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

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 001533 
 
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) - DISCUSSION 
WITH AFRICA GROUP ON RABTA CONVERSION 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 1512 
     ¶B. SECSTATE 132224 (NOTAL) 
 
This is CWC-78-04 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary:  Representatives of Morocco, Tunisia and 
Sudan provided strong support for the proposed technical 
change to permit conversion of the Libyan chemical weapons 
production facility at Rabta, although Tunisia and Sudan 
emphasized that they would need to await instructions from 
capitals.  The Algerian delegate characterized the initiative 
as "very positive," but was more cautious in expressing 
support.  The South African representative was clearly the 
most reserved, and from our perspective a demarche in 
Pretoria on the merits of the proposal would be particularly 
useful.  The Libyan Ambassador subsequently informed OPCW 
PermRep Javits that she would ask her Ministry to press the 
case with the governments noted above, as well as key 
countries such as Germany and France, on the importance of 
the proposed technical change.  End Summary. 
 
¶2.  (U)  Amb. Javits began the June 18 meeting by noting the 
desire of the U.S., U.K., Italy and Libya to preview the 
proposed technical change with key members of the Africa 
Group.  Libyan Ambassador Zakia A.M.Sahli then provided 
copies of the text of the proposed technical change to Part V 
of the Verification Annex and put forth the request that the 
countries participating in the meeting consider co-sponsoring 
the proposal when it is formally submitted.  She emphasized 
that the conversion would allow the Rabta facility to produce 
important pharmaceuticals and assist people in African 
countries in particular.  Sahli added that such a change 
would also encourage other countries to consider acceding to 
the CW Convention.  Martin Rudduck of the U.K. then briefly 
commented that of the various available options, this was the 
"right way" to proceed on Rabta conversion.  Gianpaolo 
Malpaga of Italy emphasized the humanitarian goals promoted 
by the proposal. 
 
¶3.  (U)  Following a detailed presentation of the proposal by 
Amb. Javits, Hela Lahmar of Tunisia responded that Africa 
clearly would benefit from the proposal, and while she would 
need to get approval from Tunis, she thought the proposal 
deserved support.  Ali Elsadig Ali Al-Hussein of Sudan noted 
that his Ambassador had said at the last Executive Council 
session that Sudan supports the Libyan decision to accede to 
the CWC.  Moreover, the Africa Group had pledged its support 
to Libya.  This proposal, continued Al-Hussein, is the chance 
to provide concrete proof of that support.  He concluded by 
stating that his initial reaction to the proposal is very 
positive, and while he would need approval from his capital, 
he believed Sudan would support the initiative. 
 
¶4.  (U)  Nour El Houda Benomar of Morocco also expressed full 
support for the proposal, and noted that Morocco had 
emphasized in past Executive Council sessions the importance 
of promoting peaceful uses of chemistry.  Without any caveats 
about instructions, Benomar flatly said that the group could 
count on Moroccan support.  Aheene Boukhemis of the Algerian 
delegation also characterized the initiative as very 
positive.  However, he then commented that this is a critical 
legal matter on which Algeria would need more information, 
and he would need to see how his capital would view the 
proposal.  Finally, Peter Makwarela of the South African 
delegation said he would need time to consider the proposal 
and stressed that many of the issues involved with the 
technical change were not clear.  He noted that the next 
Africa Group meeting will be on June 23, so there is 
sufficient time to assess the proposal and await instructions 
from Pretoria. 
¶5.  (U)  Amb. Javits and the U.K. and Italian representatives 
then fielded a variety of questions, most of which came from 
Makwarela: 
-- Responding to a question from Makwarela, the Ambassador 
also noted that the technical change would not automatically 
grant the conversion request, but would merely allow the 
Executive Council to consider requests for conversion. 
-- Makwarela then asked about the precedent that was cited in 
the briefing (concerning notification requirements for 
transfers of saxitoxins), and Malpaga noted that the 
precedent concerns the use of a technical change.  Whether 
Libya or any new SP in the future would get approval for a 
conversion request is an issue to be addressed by the EC and 
CSP.  After additional comments from Makwarela on this point, 
Amb. Javits re-emphasized that the proposal would simply 
remove the prohibition on considering conversion requests. 
States Parties retain the authority to make the decision. 
-- Makwarela stressed that maintenance of the "sanctity of 
the Convention" is important to South Africa.  Amb. Javits 
replied that the sponsors clearly shared that view, and 
stressed that the proposal does not affect the Convention, 
but one item in the Verification Annexes. 
-- Makwarela inquired whether the Rabta request could be 
de-linked from the technical change, to which Amb. Javits 
replied that there can be no action on the Rabta request 
without the change. 
-- Makwarela said he has a problem with changing the 
provisions of the Convention, expressing a concern about 
"leaving the door open for everyone."  Amb. Javits emphasized 
that this is not the case.  The focus is on addressing what 
has become a deterrent to countries joining the CW 
Convention.  Rudduck chimed in, emphasizing that the 
decisions are still made by the Executive Council and the 
Conference of States Parties. 
 
¶6.  (U)  As for the issues raised by the other participants: 
-- In response to a question from Benomar, Amb. Javits went 
through an extensive discussion of the processes involved in 
the technical change, drawing on the guidance from Washington. 
-- Lahmar asked if the sponsors of the proposal were aware of 
any states parties opposed to the technical change.  Amb. 
Javits replied that there are numerous questions as the 
initiative is still in the early stages of consideration. 
-- Responding to a question from Lahmar on why this change 
had not been addressed previously, the Ambassador replied 
that the provision had been included in its original form to 
encourage people to join the Convention.  However, it had now 
turned into a deterrent to acceding to the Convention.  In 
response to a follow-on question about whether this had been 
addressed at the 2003 Revue Conference, the Ambassador noted 
that this issue had never arisen, and only arose now due to 
Libyan accession. 
-- Replying to a suggestion from Boukhemis that it might be 
wise to get legal advice on the issue, Amb. Javits said that 
any of the sponsors would be willing to provide their opinion 
that this process would be legal, as we want this to be not 
only legal, but transparent.  Makwarela suggested that it 
might be helpful to get an opinion from the Legal Advisor of 
the OPCW, and Amb. Javits said he anticipates no problem and 
would support the Legal Advisor providing such an opinion, if 
it were requested. 
 
¶7.  (U)  The discussion ended on a very positive note, with 
Benomar reiterating strong support for the proposed technical 
change, emphasizing the purpose of the requested conversion 
and Morocco's commitment to Libya.  On behalf of the sponsors 
of the initiative, Amb. Javits expressed appreciation for the 
interest shown by all the participants and reiterated the 
hope that they would support the proposal. 
¶8.  (SBU)  In a follow-up conversation, the Libyan Ambassador 
informed Amb. Javits that she would press Tripoli to demarche 
the African Group delegations that had participated as well 
as other key delegations, such as Germany and France. 
 
¶9.  (U)  Javits sends. 
SOBEL