VZCZCXYZ0008
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1103/01 1591440
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 081440Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9417
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 001103 
 
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): SCENESETTER FOR 
49TH OPCW EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION 
 
 
This is CWC-53-07. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (U) Two issues will likely dominate the June 26-29 EC 
session: Albanian and Russian CW destruction.  If Albania 
does not complete destruction by the start of the EC, there 
is every reason to expect that Iran will again be on a 
mission to generate a precedent that can be used against the 
U.S. in 2012.  Russia will undoubtedly push the envelope to 
get the clearest possible statement, particularly in the EC 
report language, that it has completed "destruction" of 20% 
of its stockpile.  With regard to other issues, the Director 
General will have only just released his proposed 2008 
budget, so that will draw little more than initial 
commentary.  End Summary. 
 
------- 
ALBANIA 
------- 
 
¶2. (U) Exactly how the issue of Albania's CW destruction will 
play out will be largely determined by what percentage of 
their stockpile has been destroyed as of the start of the EC. 
 However, there is no doubt that if destruction has not been 
completed, it will be one of the biggest issues of EC-49, 
primarily because any measures applied to Albania will be 
scrutinized closely (especially by Iran) as a possible 
precedent for the U.S. in 2012.  The conclusion of EC-48 set 
a fairly positive precedent, with report language that simply 
called upon Albania to keep the EC informed and complete 
destruction as soon as possible. 
 
¶3.  (U) There seems to be general agreement in WEOG, 
particularly among the Close Allies, that similar action on 
the part of the EC is the most appropriate path for EC-49. 
Russia has informally indicated that report language should 
be adequate, but it is doubtful that will be satisfactory to 
Iran unless finally offered on Iranian terms as an eleventh 
hour concession.  Del will work with like-minded delegations 
with a view to crafting report language that could be 
circulated in advance by another State Party.  Del will also 
work closely with the Albanian delegation to encourage their 
active participation, particularly in reaching out to 
like-minded SPs in the run-up to the EC. 
 
------------------- 
RUSSIAN DESTRUCTION 
------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) The facility agreements and verification plans for 
Maradykovsky and Newport (revised to include information on 
the secondary treatment facility) will be considered by 
EC-49.  Delegation understands that with the exception of a 
few minor technical concerns, the primary basis for 
requesting deferral of the Maradykovsky documents will be the 
fundamental difference in understanding of where credit 
should be granted.  Del fully expects that the Newport 
changes will be blocked in return.  Although the material 
impact of deferral is minimal, what will need to be handled 
more delicately will be the TS presentation of destruction 
figures, whether in the destruction informals or the EC 
session itself. 
 
¶5.  (U) At EC-48, the DG was careful to report agent at 
Maradykovsky as "neutralized."  Since then, he appears to 
have taken a more definitive stance on end-point of 
destruction, particularly regarding the Russian 20% 
intermediate deadline.  Del understands that the UK and 
Germany do not intend to question any claims that Russia has 
achieved its 20% milestone, and that Paris is considering its 
position in light of UK and German views.  (However, del does 
expect Berlin to require deferral of the Maradykovsky 
documents, primarily as a non-confrontational way to postpone 
the EPOD debate.)  Canada and Ireland have also privately 
expressed its view that the political damage that could be 
caused by questioning this accomplishment would far outweigh 
 
any benefit gained by adhering to a stricter counting 
procedure. 
 
------------ 
AGENDA ITEMS 
------------ 
 
¶6.  (U) As the annotated agenda has not yet been distributed, 
the following are the items noted in the EC-49 provisional 
agenda (EC-49/2/Rev.1, 25 May 2007), using the internal 
numbering in that document. 
 
¶1.  (U) Opening of the Session: The new EC Chair is 
Philippine Ambassador Romeo A. Arguelles. 
 
¶2.  (U) Adoption of the Agenda: No problems anticipated. 
 
¶3.  (U) DG's Statement: Del will forward the text once it 
becomes available. 
 
¶4.  (U) General Debate: Del has sent Washington a draft 
statement by Ambassador Javits. 
 
¶5.  (U) Status of implementation: 
 
5a. (U) Detailed plans: See summary for detailed commentary 
on Maradykovsky and Newport. 
 
5b. (U) Conversion of CWPFs. 
 
5c. (U) Report on Destruction Progress: Del has confirmed 
that the DG issues his report on progress made in SPs that 
have been granted an extension to their Category 1 CW 
destruction deadlines at alternating sessions, so this 
particular source of Iranian mischief should not come up 
again until EC-50.  As usual, del anticipates most possessor 
states will provide a brief update from the floor on this 
agenda item.  It is critical that Albania provide an 
articulate and comprehensive overview of its destruction 
program under this agenda item. 
 
5d. (U) OCW: In accordance with EC-48 report language, the TS 
has issued EC-49/S/3, a brief overview of the OCW transport 
and destruction that occurred between Austria and Germany 
17-19 April 2006. 
 
5e. (U) Article VII: In his May 22 consultation, facilitator 
Kimmo Laukenen (Finland) announced that he would hold another 
consultation prior to EC-49 but after the TS distributes its 
progress report.  Although the on-line (external server) 
report by the TS was last updated on May 23, no formal DG 
Note on Article VII status has been issued to date for EC-49. 
 No word has been received on whether the facilitator will 
follow through with an additional consultation before the EC. 
 
5f. (U) Article X: During the last EC, the U.S. asked the UK 
to defer the Status of Implementation of Article X Report 
(EC-48/DG.13) so delegations could discuss it in 
consultations.  Consultations were held on June 6, and the 
del anticipates the report will gain approval at this EC 
session. 
 
5g. (U) Article XI: There still seems to be ambiguity about 
whether China has offered up a facilitator for Article XI. 
Del will keep Washington informed. 
 
5h. (U) Facility Agreements: Addressed above. 
 
5i. (U) Challenge Inspection:  The last report on TS 
readiness to conduct a challenge inspection was issued for 
EC-46.  Del anticipates this new report (EC-49/DG.11) will 
cover the most recent TS no-notice tabletop exercise. 
 
5j. (U) Approved Inspection Equipment: A DG Note was issued 
on April 5 (EC-49/DG.2) regarding revisions to the 
specifications of approved inspection equipment.  Similar to 
what was done in EC-48, these items are sampling and analysis 
related - sample collection kit items, GC/MS components, and 
a chemical reagent.  As these types of changes were approved 
 
without discussion during EC-48, a similar outcome is 
expected during EC-49. 
 
5k. (U) 2006 Verification Implementation Report:  After 
extremely late consideration of the VIR last year, the TS has 
returned to past practice of holding consultations prior to 
the summer EC.  Consultations will be held June 12; 
delegation will submit written comments when received, and 
work with the TS in advance of consultations to resolve 
discrepancies in numbers of inspections and amounts of agent 
declared and destroyed. 
 
¶6. (U) Draft report of the OPCW for 2006:  The first 
opportunity to see whether any delegation has any problems 
with the document (EC-49/CRP.1, dated 16 April 16, 2007) may 
be when the new EC Chair holds informal consultations on June 
20 to prepare for the EC.  In the past, Iran has used this 
meeting to declare objections or concerns. 
 
¶7. (U) New Validated Data: The DG issued a Note to the EC 
containing lists of newly validated data for inclusion in the 
OCAD (EC-49/DG.7, dated 7 May 2007), and draft decision text 
has also been circulated (EC-49.DEC.CRP.7, dated 21 May 
2007).  In addition, the data that was presented for 
consideration during EC-48 (EC-48/DG.3, dated 2 February 
2007; EC-48/DEC/CRP.7, dated 23 February 2007) were deferred 
to EC-49.  It has become common practice for some delegations 
to request additional time for their capitals to review the 
data and request deferral. 
 
¶8. (U) Report on implementation of recommendations of Office 
of Internal Oversight and External Auditor: Document not yet 
released. 
 
¶9. (U) Report on OIO for 2006:  There is no indication yet 
whether any delegation will have any concerns regarding this 
report (EC-49/DG.6). 
 
¶10. (U) Office in Africa:  In the absence of a new 
facilitator, there has been no action on this particular 
item. 
 
¶11. (U) Administrative and financial matters: 
 
11a. (U) Regularizing Payment of Dues: Moldova has submitted 
a proposed repayment plan, and Germany has expressed its 
support.  Del understands Washington also supports the 
Moldovan proposal.  The DG has issued a paper (EC-49/DG.8). 
 
11b. (U) Income and expenditure:  The TS has issued 
EC-49/DG.3 and EC-49/DG.3/Corr.1. 
 
11c. (U) Audited financial statements:  The TS has issued 
C-12/DG.2//EC-49/DG.10. 
 
11d. (U) Proposed alignment of OPCW and UN Staff Regulations: 
Per a request from the U.S., the TS has submitted a report on 
this matter indicating an additional cost of 152,000 Euros if 
implemented in 2007.  Del notes that the U.S. abstained on 
this matter when it came up in the UN, and it would be 
difficult not to do likewise at the OPCW.  Instead, del 
recommends that the U.S. simply note that proper management 
requires that this new expenditure must be included in the 
budget, and if that means it is not possible in the 2008 
budget, then it should be implemented as of 2009. 
 
11e. (U) Home leave:  The document has not yet been issued. 
 
11f. (U) Report on tenure policy:  The document has not yet 
been issued. 
 
¶12. (U) Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial 
Matters:  The document has not yet been issued. 
 
¶13. (U) Report of the Scientific Advisory Board: The document 
has not yet been issued. 
 
¶14. (U) Credentials: The document has not yet been issued. 
 
¶15. (U) Provisional Agenda for November CSP: The TS has 
issued CSP12/1/Corr.1//EC-49/DG.9. 
 
¶16. (U) EC Dates in 2008: WEOG completely shared the U.S. 
view that due to the April RevCon, only three EC sessions are 
needed in 2008.  However, there will be explicit language 
noting that this is an exceptional case and that the pattern 
of four ECs will be resumed in 2009. 
 
¶17. (U) Any Other Business: Nothing is anticipated under this 
agenda item at this time. 
 
¶7. (U) Javits sends. 
ARNALL