VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1061/01 1561244
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 051244Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9363
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 001061 
 
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 LEDDY 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR THE 
WEEK ENDING JUNE 1 
 
This is CWC-50-07. 
 
------------------------------- 
DG PAPER ON OCPF SITE SELECTION 
------------------------------- 
 
¶1.  (U) With regard to the Director General's paper dated May 
25, the delegation notes that most of the text addresses the 
history of selection from the TS perspective, and its 
rationale for making the changes.  There basically were two 
options: a two-step method analogous to what is currently 
being done and a one-step process.  Both have pros and cons. 
 
¶2.  (U) A two-step process with the first step selection of 
the number of inspections in each State Party with 
probability proportional to 1   0.5 sqrt (#OCPFs) has the 
advantage that states with inspectable OCPFs can have a feel 
for their expected number of annual inspections.  However, it 
would not take into account whether the SP has facilities 
judged highly relevant to the CWC.  The second step would 
randomly choose the facilities to be inspected using 
probability proportional to 1   0.5 sqrt (A14), but in the 
event that the SP has only low relevance facilities, it would 
be able to select only low "value" sites. 
 
¶3.  (U) The one-step process presented has the disadvantage 
that SPs will not be able to consistently predict their 
expected number of inspections.  The advantage to the TS is 
that the selection is a function of both the number of 
facilities and the facilities' relevance, meaning that the 
inspections will focus on the states with large, relevant 
industries (this will impact Japan more than the U.S.). 
 
¶4.  (U) Finally, the TS proposal continues some of the less 
desirable elements incorporated into the current method, such 
as resampling a mere five percent of sites yet to be 
selected.  While noting that over half of the SPs have had at 
least half of their facilities inspected (and 17 SPs have had 
all of them inspected), this means that the burden on SPs 
with large industries (Germany, UK, Italy, Japan, U.S. and 
China) will eventually be providing 95 per cent of the 
inspections. 
 
¶5.  (U) With regard to the new proposal from facilitator Luis 
Garcia (Spain), the delegation view is that it has become 
even less acceptable.  First, the facilitator has accepted 
the NAM/German view that the anonymous list can include only 
the number of subsites and the product group code (see 
Verification Annex IX Section C, para 4).  In a nod towards 
those states wanting more site information, he has included 
the TS assessment of whether the site is highly, moderately 
or less relevant to the CWC.  This makes it impossible to 
make reasonable selections. 
 
¶6.  (U) Second, the facilitator has put a limit of five 
points on the facility selections, requiring SPs to choose at 
least 20 facilities.  Given that this is an anonymous, 
uninformative list of facilities, the delegation sees no 
reason why a state could not choose to put 50 points on a 
given site.  There is no reason to further "protect" 
facilities from selection.  Third, the required 40 states 
needed to make nominations before the TS must take them into 
account is a pretty large number, over half of the states 
with declarable OCPFs.  While one could possibly live with 
it, the del sees it as a third strike. 
 
¶7.  (U) The facilitator asked if the U.S. could join 
consensus on his proposal, and del rep replied that this was 
absolutely not possible. 
 
---------- 
ARTICLE XI 
---------- 
 
¶8.  (U) In the May 29 WEOG meeting, the Netherlands reported 
that Iran mentioned China's willingness to serve as 
facilitator for a new consultation on Article XI.  France 
confirmed that they had heard the same directly from the 
Chinese delegation. 
 
 
------ 
BUDGET 
------ 
 
¶9.  (U) Also in the May 29 WEOG meeting, the budget 
co-facilitator (Diana Gosens, Netherlands) reported that the 
TS is to release its draft 2008 budget on June 22, the Friday 
 
SIPDIS 
before the EC.  The co-facilitators intend to hold their 
first consultation during the first week of July, the week 
following the EC.  Subsequent meetings would be held after 
the summer break.  Gosens reported that the inspection 
numbers in the draft budget will remain at their 2007 budget 
levels - 200 total. 
 
¶10.  (U) Javits sends. 
GALLAGHER