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

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 000814 
 
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: DECL: 03/30/2014 
TAGS: PARM PREL LY CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC):  LIBYA AT EC-36 
 
 
Classified By: Pete K. Ito, U.S. Delegation to the OPCW for reasons 1.5 
 (b) and (d). 
 
This is CWC-46-04. 
 
¶1. (C)  Summary:  In addition to many formal welcomes during 
the 36th Executive Council (EC) session of the Organization 
for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) U.S., U.K. and 
Libyan representatives had several opportunities to interact. 
 Each meeting was cordial and held in a mutually cooperative 
atmosphere with discussion largely focused on the issues of 
destruction technology for Libyan CW stocks, and the Libyan 
desire for conversion of the Rabta facility.  Libyan 
representatives were active throughout the week and clearly 
comfortable with their reception at the OPCW.  Reactions from 
other delegations to the Libyan attendance were also 
positive.  End Summary. 
¶X.  (C)  The Libyan delegation to the March 23-26 EC was led 
by Mr. Al-Mabrouk Mohamed Mailad, Head of the National 
Security Branch of the equivalent of the Ministry of Foreign 
Affairs.  Colonel Ahmed Abul Houda, head of the Libyan 
National Authority, was the chief interlocutor and was 
accompanied by Dr. Ahmed Hesnawy, Col Mohammed Othman, Mr. 
Daw Abdurraman, Mr. Ragab Abou Gaafar, Mr. Mahamad Khalifa 
Alsoul, and Mr. Muftah El-Hamali Ahmed of the Libyan National 
Committee for the CWC. 
 
¶2.  (C)  On March 23, Horst Reeps, OPCW Director of 
Verification, hosted a meeting with the Libyans, led by Abul 
Houda, U.S. reps (Sylvester Ryan, Director VC/CCB and David 
Weekman, AC/CB) and a U.K. rep (Richard Soilleux of DSTL, 
Porton Down) to assess CW destruction technologies.  Reeps 
billed the session as a prelude to the technology discussion 
to be hosted by the U.K. on March 29-30 at Porton Down.  The 
Technical Secretariat (TS) provided the Libyans with an 
outline draft declaration for Category 2 CW destruction.  The 
meeting was mainly an open exchange on the various 
technologies available.  The TS emphasized that while it 
might offer information, it was up to the possessor state 
party to select a technology to use.  The Libyans took an 
active and insightful part in the discussion, but no 
conclusions were drawn. 
 
¶3.  (C)  A tour of the OPCW laboratory was arranged on March 
24 and included Abul Houda, Hesnawy, Abdurraman, Rajab, Ryan 
and Soilleux.  Once again, the Libyans were active 
participants and engaged in dialogue with the TS staff. 
 
¶4.  (C)  Reaction from various delegations was very positive. 
 The Italians hosted a luncheon discussion on March 23 with 
U.S. and U.K. reps, which included reaction from EU members 
on the possibility of a conversion request for the Rabta CW 
production facility.  Giovanni Iannuzzi of the Italian MFA 
stated that Italy would lean toward the most straightforward 
solution to the problem of deadlines imposed by the CW 
Convention by simply noting the apparent contradictions 
between the Verification Annex, Part V, paragraphs 66 and 72 
and selecting paragraph 66 as being operative.  U.S. and U.K. 
reps noted this solution and discussed other options without 
drawing conclusions.  The Italians further commented that 
resolving a matter of the conversion deadline probably would 
not be treated as a matter for collective action by the EU, 
but that a solution put forward by the U.S, U.K., and Italy 
could expect broad and active EU member support. 
 
¶5.  (C)  Ryan and Weekman met with Houda and Hesnawy on March 
26 for a wrap-up session.  U.S. reps requested that the 
Libyans give the TS permission to provide copies of 
inspection reports to the U.S.  Houda said that he personally 
favored doing so, but would have to get permission in 
Tripoli.  He expected that this would not be a problem and 
would send the TS a letter from Tripoli.  Houda did not have 
copies of the declaration verification reports, but 
immediately handed over copies of the Preliminary Findings of 
the inspections of the Al-Jufra CW storage facility and CW 
destruction facility for the destruction of the Category 3 
munitions (which were couriered back to Washington). 
 
¶6.  (C)  U.S. reps thanked Houda and offered that 
deliberations on the way ahead on WMD elimination were 
currently on-going in Washington.  They said that they would 
not be surprised if one or more visits to Libya would be 
requested, but that such a request would come at a high 
level, not at the CW team level.  Houda said that he welcomed 
whatever visits might occur during the next phase, but 
requested close coordination on dates for the CW team.  The 
Libyans, he noted, have been invited by several States 
Parties for discussions on National Authority operations and 
they want to be available when the CW team returned.  U.S. 
reps noted that among other issues that might be pursued, the 
Libyans could expect one item would be the detailed questions 
handed over in London in January, many of which have yet to 
be addressed. 
 
¶7.  (C)  Houda inquired about the situation surrounding the 
Rabta conversion request.  Ryan and Weekman acquainted him 
with recent U.S./U.K. efforts to solve the deadline issue. 
They also explained the process of building consensus on the 
matter.  Houda expressed appreciation for the efforts and 
said that the conversion request would be ready to submit at 
the appropriate time.  U.S. reps noted that the deadline 
issue must be solved first before the conversion request 
should be submitted.  Houda said he understood.  U.S. reps 
noted that each side should feel free to contact the other to 
exchange information and questions. 
 
¶8.  (C)  In a one-on-one meeting with Ryan later on March 26, 
Houda noted that, while several delegations had approached 
him with novel destruction technologies, Libya was interested 
in proven methods of CW destruction.  He further stated that 
Libya knows it has the final decision on which technology to 
use, but looks forward to working closely with Washington to 
select the technology. 
 
¶9.  (U)  Ito sends. 
SOBEL