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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 002908 
 
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 CHUPA 
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC) - SCENESETTER 
FOR THE 35TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 
 
REF: 11/12 PARK E-MAIL TO DEL 
 
 This is CWC-121-03. 
 
------------------- 
SUMMARY AND COMMENT 
------------------- 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  As the October Conference of States Parties 
resolved most of the key issues facing the OPCW (budget, 
destruction deadline extensions, action plans), the focus of 
the December 2-5 Executive Council meeting will be on a 
number of technical, particularly industrial, issues.  There 
have been initial steps to put meat on the bones of the 
action plans for Article VII and universality, and the U.S. 
should emphasize on the margins of EC-35 the importance it 
places on robust implementation of these plans.  Some of the 
Latin American ambassadors have raised the issue of the 
lawsuit by former DG Bustani with Ambassador Javits, but did 
so with little gusto.  Thus, there is no expectation that 
this will be a hot topic at the EC, particularly as the OPCW 
is in the process of pursuing an appeal to the ILO 
Administrative Tribunal of its award to Bustani. 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  Comment:  The larger issue for consideration, 
which we have highlighted and discussed with Washington, is 
the agenda for the OPCW for the coming year.  Indeed, DG 
Pfirter has asked to see Amb. Javits in the next few days to 
discuss this exact question.  This is an opportune time for 
the U.S. to stamp its mark on the OPCW priorities for 2004, 
whether in actively pursuing implementation of action plans, 
focusing on administrative and budgetary issues, or pressing 
for new initiatives in other areas.  None of these is 
mutually exclusive, but a clear prioritization of issues 
would not only be in the interest of the U.S., but would 
generate more productive work at the OPCW.  And in that 
respect, EC-35 provides an excellent opportunity to gauge the 
priorities of other delegations and the leadership of the 
Technical Secretariat.  End Summary and Comment. 
 
¶3.  (U)  The following is a general list of topics drawn from 
the provisional agenda and also highlighted in the referenced 
E-mail. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
AGENDA ITEM FIVE: DETAILED PLANS FOR DESTRUCTION OF CW 
--------------------------------------------- ---------- 
 
¶4.  (U)  The agreed plan for destruction of CW at Aberdeen 
(EC-32/DEC/CRP.2) will likely be on the agenda.  Para 8 
comments with regard to Aberdeen FA apply to the CP as well. 
 
------------------------------------ 
AGENDA ITEM SIX: CONVERSION OF CWPFS 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶5.  (U)  In connection with Volgograd, there are 
notifications of changes at a former DF production facility 
(EC-34/DG.1) as well as notifications of changes at a former 
facility for preparation for filling of non-chemical parts 
(EC/34/DG.3*). 
 
---------------------------- 
DESTRUCTION/CONVERSION PLANS 
---------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (U)  The U.S. combined plan for QL facility at Pine Bluff 
Arsenal (EC-35/DEC/CRP.2 and EC-35/DG.3) as well as the 
Russian combined plan for conversion and verification of VX 
production/filling facility at Novocheboksarsk (EC-32/DG.8 
and EC-32/DEC/CRP.8) will likely be on the agenda. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
AGENDA ITEM SEVEN: NOTIFICATIONS OF CHANGES AT FORMER 
CHEMICAL WEAPONS PRODUCTION FACILITIES 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶7.  (U)  No detailed information yet on what may fall under 
this agenda item. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM EIGHT: FACILITY AGREEMENTS 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶8.  (U)  Facility agreements for Aberdeen (EC-32/DEC/CRP.6) 
and Gorniy (EC-35/DEC/CRP.1) are on the agenda.  Delegation 
has received no indication from the Russians that there has 
been any change to their position that they cannot join 
consensus on the Aberdeen FA.  On the last occasion on which 
this subject was discussed, Russia indicated again that the 
Aberdeen FA's inclusion of an area of a commercial chemical 
facility as a declared, non-contiguous part of the CWDF is 
politically "unacceptable".  The Russian delegation stated 
that Russia's reaffirmation that all final destruction of 
nerve agent would occur at Shchuchye did nothing to alleviate 
its stated concerns over Aberdeen.  As Del understands the 
situation, therefore, barring a reassessment by Russia of 
their position, we are at a stalemate over this document. 
Del notes that we have not received a response from either 
the Russians or the Technical Secretariat with regard to the 
questions and comments we raised over the Gorniy FA. 
 
¶9.  (U) Delegation requests guidance, based on the 
feedback/responses provided by the Korean and Belgian 
delegations as well as further comment from the TS, on 
whether the U.S. is now in a position to join consensus on 
these SP's respective Schedule One Facility Agreements.  If 
problems/issues remain, delegation requests to be advised of 
them at the earliest opportunity in order to address them 
before or during the Session in an effort to finalize these 
documents. 
 
--------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM NINE: INDUSTRY ISSUES 
--------------------------------- 
 
¶10.  (U)  At this point, it does not appear that the dispute 
with Germany regarding captive use will be resolved by EC-35. 
 Del has reported separately on the efforts to work with the 
U.K. facilitator to find some type of accommodation on the 
German concerns that Schedule 1 captive use be addressed in a 
manner that does not block EC approval of the captive use 
decision as applied to Schedule 2 and 3 chemicals.  The 
German del has provided the UK and U.S. Del with a draft 
study to back up its position (e-mailed to AC/CB).  However 
the political realities appear to be that many countries 
would object to any captive use proposal that includes 
Schedule 1 chemicals.  As a result of trilateral discussions 
between U.S., UK and Germany, the facilitator has proposed EC 
report language for the EC to "decide to hold open-ended 
consultations to consider the captive use of Schedule 1 
chemicals, with a view to reaching a conclusion by the Ninth 
Conference, and noted that the meeting of Government experts 
with the Scientific Advisory Board, to be held on 28-30 
January 2004, would also provide an opportunity to explore 
this issue."  Such an approach would alleviate German 
concerns that the issue be considered, without stalling the 
captive use decision as written.  The Germans have yet to 
commit to consensus even with this proposal. 
 
¶11.  (U)  Also on the agenda is the resolution of 
discrepancies regarding import and export declarations. 
During the last EC, Del and the UK circulated text to address 
the need for the TS and States Parties to continue efforts to 
clarify the significant discreprencies in trade of 2A/2A* 
chemicals for which no corresponding export, production, 
processing or consumption declarations were submitted.  This 
text was not accepted, particularly by those delegations 
implicated in the report.  The UK has circulated, to a small 
number of delegations, alternative text for this EC they 
believe may be acceptable, as follows: 
 
"A number of delegations raised the Discussion Paper 
submitted to the 34th Session of the Executive Council by the 
Technical Secretariat on Overcoming Discrepancies in the 
Declarations of Imports and exports of Schedule 2 and 3 
Chemicals (Ref:  EC-34/S/1).  The Council called upon the 
Technical Secretariat to ensure the necessary procedures were 
in place for recording and following up clarification 
requests.  The Council also called upon States Parties to 
co-operate with the Technical Secretariat in its efforts to 
clarify to the extent feasible the discrepancies identified 
in paragraph 3.6 of the Discussion Paper.  It requested that 
the Technical Secretariat, in consultation with the States 
Parties concerned, follow up the outstanding clarification 
requests relating to these discrepancies and report back on 
the results." 
 
------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM TEN: CHANGES TO THE LIST 
OF APPROVED EQUIPMENT AND TECHNICAL 
SPECIFICATIONS FOR APPROVED EQUIPMENT 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶12.  (U)  No information yet on what may appear under this 
agenda item. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
AGENDA ITEM ELEVEN:  LIST OF NEW VALIDATED DATA FOR INCLUSION 
IN THE OPCW CENTRAL ANALYTICAL DATABASE 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
 
¶13.  (U)  No information yet on what may appear under this 
agenda item. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
AGENDA ITEM TWELVE:  AGREEMENTS ON THE PRIVILEGES AND 
IMMUNITIES OF THE OPCW 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶14.  (U)  No information yet on what may appear under this 
agenda item. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM THIRTEEN:  FINANCIAL ISSUES 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶15.  (U)  There has been continued discussion on the general 
topic of providing a financial "cushion" so that the TS can 
handle unexpected expenses or fluctuations in income.  While 
the discussion at the CSP focused on the Stabilization Fund, 
the Administration Division has been seized with the idea of 
an major expansion of the Working Capital Fund and a 
substantial increase in the period in which replenishment of 
the WCF would be required. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
AGENDA ITEM FOURTEEN:  IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HEADQUARTERS 
AGREEMENT 
--------------------------------------------- ------------ 
 
¶16.  (U)  No information yet on what may be covered under 
this item. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
AGENDA ITEM 15: ANY OTHER BUSINESS - BUSTANI 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶17.  (SBU)  At a recent lunch hosted by Ambassador Javits, a 
number of Ambassadors from Latin American countries raised 
the ILO Administrative Tribunal judgment in favor of former 
DG Bustani.  However, they did it in almost apologetic tones, 
and even the Brazilian Ambassador was taciturn in making his 
points.  Ambassador Javits emphasized the U.S. commitment to 
the rule of law, and the importance of the OPCW exhausting 
all legal options.  The OPCW is in the process of filing its 
appeal on the issue of material damages awarded Bustani by 
the ILOAT, although this may not be widely known among 
delegations.  With this appeal under way and the palpable 
reluctance of even the Brazilian Ambassador to pursue this 
case, the Bustani issue likely will not even rise to the 
chatter level at the EC. 
 
---------------------------- 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE XI 
---------------------------- 
 
¶18.  (SBU) Facilitator Norma Suarez/Mexico likely will report 
that she has been unable to make progress on implementation 
of Article XI in spite of holding multiple bilateral and 
small group sessions. 
 
------------------------ 
STATUS OF IMPLEMENTATION 
------------------------ 
 
¶19.  (U)  There are three items in this category.  The first 
is a draft decision on the clarification of declarations. 
The second is a proposed addition of an item to the list of 
approved inspection equipment (EC-35/DG.1).  The third is a 
proposed revision of technical specifications for two items 
of equipment (EC-35/DG.2). 
 
¶20.  (U)  Javits sends. 
SOBEL