VZCZCXYZ0006
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1041/01 1291450
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 091450Z MAY 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5655
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001041 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) 
NSC FOR DICASAGRANDE 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR 
WEEK ENDING MAY 5 
 
 
This is CWC-41-06. 
 
----- 
CHINA 
----- 
 
¶1.  (U) PRC Ambassador Xue Hanqin asked to meet with Amb. 
Javits on April 28 to discuss a number of issues.  Xue raised 
the PRC request on the margins of last year's Conference of 
States Parties for bilateral discussions concerning issues 
ranging from destruction of abandoned CW to chemical industry 
issues.  She said that the PRC is still coordinating a 
response to the U.S. questions on the ACW issue.  Xue noted 
that in addition to the various ministries in Beijing, there 
are 13 local authorities that need to be contacted for 
information.  She also made the point that the Chinese are 
very focused on the issue of dealing with Iran's nuclear 
program, and this was drawing attention away from other issues 
 
¶2.  (U) Xue said that the Japan/PRC request for an extension 
of ACW destruction will not be on the agenda of the May 
Executive Council.  However, Zhang Shen, who accompanied Xue, 
said that the document would be available by the May 15 
destruction informals so it could be the basis for discussion 
on that topic that day.  On the discussions with Japan, Xue 
simply reiterated that there is still no general agreement 
with Japan on a destruction program or on specific issues 
such as destroying ACW on-site or transporting to a central 
facility. 
 
¶3.  (U) In an aside about the U.S. extension request, Xue 
commented on the fact that delegations are going to link 
destruction issues and implementation issues.  Xue also spent 
a great deal of time expressing her concern about the 
Technical Secretariat agreement with the African Union, and 
emphasizing that in her view this set a bad precedent.  She 
stressed that the authority to conclude agreements is with 
the EC, not the TS, and it is important that the Director 
General make a clear statement about this at the next EC. 
(Amb. Javits has already discussed this with the DG and is 
helping to craft some appropriate language.) 
 
¶4.  (U) On the 10th anniversary of entry into force of the 
CWC, Xue said that Director for Special Projects Krzysztof 
Paturej had raised the issue of PRC attendance and asked for 
Ministerial-level attendance.  Xue emphasized that it would 
be important to coordinate on the level of attendance, 
especially within the P-5. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
 
¶5.  (U) Facilitator Maarten Lak (Netherlands) held a May 2 
consultation on Article VII, supported by Legal Advisor Onate 
and Implementation Support Branch (IPB) personnel. 
Discussion centered on two topics: the advance copy of the 
Article VII status report and IPB/Onate's discussions of the 
results of recent Technical Assistance Visits.  First, 
Belgium inquired whether the status report could be used to 
set TS implementation priorities using such factors as date 
of EIF, whether or not post-conflict, etc.  IPB chief Magda 
Bauta said yes, but only if delegations first achieve 
consensus on indicators to use before providing suggestions 
to the TS. 
 
¶6.  (U) Ireland asked whether in the specific case of 
post-conflict states, whether the TS could capitalize on 
internal legal capacity-building elements in country.  The TS 
responded that no, it had not, but this might be a useful 
venue to further implementation.  Finally, New Zealand, 
Colombia and the U.S. noted that a number of lines in the 
table provided (faxed back to ISN/CB) noted only that a fax 
was received on a specific date, but no details of the 
information provided appeared.  Onate noted that the table 
was a synopsis of a larger document, which is available on 
the external server, and is continually updated (note: it 
should be checked frequently).  Lak stated that he would 
provide draft EC report language at the next consultation on 
 
11 May. 
 
¶7.  (U) TAV results: (Note: Interestingly, although many of 
the TAVs discussed were joint U.S./TS efforts, U.S. 
involvement was mentioned only in the instances of the 
Philippines TAV and the Indonesian information exchange.) 
First, Onate discussed the visit to St. Kitts and Nevis, 
where 11 States Party (and one non-SP, the Bahamas) attended 
a workshop sponsored by the Organization of Eastern Caribbean 
States.  Three members of the Office of Legal Affairs (OLA) 
and two members of IPB attended to assist in drafting 
implementing legislation.  First, Belize has submitted its 
legislation to its Cabinet and established its NA in the 
Ministry of Defense.  Three general approaches were taken: 
the single act approach is being taken by Antigua (which 
anticipates submitting its draft to the Cabinet in two 
weeks), the Bahamas (which is expected to adhere shortly; its 
NA will be in its MFA) and St. Kitts.  An act integrating 
implementation legislation for the CWC and other Conventions 
(such as Rotterdam and Stockholm) is being taken by Dominica 
(which expects to submit it to Parliament in late 2006) and 
St. Lucia.  Guyana and Trinidad prepared drafts for both 
approaches and requested comments from the TS.  Haiti 
prepared draft legislation for imposing penalties and 
established its NA in its Pharmaceutical Control Board.  Much 
progress is expected in the next few months. 
 
¶8.  (U) Onate reported that he spent April 10-12 in Argentina 
where, just prior to his visit, the implementing legislation 
was submitted to parliament.  He then was in Lima, Peru, with 
the Andean Community members April 24-25.  Four of the five 
states are in good shape.  Bolivia established its NA in the 
Ministry of Defense and had draft implementing legislation of 
surprisingly good quality.  Passage is expected in the next 
three or four months.  Peru modeled its legislation on that 
of the UK, incorporating its private sector into its NA.  Its 
draft implementing legislation is finalized.  The remaining 
unresolved issue is privileges and immunities: by law Peru 
can only issue visas for one year, not the required two. 
 
¶9.  (U) Colombia anticipates its implementing draft 
legislation will be ready for its legislature in May 2006, 
after elections.  Venezuela also was a happy surprise, with 
an established NA, initial declaration, and already two 
industry inspections.  The Ministries of Justice and Foreign 
Affairs are finalizing the draft legislation.  All that 
remains is the approval of the petroleum industry.  Sadly. 
Ecuador has made little progress.  It has an established NA, 
which has no budget and no people.  Its personnel turned over 
four times this past year, which has impeded progress. 
Ecuador formally asked for TS assistance. 
 
¶10.  (U) Anand Dhavle (IPB) discussed his February 13-15 TAV 
to Tanzania.  Just a year ago, its embassy in Brussels became 
energized on the CWC front, which resulted in attendance at a 
May 2005 TS meeting in Namibia.  As a result of the TAV, 
Tanzania has draft legislation on which OLA is commenting. 
The newly established NA set out its action plan for 
completing its implementation process.  It also will be 
hosting the 4th regional meeting of the National Authorities 
of the Africa Group.  One remaining issue is about to be 
resolved: The ambassador in Brussels needs to be accredited 
to the OPCW. 
 
¶11.  (U) Separately, del reps were advised the GRULAC was 
fighting the U.S. initiative to put the highest priority on 
TAVs for implementation support.  In response, del rep had 
coffee with the Colombian del rep just prior to the Article 
VII consultation, to assure him that the U.S. request was not 
an "either/or;" rather the U.S. is asking was asking for 
additional TAVS.  The U.S. values the role played by meetings 
of the regional and sub-regional NAs, where TS exchanges with 
the one or two attendees from capital are viewed as a useful 
mechanism to obtain progress reports on a states' 
implementation effort.  However, these meetings are not/not 
the way to forward implementation.  TAVs to capitals result 
in meetings of all relevant agencies, where all attendees 
learn of their roles in their NA, and appropriate legislation 
can be drafted.  The Colombian del rep was grateful for the 
 
explanation, acknowledged that the GRULAC had been 
misinformed, and promised to explain the U.S. approach to 
other GRULAC members. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
INDUSTRY/LATE SUBMISSION OF DECLARATIONS 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶12.  (U) Facilitator Larry Denyer (U.S.) presided over his 
first consultation on this topic.  TS officials presented an 
informal paper describing the issue along with the TS Note 
S/567/2006 dated 25 April 2006, and a series of graphs on 
timeliness of annual declarations (faxed back to ISN/CB).  In 
general, timeliness of declarations has improved, but there 
still much work to be done.  Italy asked if the TS had ever 
studied reasons behind the delay, and received a negative 
reply along with speculation that potential causes were 
delays related to the submission of classified materials and 
lack of National Authority capacity, resulting in delays in 
compilation and transmission of declarations. 
 
¶13.  (U) Italy, supported by Australia, China, India, Japan, 
and The Netherlands, requested the TS study the situation and 
present its conclusions to delegations.  India also asked 
whether the majority of the delays were insignificant, e.g., 
one or two days due to transmission issues, or whether 
significant delays were the case, such as one or two months. 
Italy also requested the TS to provide an annual report on 
delays and the underlying causes.  Australia asked for a list 
of states that had not met the deadlines and the date on 
which their declarations were received, as well as a list of 
those states that submitted nothing at all. 
 
¶14.  (U) The UK noted that the CWC sets out clear deadlines 
and wondered if use of the new Verification Information 
System (VIS) might mitigate against some of the delays.  (The 
response was: no, still classified).  Germany, supported by 
Japan, asked whether the delays resulted in significant 
unfairness, i.e., more industry inspections for those who 
submit on time versus those states that delayed.  If so, 
Germany recommended consideration of appropriate 
admonishments for states that do not comply. 
 
¶15.  (U) With respect to working on a nil declaration, 
delegations agreed that this would address one aspect of the 
problem.  Iran raised concerns regarding potential legal 
implications.  Article III specified where nil declarations 
were required (presence/absence CW stockpiles), but Article 
VI purposely avoided such language.  While this would not 
prevent negotiation of such a declaration, delegations must 
carefully consider possible formats and whether it would be 
included in the Declarations Handbook.  Would failure to 
submit a nil declaration be a case of noncompliance?  The 
facilitator noted that the issue of legality had been raised 
with the Legal Advisor, who had no objections.  Several 
states worried that submission of an annual nil declaration 
would burden small NAs with yet another reporting 
requirement.  Switzerland, supported by the UK, demurred, 
saying that the difficult part is reaching out to industry, 
not filling in and submitting a short form. 
 
¶16.  (U) Overall, the first meeting was successful, with 
twenty-six delegations in attendance.  Given the early state 
of play, there was quite a bit of interest and discussion 
during the meeting.  Facilitator will meet with the TS the 
week of May 7 to discuss next steps. 
 
---------------------------- 
INDUSTRY/OCPF SITE SELECTION 
---------------------------- 
 
¶17.  (U) Facilitator Luis Garcia (Spain) held a May 4 
consultation on the issue of OCPF Site Selection Methodology. 
 Garcia's intent was to present corrected calculations for 
his proposal using the most recent scenario (40 states 
colluding against one state).  Admitting that the TS had 
bungled the last set of calculations due to the complexity of 
his proposal, Garcia informed delegations that he now was 
aware that it would be necessary to reduce the proposal's 
 
complexity and that he is considering just how to do this. 
 
¶18.  (U) Delegations unanimously welcomed the decision to 
find a more comprehensible proposal.  Canada, supported by 
China and Iran, noted that the TS would be inspecting sites, 
not states, and recommended focusing on the industry sites. 
Canada also urged Garcia to move ahead quickly to ensure 
delegations agree on a more equitable and efficient selection 
methodology as soon as possible.  Russia, Brazil, India, 
Iran, and Mexico reiterated their strong opposition to 
inclusion of any political element, such as one state 
nominating any other states.  Japan, supported by Norway, 
noted that any proposal will need to maintain elements to 
ensure unpredictability, and noted that it could accept 
geographic and political nominations from States Parties. 
 
¶19.  (U) Garcia, thinking out loud, described a possible way 
ahead.  First, it would be a one-step selection process. 
Second, it would focus on plant sites, not states.  Garcia, 
when asked, would not confirm that he would prepare a new 
paper.  However, he did inform delegations that during the 
week of June 19, he planned to schedule two consultations on 
the methodology. 
 
¶20.  (U) After the consultation, Per Runn (Policy and Review 
Branch) pulled aside del rep to propose an alternative 
approach.  The first step would focus on selection of the 
number of inspections in each state, using the 
0.5sqrt(number) 1 algorithm for both the number of facilities 
and the A14 values.  The second step would allow states to 
participate by submitting requests to the TS such as, "Put my 
points on facilities A, B, and C if Iran is selected, on 
facilities D, E, and F if Germany is selected,..." etc.  That 
would allow states to increase the probabilities of selection 
of individual facilities, assuming that the draw included a 
mandate to inspect one (or two...) facilities in that 
country.  While this is a very attractive proposal, del reps 
suspect that it would not meet the "non-political" criterion 
of Brazil, Iran, India, Mexico, and Russia. 
 
----------------------------- 
INDUSTRY/SCHEDULE 3 TRANSFERS 
----------------------------- 
 
¶21.  (U) Discussion in this consultation centered on the 
latest facilitator's paper (dated March 22), which included 
Iran's comments from the previous meeting.  Many delegations 
asked that much of what Iran requested be removed, and many 
other changes were suggested.  Iran reminded delegations of 
their regional concerns and how the VIR continues to indicate 
that the majority of Schedule 3 transfers to States not Party 
are to one State in their region.  Iran is also convinced 
that, upon review of the discussion from the drafting of VA 
Part VIII para 27, that the five years given to the 
Conference to consider "other measures" was meant to be a 
five-year grace period for these countries to come into the 
CWC, after which they should face a transfer ban.  Thus, they 
see themselves as demonstrating significant flexibility in 
discussing something other than a ban at this time. 
 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
INDUSTRY/LOW CONCENTRATION LIMITS FOR SCHEDULE 2A/2A* 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶22.  (U) Facilitator Steve Wade (U.K.) called a pre-meeting 
for several delegations (France, Germany, Japan, UK, and 
U.S.) to meet with him and Legal Advisor Onate regarding the 
legal interpretation of VA Part VII para 5.  Despite the 
words of Onate, the result of this session seemed to solidify 
the positions of these delegations to the idea that the 
facilitator's proposal is outside the reading of this 
paragraph.  In the consultation, Wade presented the details 
of his latest paper (dated 7 April 2006).  Russia weighed in 
first with concern about the facilitator's paper in light of 
the language of VA Part VII para 5, which was joined by those 
from the earlier discussion.  Canada stated that it felt that 
the "onus" was to demonstrate that industrial recovery of 
PFIB at a given concentration was "difficult" and that, in 
absence of such a demonstration, the facilitator's proposal 
 
was acceptable. 
 
¶23.  (U) Mohamed Daoudi (IVB) recalled that, during a similar 
discussion for Schedules 2B and 3, there was a general 
consensus that 30 percent addressed the concerns of "ease of 
recovery" across the board, regardless of total weight.  Del 
questioned why the fact that the set of chemicals was much 
smaller meant that this same type of approach would not be 
considered sufficient.  Italy still supports the 
facilitator's proposal; it also requested a written opinion 
from LAO on the language of VA Part VII para 5. 
 
--------------- 
CONFIDENTIALITY 
 
SIPDIS 
--------------- 
 
¶24.  (U) Facilitator Betsy Sanders (U.S.) held a May 2 
informal consultation on the situation regarding the 
classification of information.  Iran continued to obstruct 
progress, but this time, India did not join support Iran's 
efforts.  Although the substance of the discussion is agreed, 
the way ahead remains deadlocked.  Iran insists that the 
decisions must be implemented via EC report language, in 
order to institute recommended changes right away.  France, 
Germany, Japan, Ireland, and the TS supported finalizing the 
draft decision text, which would carry more weight and 
provide States Parties not involved in the negotiations the 
relevant background underlying the decisions. 
 
¶25.  (U) Ireland, supported by Germany, recommended that 
delegations support both approaches: report language to 
ensure that recommendations are implemented right away; 
decision language to record the will of the Executive Council 
to be endorsed by the Conference.  The facilitator also 
distributed draft EC report language, requesting the TS to 
distribute to National Authorities the Confidentiality 
Supplement to be included in the Declarations Handbook as an 
annex.  The facilitator asked delegations to provide concerns 
and suggestions by May 10. 
 
¶26.  (U) Iran noted that the substance is delegations' 
request that the TS include presentations by OCS experts on 
classifying and handling documents segments in workshops, 
seminars, and annual meetings of National Authorities.  In 
short, this amounts to EC meddling in internal TS management 
issues.  Unless and until someone presents a satisfactory 
explanation for use of a decision instead of report language, 
Iran will not budge.  Furthermore, the draft decision as it 
stands mixes elements.  The preamble combines language from 
Review Conference, the OPCW Policy on Confidentiality, and 
informal information papers provided by the TS at the request 
of delegations (this argument swayed no one), arguing that 
this mix provided confusion, not clarity.  Once again, the 
facilitator was unable to achieve consensus on a way forward. 
 
¶27.  (U) Javits sends. 
ARNALL