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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 000349 
 
SIPDIS 
 
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) - OCPF SITE 
SELECTION METHODOLOGY WORKSHOP 
 
This is CWC-19-04. 
 
¶1.  (U)  The U.S. hosted a technical experts workshop on 
February 5 to facilitate understanding of the Swiss/U.S. 
Other Chemical Production Facility (OCPF) site selection 
methodology proposal.  The morning session focused on the 
rationale and mechanics of the proposal.  In the past, 
acceptance of the methodology by States Parties has been 
hampered by a lack of understanding of the mathematics in an 
audience composed mainly of non-technical diplomats.  The 
afternoon session focused on political issues associated with 
implementation.  The workshop was a success in fostering 
understanding among delegations of the history and rationale 
of the methodology, though serious political issues remain 
unresolved. 
 
¶2.  (U)  U.S. expert Dr. James Bradley presented to delegates 
the Swiss/U.S. proposed methodology for OCPF site selection, 
emphasizing the proposal's ability to incorporate equitable 
geographic distribution of OCPF inspections, Technical 
Secretariat (TS) preferences, and proposals from each State 
 
SIPDIS 
Party.  First, geographic distribution is distributed by 
weighting the number of each country's declared inspectable 
OCPF facilities. This shifts the burden of inspections away 
from countries with small OCPF industries to those with 
larger industries while not overwhelming the inspection 
burden of the countries with the most declared OCPF 
facilities.  TS information points are restricted to no more 
than five percent per facility, no more than 15 percent per 
country, and must add up to a total of 100.  Finally, any 
State Party may nominate OCPF facilities using whatever 
method it chooses as long as its points add up to 100.  The 
nomination points are the average of all such submissions. 
 
¶3.  (U)  Several questions related to implementation, 
confidentiality, effect of collusion, effect on 
 
SIPDIS 
industrialized countries and specifics of the two-stage 
process were posed to Dr. Bradley and were answered before 
the group.  Discussion centered on the nomination points, 
focusing on two case studies.  The first considered the 
impact of collusion, defined as a group of States Party 
working together to coordinate their nominations against OCPF 
facilities in a specific country.  In this instance, the 
impact of collusion is minimized when the number of colluders 
is small relative to the number of States Party submitting 
nominations.  If the number of submitting States Party is 
small, the impact of collusion can be substantial.  The 
Swiss/U.S. proposal restricts the potential impact of 
collusion by requiring nominations from at least 25 countries 
before fully including the averaged nomination points. 
 
¶4.  (U)  The presentation then suggested possible options to 
allow States Party with small National Authorities and 
limited resources to fully participate in the OCPF site 
selection process.  There currently are around 4000 
inspectable OCPF facilities, but to familiarize itself a 
State Party would need to acquire and review all 
declarations.  Instead, States Party could use a "rule," such 
as "assign my nomination points to the phosphorous, sulphur, 
flourine (PSF) sites in the five countries on my borders;" or 
"assign my nomination points to the ten countries with the 
largest number of declarable OCPF facilities;" or "spread my 
nomination points the same way that the TS spreads its 
information points." 
 
¶5.  (U)  Finally, the U.S. delegation discussed ways States 
Party might submit nominations and distributed an non-paper 
with a possible nomination format which included elements 
such as regional group, a list of countries, PSF, and non-PSF 
facilities.  Rather than debate which elements might appear 
on such a future form, the U.S. delegation invited attendees 
to fill out the non-form and the U.S. would "run the numbers" 
to demonstrate how the method might work.  The intent of the 
exercise was to ensure States Party that options exist 
between not allocating any points and analyzing every 
declaration to allocate points appropriately.  Forms were 
collected from 15 of the approximately 45 attendees, and 
rules used ranged from PSF facilities in a regional group to 
a list of countries of interest.  The results were 
distributed to WEOG members on February 10 and will be 
discussed in WEOG on February 17. 
 
¶6.  (U)  The facilitator (Paul Wilke, Netherlands) chaired 
the afternoon session that focused on political discussions. 
The TS presented the A14 selection method used currently. 
Following this discussion, delegates began to debate the 
political ramifications of implementation of a new 
methodology.  Some asked whether the A14 could be adapted to 
accommodate State Party input; others noted their thorough 
dislike of the A14 methodology.  No one argued that A14 meets 
treaty requirements or cannot be improved.  Italy raised its 
strong concerns regarding possible politicization of the 
process by allowing the TS and States Party to allocate 
points against individual countries.  Brazil noted that any 
methodology must remain consistent with the considerations 
and limitations articulated in the confidentiality annex. 
India was the most vocal in questioning the rationale behind 
first selecting a State Party and then a OCPF facility in 
that country, as well as why the three weighting factors -- 
in particular the geographic distribution -- would play roles 
at both stages of the selection process. 
 
¶7.  (U)  Delegations responded positively to the Swiss/U.S. 
discussions and thanked the U.S. expert for his detailed, 
comprehensible presentation of what in the past appeared to 
be complex formulas and ideas.  Delegations look forward to 
discussing the concepts further in a future round of industry 
intersessional consultations, and delegates asked the TS to 
evaluate the workload and fiscal impact introduction of the 
Swiss/U.S. site selection methodology would have on the 
Declarations Branch.  Wilke also requested the U.S. expert 
have available for delegates in March a paper describing the 
Swiss/U.S. proposal and the case studies presented. 
 
¶8.  (U)  Javits sends. 
SOBEL