This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 THE HAGUE 002272 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR AC/CB, NP/CBM, VC/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) 
NSC FOR JOECK 
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC):  WEEKLY WRAP-UP 
FOR 3 SEPTEMBER 2004 
 
This is CWC-102-04. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
 
¶1.  (U)  Del rep attended a September 1 OPCW National 
Implementation workshop on National Implementation in London. 
 Santiago Onate, Office of the Legal Advisor, Anan Dhavle, 
International Cooperation Division, and facilitator Mark 
Matthews (UK) presented tutorials on Article VII obligations 
to targeted SPs from African, Middle Eastern, and Caribbean 
regions (presentations and attendee lists were faxed back to 
AC/CB).  On the margins, Rwanda and Sudan relayed requests 
for U.S. assistance.  The representatives from Gambia and 
Trinidad and Tobago privately noted that most of the 
attendees were not the accredited representatives to the 
OPCW, but had been asked by their missions to attend the 
seminar.  This may explain the "listen only" mode of most 
attendees.  Finally, Martin Rudduck, UK National Authority, 
noted that Sweden and Norway are assisting Iceland in its 
implementation effort. 
 
------------------------------- 
DG PFIRTER'S TRAVEL TO NEW YORK 
------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (U)  On September 3, Chief of Staff Rafael Grossi 
informed us that DG Pfirter will make two trips to New York 
in connection with the UNGA.  In addition to the traditional 
meeting with the First Committee, the DG will make a second 
trip in conjunction with additional UN efforts on 
coordination with multilateral organizations.  Grossi said 
the current plans are for the DG to travel to New York on 
October 7-8 and 20-21.  He added that the DG would be willing 
to tack on a trip to Washington if there is USG interest 
either in meetings at the Department or gatherings in support 
of initiatives focused on areas such as Latin America. 
 
------ 
TAIWAN 
------ 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  Del rep recently spoke with officials of the 
Taiwan Representative Office in the Netherlands.  Mark Tseng, 
Director of the Economic Division, and Jennifer Hsieh, also 
from the Economic Division, noted that Taiwan is interested 
in possibly having the Taiwan Chemical Industry Association 
apply to be non-official attendees at the Conference of 
States Parties in November.  They said they had engaged the 
U.K. and France on the general issue of Taiwan's interest in 
the OPCW, and would be meeting with the Japanese and Italian 
delegations in the near future.  We provided no substantive 
reply, but emphasized that if the Taiwanese felt strongly 
about possible non-official attendance at the CSP, it would 
be important to engage the PRC informally to ensure Beijing 
did not oppose the initiative.  Tseng said the Taiwan 
Chemical Industry Association would be sending a delegation 
to The Hague in mid-to-late October. 
 
------------------------------- 
ACCOUNTING FOR GB AT DESERET DF 
------------------------------- 
 
¶4.  (U) Delegation was informed by members of the TS that 
there remains an outstanding issue with regard to 1132 of GB 
at the Deseret CWDF.  The TS was at pains to emphasize that 
the issue of a "phantom" 1132 kg of GB at the Deseret Storage 
Facility has been resolved and was not/not what they were 
referring to.  Rather, the issue was that having agreed 
finally on the correct amount of GB at the SF, the figure 
finally arrived at now did not match with records at the DF. 
TS is in the process of attempting to reconstruct past 
 
SIPDIS 
verification activities and declarations in an effort to 
discern if and where another accounting error may have 
occurred, but requested that the US begin reviewing its own 
records in an effort to reconcile the difference between the 
now-agreed figures for the SF and the destruction figures for 
the DF. 
---------------------- 
EU INTEREST IN ALBANIA 
---------------------- 
¶5.  (U) Delegation has been approached three times in two 
days with requests for information about the nature and scope 
of US assistance to Albania in destroying its small stockpile 
of CW.  Specifically, the new German delegate Ronald Munch 
and, on a separate occasion, French delegate Dominique 
Anelli, asked whether the delegation had any information 
about what the US intended to do, the scope of our effort 
and, in particular, whether we viewed it as possible for the 
EU to become involved in the effort.  Delegation informed 
both that the U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program 
office had become involved and that it appeared CTR was going 
to be in a position to lend significant support to the 
Albanian destruction effort.  However, it was impossible to 
discuss details of CTRs program because the process was still 
in its early stages.  At this point CTR is still going 
through the various steps required by Congress to certify 
that Albania is eligible to receive CTR funds.  Delegation 
did not rule out that 
 some effort may have been expended to examine the task from 
a technical/operational point of view, but if so we were not 
aware of what those efforts may have produced.  Before money 
could begin flowing, contracts could be let, etc., etc., 
however, the certification process had to be complete, and 
that was the focus of our effort at this stage. 
 
¶6.  (U) Anelli asked whether it would be possible to, perhaps 
on the margins of the upcoming Council session, have a 
dialogue between us and members of their MFA about the state 
of U.S. efforts.  In particular, they would be interested in 
knowing, if possible, where the EU might become involved in 
assisting the Albanians since, as he put it, Albania is our 
close neighbor (an observation made separately by Munch as 
well).  Delegation offered that it would consult with 
Washington on this question but allowed that if it was not 
possible, perhaps our delegation could be in a position to 
have and pass along some basic information about what we're 
doing.  If the EU was genuinely interested in providing 
support, it seemed judicious to begin a dialogue sooner 
rather than later so as to prevent duplication of effort. 
 
¶7. (U) In a separate conversation, former German delegate 
Peter Beerwerth took the unusual measure of contacting the 
delegation directly from Berlin to ask essentially the same 
questions as Much and Anelli had posed.  In the course of the 
conversation, Beerwerth observed that EU did not have the 
funds to lend major support such as, for instance, 
constructing a destruction facility, but that it was 
considering lending support in the form, again for example, 
of providing technical assistance visits to help the 
Albanians determine an appropriate destruction technology. 
Delegation responded that it did not have details of the 
scope of CTRs program of work in Albania, but believed the 
intent was that the U.S. would fund the destruction facility. 
 Presumably that would imply the US would also have a hand in 
determining the destruction technology, type of facility to 
be used, etc., etc.  But again, this was speculation since it 
was so early in the process and the delegation wasn't even 
certain whether CTR itself had asked and answered such 
questions.  (Note:  Given the clearly heightened interest the 
EU has taken in this area, delegation believes that it is 
important to begin discussing these issues with EU 
representatives in the near future.  Delegation understands 
that in the past CTR/WDC has been less than enthusiastic 
about the prospect of EU participation or "support", but 
believes that even if this remains the case, it is in the 
general interest to have an open and frank discussion in 
which we would clearly state our views.  End note.). 
 
------------------------- 
STATUS OF RABTA DOCUMENTS 
------------------------- 
 
¶8. (U)  On Monday, 6 September, delegation provided round two 
of U.S. comments to the Libyan conversion request to the 
Libyan delegation and the Technical Secretariat (TS).  In 
passing the comments delegation made it clear that the four 
items categorized as "major deficiencies" must be taken into 
account and addressed before the document is circulated to 
states parties on 10 September. 
 
¶9. (U) Subsequently, Libya faxed the TS 9 pages of new text 
intended to address each of the four deficiencies.  The TS 
has slightly rewritten and reformatted the Libyan text to 
make it more compatible with the already-existing text of the 
conversion request, and is in the process of incorporating 
the new text.  Delegation expects to receive and forward to 
Washington by COB Wednesday, 8 September, copies of the text 
that will be incorporated into the final version. 
 
¶10. (U) To summarize, the changes being made to address each 
of the four areas of major deficiency; 
 
1) Libya provided the TS two and one half pages of history to 
be included after the cover page of the conversion request. 
 
2) The current version of the conversion request includes a 
very detailed schedule for "phase 1" destruction activities. 
It also makes a general reference that "phase one" 
destruction activities will be completed within one year. 
Details regarding the schedule for phase two conversion 
activities will be included in the Combined Plan for 
Conversion and Verification. 
 
3) The conversion request will include a statement in CWP 
5.21 to the effect that detailed verification measures for 
phase one destruction are included in the Combined Plan for 
Destruction and Verification that will be submitted to the 
Council for consideration - with an EC-38 number.  Similarly, 
detailed verification measures for phase two conversion will 
be included in the Combined Plan for Conversion and 
Verification, probably with an EC 39 or EC 40 number.  The 
reasoning is that the TS cannot formally circulate a CP for 
Conversion and Verification before the Council approves the 
conversion request.  Despite the assignment of a later EC 
number, the Conversion Plan and the attendant plan for 
verification will be available to states parties during EC 
38, but again with an EC 39 or EC 40 number. 
 
4) The conversion plan will now include text specifying 
certain discrepancies that were detected during the course of 
TS inspections.  The new text will also note that the 
 
SIPDIS 
equipment list contained in the conversion request is in fact 
consistent with the factual findings from the inspections, 
but that an amended initial declaration is required and will 
be accomplished to ensure consistency between the two 
documents.  It will take a few weeks because it is fairly 
voluminous, but they are working on it.  To address 
Washington's comment that the inventory list should include 
details such as "materials of construction, whether old or 
new", etc., the documents will now also include text to the 
effect that all equipment is commercially available and not 
specifically or uniquely designed for CW production; it is 
available in many places and observable at any commercial 
chemical or industrial production facility.  The TS and Libya 
both have observed that with over 5,000 pieces of equipment, 
it is not feasible to include item-by-item descriptions and 
still have the document out by 10 September. 
 
¶11. (U) Delegation met with the TS on the morning of 8 
September to review the new/changed text, as well as to 
receive copies of the various notes, reports, and decision 
documents required to accompany the Libyan request.  All 
these materials were faxed to State AC/CB on 8 September, as 
has the text of the Libyan fax to the TS.  During the course 
of the meeting, delegation reaffirmed with the TS that the 
documents must be completed and available at the document 
counter no later than COB Friday, 10 September.  TS 
acknowledged this and assured delegation it would be so. 
 
-------------------------------- 
STRUCTURE OF THE RABTA DOCUMENTS 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶12. (U) In a previous meeting, the TS informed the delegation 
that it had originally drafted and given the Libyans a 
document in which the destruction plans and conversion 
request had been integrated as one package.  When the TS 
received the documents back from Libya, they discovered the 
Libyans had essentially "split" the documents into the 
conversion plan and, separately, the destruction plans.  The 
TS intention, therefore, was to send the conversion request 
 
SIPDIS 
and the destruction plans out under separate DG notes, but as 
a package in which each set of documents is cross-referenced 
in the other. 
 
¶13. (U) Their approach is driven by the fact of Libya's 
having separated the two documents.  Re-combining them would 
have taken a lot of time, according to the TS, and would have 
run the risk of errors being introduced.  Delegation 
expressed our concern about the possibility of having other 
delegations try to shred out the destruction plan and approve 
it while taking time to mull over the conversion request.  TS 
took the point but offered that they would work as closely as 
needed with us and others to use language in the 
aforementioned DG notes to tie the two documents together. 
As noted above, drafts of these documents have been received 
by the delegation and forwarded to State AC/CB. 
 
------------------------ 
MARQUARDT RECORDS REVIEW 
------------------------- 
 
¶14.  (U) TS reports informally that on the subject of the 
recently-completed Marquardt and Pine Bluff Arsenal 
production facility inspections, the news sounds 
categorically good.  As TS representative Oleg Uharov put it, 
all our talk was "made obsolete" by a few hours of practical 
experience.  Since Uharov was the architect of these 
particular headaches, his assessment means carries a lot of 
weight.  The TS has received initial reports and, in both 
cases, the inspector/visit team chief (Oswaldo) reported that 
he had been fully able to fulfill his mandate, in the case of 
PBA, and his visit instructions, in the case of Marquardt. 
When Mazur asked him how he was able to ascertain the 
presence of "various" quantities of particular equipment and 
to discern sub-components, Oswaldo responded that in the 
before and after photos he was shown the fact of destruction 
having occurred, and of what and how much of what had been 
destroyed, were absolutely clear. 
 
----------------------------- 
RABTA TECHNICAL CHANGE STATUS 
----------------------------- 
 
¶15. (U) Delegation was informed that French delegate Sophie 
Moal-Makame, based on new instructions from Paris that 
haven't officially gotten to her yet, was informed that; 
 
--  The changes made to the request for a technical change 
substantially address French concerns over equitable 
treatment and bounding the time given for conversions; 
 
--    Paris is concerned that other SPs have the impression 
that France is opposed to the Libyan request; they are not. 
Sophie allowed that the statement by her Amb during the 
Council session went a long way toward promoting that 
impression, but said that it was nevertheless erroneous.  In 
fact they are contacting/have contacted the Libyans in 
Tripoli to inform them that they do not oppose the Libyan 
request. 
 
--    France will watch closely to see gauge how Council 
members react to the proposal and, in particular, whether 
there seems to be broad support for it; 
 
--    The DG note will be "very important" for France's 
further consideration of the request. (Note:  Delegation was 
informed by the TS today that the DG assessment of the Libyan 
technical change request will be available at the document 
counter not later than the morning of Thursday, 9 September. 
 
¶16.  (U)  While Moal-Makame stopped short of stating outright 
that France would join consensus, this news is obviously 
welcome.  It remains unclear whether all of France's concerns 
are addressed by the "new and improved text", or they will 
seek additional modifications.  Moal-Makame did not allude to 
any though. 
 
¶17.  (U)  Ito sends. 
SOBEL