initially wanted to request a
legal opinion supporting that assertion.
Reiterating his desire not to "tar and feather" the
U.S. and the UK, Goosen said it would be useful for
the exercise for the U.S. and the UK to share their
"practical experiences" to inform the guidelines
and make them realistic.


20. (SBU) According to Goosen, the consultation is
not -- and should not be -- limited to non-States
Parties. Non-States Parties cannot be bound by the
CWC, so the focus must be on States Parties and
specifically on possession and control: what to do
when CW or CW capability falls into the hands of a
State Party. Goosen also raised the possibility of
broadening the consultation to look at cases of
interdiction. Throughout the meeting, Goosen noted
his flexibility on the final product but reaffirmed
the need for timelines and for protecting the CWC.
Van Schalkwyk said that the only thing that is "not
QVan Schalkwyk said that the only thing that is "not
foreseen" is why a State Party could not comply
with the CWC, including the Verification Annex. He
continued that security and safety concerns could
result in the only legitimate unforeseen situation.
Summarizing the South African view of what the
final guidelines should look like, van Schalkwyk
said that a State Party ultimately should prove:
-- discovery, possession and control;
-- complete destruction;
-- the absence of any remnants.
This would constitute the complete information
package at the end of the process and would
represent a lower standard than currently set by
the Verification Annex.

--------------
RUSSIAN DELEGATION: WAITING FOR MOSCOW
--------------


21. (SBU) On January 26, Delreps Beik, Granger and
Legal Counselor Kim met with the Russian
delegation, including Deputy PermRep Konstantin
Gavrilov and Delegates Vladimir Ladanov, Maxim
Musikhin and Denis Chekhonin. Gavrilov stressed
there is no need to push the "situations not
foreseen" issue: his mantra throughout the meeting
was to slow things down. In his usual style,
Gavrilov dismissed the entire initiative as a South
African attempt to be relevant, nothing more. He
said that Moscow is still reviewing Hurley's draft
paper and had not provided guidance yet.

--------------
WEOG DISCUSSION ROUND 3
--------------


22. (SBU) During the weekly meeting of the Western
European and Others Group (WEOG) on January 26,
Delrep added "situations unforeseen" to the agenda,
following two previous WEOG discussions (Refs A and
B). Delrep noted that there still appear to be
differences of opinion on the purpose of the
consultation. She suggested that addressing the
scope would be useful before starting a drafting
exercise on the facilitator's guidelines.


23. (SBU) Italian Delegate Giuseppe Cornacchia
responded that the scope of the consultation had
moved unexpectedly and that Hurley's draft
guidelines go too far in trying to define
situations which are neither foreseen nor
predictable. He expressed his fear that widening
of the consultation's scope will make a solution
even more elusive. UK Delegate Wolstenholme noted
that there was no agreement on scope following
Hurley's first consultation in November. Echoing
Delrep's comment, she questioned whether the
consultation would be ready for such a legalistic
document as Hurley's draft and recommended
returning to a simpler paper. Wolstenholme opined
that it would help knowing South Africa's aims as
the instigator of the exercise but admitted that
they are far from clear. Turning to Hurley's draft
guidelines, French Delegate Raja Rabia reported
that Paris has a number of concerns with the text,
including putting too much burden on the
"discovering" State Party. Rabia also shared
French views that the minimum timeframe for
reporting should be no less than 60 days with at
least 6 months before the initial "declaration" is
required. She concluded that the guidelines should
focus on the need to inform the TS rather than
other obligations.

--------------
THE CONSULTATION -- POLITE CONFUSION
--------------


24. (SBU) On January 27, Facilitator Michael Hurley
chaired his second consultation on "situations not
foreseen" and introduced his draft guidelines. He
acknowledged that the draft was longer than
expected but explained this was due to trying to
accommodate as wide a range of circumstances as
possible. Hurley also explained that he opted for
Qpossible. Hurley also explained that he opted for
firm language (i.e., "shall" rather than "could")
for clarity and precision but that the decision
adopting the guidelines could explain their status.
Expounding on his mandate from the EC-58 report,
Hurley said it was to explore situations where the
implementation of procedural norms either would not
be possible or would be impeded. He admitted that
the word "unforeseen" had become an irritant and
source of confusion; this is why he chose to focus
on operational methods in his guidelines rather CWC
concepts. In this vein, Hurley chose an
alternative formulation when referring to
"possession and control" in order to distinguish
the guidelines from Article I. He provided a
section-by-section overview of his draft,
highlighting the final section (paragraphs 16-20)
as the most important in confirming the authority
of the policy-making organs, even if their role is
ex post facto. Hurley stressed that he tried to
stay close to the Convention and to accepted norms,
including generally-agreed concepts of
international law (i.e., force majeure),and noted
the only new idea in his draft is the 30-day
timeline for reporting.


25. (SBU) South African Delegate van Schalkwyk made
the first intervention, noting that he was awaiting
guidance and could not engage substantively.
However, he noted the purpose of the guidelines
should not be to displace the Convention but to
address situations where States Parties face
practical difficulties in implementation. Hurley
agreed that practical difficulties should not
detract from CWC obligations.


26. (SBU) Italian Delegate Cornacchia noted his
support for Hurley's facilitation but also his
difficulty with the concept, stating it would be
impossible to cover all imaginable situations. He
also pointed out that the CWC is clear on the
obligations of discovering and territorial State
Parties but said that discussing non-States Parties
would be a different matter. French Delegate Rabia
then intervened to say that France had expected a
list of "best practices" rather than guidelines
creating more obligations for States Parties.
Echoing Cornacchia's statement on the distribution
of responsibilities, she said the guidelines
unfairly place the entire burden on the discovering
state. Finally, Rabia stated French opposition to
the proposed timelines for reporting, suggesting
instead at least 60 days for the initial report and
6 months.


27. (SBU) Like others, Indian Delegate Pankaj
Sharma noted his comments were preliminary and that
he was waiting guidance from capital on Hurley's
draft. Echoing Cornacchia, Sharma said he is
trying to understand what the consultations and
guidelines are trying to address. He reiterated
his previous request for details on similar
exercises in other conventions, and he asked for an
explanation of the difference between "unforeseen
events" and "irresistible force" and why the two
formulations had been used. Like Sharma, Mexican
Delegate Blanca Polo asked what the consultation is
trying to accomplish and expressed a need for
clarity before proceeding further. Referring to
the concept of discovery in Hurley's draft, she
said it is not clear where discovery is to take
place; Polo stated that the Convention is clear on
what should be done in a State Party, but not in a
Qwhat should be done in a State Party, but not in a
non-State Party.


28. (SBU) Russian Delegate Gavrilov said he also is
awaiting guidance but stressed the need for
consensus on the scope of discussion before the
consultation could proceed. He stated that any
agreed guidelines could only add value to help
implement the Convention and not supersede it.
Chinese Delegate Li Dong stated that Beijing is
still examining the complicated legal issues raised
by the consultation but affirmed that the
guidelines should not affect the Convention,
including the Confidentiality Annex. Australian
Delegate Mike Byers read a prepared statement with
preliminary comments that the guidelines' language
should be broad and general enough to accommodate
unpredictable conflict situations. Byers said that
the three key dimensions of the guidelines should
be to address:
-- the threshold for triggering them (e.g., safety,
security, military necessity or impossibility);
-- the manner of complying with the CWC (as
substantively as possible);
-- the timeframe for complying with the CWC (as
soon as practicable).


29. (SBU) Echoing sentiments conveyed in most other
inventions, German Delegate Ruth Surkau expressed
unease with the title of the guidelines and the
consultation, explaining that the Convention
provides the framework for addressing all
situations and that nothing can be foreseen outside
of the CWC. She stressed the need to define the
scope more clearly as well as to insure the role
and authority of the policy-making organs are not
undermined. Dutch Ambassador Lohman joined the
foray by stating his puzzlement with what is being
discussed and asking for clarity on the relation of
the guidelines to the Convention. Delrep noted
that previous interventions had reflected many of
Washington's questions but highlighted that the
draft guidelines appear legalistic in form and too
much like an annex to the Convention. She
suggested that discussion at next week's
consultation focus on general comments rather than
developing into a long, drawn-out drafting
exercise.


30. (SBU) Responding to the question posed by the
Indian delegate, Legal Advisor Onate gave a number
of examples of force majeure in other conventions
and stated that it is a normal concept usually
associated with natural occurrences but also human
ones, such as acts of war, insurrections, etc.
Onate stated that the Convention clearly authorizes
the policy-making organs to deal with situations
where full implementation of some parts of the
Convention, including the Verification Annex, is
not possible. Describing the genesis of the
consultation, Onate said that two States Parties
came into possession of CW on the territory of a
non-State Party -- a situation envisaged in Article
I -- and that their destruction of the CW was in
line with the Convention's main objective.
However, he explained that the destruction was done
outside of normal procedures, which created the
problem being addressed. Onate continued that
Hurley's paper does not create new obligations but
rather clarifies what to do when certain
circumstances come into play.


31. (SBU) Brazilian Delegate Marcelo Ramalho said
Brazil currently does not have a position on the
guidelines or the consultation because it is not
clear what is being addressed. He also asked about
situations of discovery on the high seas and in
outer space. Onate responded that the Convention
clearly does not deal with the high seas or outer
space. Lebanese Delegate Rami Adwan stated two
problems with the draft guidelines: legal and
Qprocedural. The legal problem stems from avoiding
the term "force majeure" and forcing the use of
another suitable, agreed term. The procedural
problem results from the guidelines going beyond
the available flexibility of dealing with States
Parties' practical breach of their obligations.
Venezuelan Delegate Jorge Petit (speaking for the
first time in any consultation) agreed with the
remarks of the Lebanese and Brazilian delegates and
asked for clarification and examples of
"irresistible force." He also suggested the
possibility of cooperation and coordination with
other international organizations, including the
International Maritime Organization and IAEA. The
Thai delegate supported the Venezuelan delegate's
intervention and asked for more clarification on
the concept of the consultation and the guidelines
before questioning whether they were fully
compatible with the mandate given by EC-58.


32. (SBU) Before closing the meeting, Hurley tried
to reach agreement on the title to be used in
referring to the consultation. Unable to, he said
the issue would need to be finalized during the
next consultation.


33. (SBU) DEL COMMENT: Despite some expectations
that the consultations would go quickly and reach
agreement on guidelines early in the year, it is
clear that this is just the beginning of a long
process. Aside from South Africa and the
facilitator, no one sees any urgency in moving
forward as long as there remains confusion with
the purpose and expected results of the entire
endeavor. END COMMENT.


34. (U) BEIK SENDS.

LEVIN