VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1152/01 1661201
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 151201Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9507
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 001152 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
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 8 
 
 
This is CWC-54-07. 
 
------------------- 
OCPF SITE SELECTION 
------------------- 
 
¶1. (U) In the June 5 WEOG meeting, the facilitator for 
consultations on this issue (Luis Garcia, Spain) announced 
that, in light of the May 25 Note by the DG on the Technical 
Secretariat's initiative in this area, he had asked the 
 
SIPDIS 
Vice-Chair for the Industry Cluster to cancel the June 13 
consultation and begin the process of finding a new 
facilitator.  Many WEOG delegations asked him to reconsider. 
The U.S. Del, along with Canada, emphasized the importance 
that any oral report by Garcia to the EC or EC report 
language stress the EC's desire to return to consider the 
matter of "proposals by States Parties" (VA Part IX, para 
11(c)) at some future point. 
 
-------------------------------------- 
WEOG REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION ON EPOD 
-------------------------------------- 
 
¶2. (U) Also in the June 5 WEOG meeting, the chair (Christer 
Ahlstrom, Sweden) reported his discussion with the TS on 
end-point of destruction (EPOD), based on requests from 
France in earlier meetings.  The TS was unwilling to prepare 
a written summary on EPOD without a written request from the 
WEOG.  Generally, the idea of preparing a written WEOG 
request received very little support from delegations 
(especially Canada, the Netherlands and Ireland) given the 
dangers surrounding such an action and the uniqueness of each 
facility agreement.  Annie Mari of France said she was under 
strict orders from Paris to get more details on how this has 
been addressed at each of the destruction facilities, and 
said France would have to address this informally with the TS. 
 
---------------------------- 
ARTICLE VI INSPECTION LEVELS 
---------------------------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) Following the June 5 WEOG meeting, Mari asked del 
reps about inspection levels within the U.S. so far in 2007. 
Apparently, France has yet to host an inspection in 2007. 
This raised concerns in Paris about whether inspections were 
being held at an appropriate level worldwide.  They are also 
concerned that, if the TS intends to carry out its typical 
annual inspection level in France during 2007, the second 
half of the year will be extremely busy.  Del rep shared with 
Mari what was heard from an inspection team leader -- that 
the TS was very busy early in the year carrying out initial 
inspections at a number of newly-declared facilities, many of 
which were in the Middle East. 
 
¶4. (SBU) This led del rep to a similar discussion with the 
Japanese later in the same day.  The Japanese delegate 
(Kiwako Tanaka) reported that Japan has hosted two 
inspections to date -- one Schedule 3, one OCPF. 
 
----------------------------- 
SCHEDULE 2 FACILITY AGREEMENT 
----------------------------- 
 
¶5.  (U) Del presented the TS with the National Authority 
letter confirming that the USG has no additional changes to 
the Schedule 2 facility agreement.  Negotiations on this 
document were concluded in the fall of 2006.  After some 
preliminary grumbling from PMO director Khodakov about this 
"late addition to the EC agenda," he agreed to include it, 
and preparations are underway.  The TS provided del rep draft 
decision language for this action, which follows the pattern 
of other such facility agreements. 
 
------------------------------- 
ARTICLE VII OUTREACH AND THE EU 
------------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (U) Del rep met June 7 with Ronald Munch (Germany) to 
 
discuss the EU Joint Action and corresponding outreach 
efforts on universality and Article VII.  Munch began by 
explaining the various aspects of the EU Joint Action in 
these areas.  He acknowledged the difference between the EU 
technique and that of the U.S.: the U.S. has been more 
willing to approach States Parties (SP) directly to offer 
assistance, whereas the EU has relied on the expertise of the 
TS in targeting this assistance. 
 
SIPDIS 
 
¶7. (U) Munch said that they continue to feel that bilateral 
assistance visits in capitals are the most effective.  Munch 
said that requests the TS receives that would take advantage 
of EU funding would first be screened by the TS and then 
discussed with the EU presidency (currently Germany).  To 
ensure timeliness, he reported that the process would not be 
so formal when the request was for experts from the EU to 
accompany the TS during a visit.  Given the relative newness 
of the EU Joint Action, no such reviews have been held so 
far, although he expected this to happen for the first time 
in July.  Given that Portugal takes over the EU presidency in 
July, and in response to a question from del rep, Munch said 
that this process would continue as he outlined.  He did not 
expect Portugal's less-than-complete status under Article VII 
to impact their ability to carry out this role effectively. 
 
¶8.  (U) Munch did note that Portugal will not complete its 
Article VII parliamentary work before it takes over the EU 
presidency in July.  Although this is of no concern to 
Germany as far as nonproliferation, etc., they still fear 
that this "looks bad."  He encouraged the U.S. to continue 
putting pressure on Portugal, as well as Belgium, to complete 
their parliamentary work. 
 
¶9. (U) Given that many of the "20-in-10" SPs have their 
legislation sitting in parliament, this topic was discussed 
at length.  Munch pointed to the section of the EU Joint 
Action that provided resources to parliamentary outreach. 
Although he thought the TS and the DG specifically were doing 
more in the area of parliamentary outreach, he was concerned 
that the DG might be focusing mainly on those that were 
reaching out to him, which seems to mean more attention in 
the GRULAC.  Del rep proposed, and Munch agreed, that perhaps 
we both could approach the DG quietly to encourage more 
direct outreach by the DG to parliamentarians in the 
"20-in-10" SPs. 
 
¶10. (U) Del rep reviewed in general the bilateral activities 
the U.S. is undertaking, especially in conjunction with other 
events (e.g., SPP, EXBS, CTR), as well as the known efforts 
of other SPs.  Munch said that, even though the EU efforts 
were more reactive, they would be willing to be more 
aggressive in working directly with a SP or asking the TS to 
do so, if the U.S. felt there was an especially significant 
need.  Del rep committed to discuss this with him further, 
outlining exactly what might be done with many of the 
"20-in-10" SPs. 
 
¶11. (U) On universality, Munch reported that their efforts in 
encouraging Angola to participate in the upcoming CWC 
workshop in Algiers might be bearing fruit.  The latest 
information from Angola is that the foreign minister may 
attend. 
 
--------- 
ARTICLE X 
--------- 
 
¶12. (U) Article X consultations were conducted by facilitator 
Jitka Brodska (Czech Republic) on June 6.  Discussion 
centered on the Status of Implementation Report on Article X. 
 During EC-48 the U.S. persuaded the UK to defer action on 
the report (EC-48/DG.13) until consultations could be held to 
discuss the report.  The resulting discussion was 
wide-ranging and thorough, touching on nearly every aspect of 
the Article X.  Gennadi Lutay, Head of the Assistance and 
Protection Branch (APB), said the report had been delayed by 
its size and it required cooperation of other branches. 
 
¶13. (U) Lutay noted there are many requests for courses and 
to satisfy these requests, APB is endeavoring to achieve 
standardization of courses, utilizing TS staff and 
contracting with experts.  Brodska asked when the TS was 
planning another assistance and protection exercise, 
suggesting they find synergy with another entity similar to 
the Ukraine exercise (held in conjunction with NATO).  Lutay 
did not acknowledge the synergy comment, focusing instead on 
limitations, saying exercises can only be done every 3 years, 
and that a member state needs to offer a venue.  He used this 
opportunity to appeal for a volunteer to host the exercise. 
 
¶14.  (U) France reiterated the facilitators theme by asking 
if the TS could see if the OPCW could join an existing 
exercise and what the costs were for the 2005 exercise. 
Lutay only commented that he did not know the cost of the 
Ukraine exercise.  The Netherlands asked about the APB 
training courses: are lessons-learned utilized, are they 
developing computerized learning tools, training trainers. 
The Dutch also wanted to know the ratio of time and money 
going to one SP versus regional training courses.  Lutay said 
efficiency is a big issue, noting even one or two courses are 
not enough to prepare first responders.  They have tried to 
use a "train the trainers" approach, but it is only mildly 
successful. 
 
¶15.  (U) The TS is working on electronic media, but feel 
personalized practical training is more effective.  The new 
Director of International Cooperation and Assistance, Kalimi 
Mworia, said they need to encourage SPs to send the right 
people to courses; people who can invigorate others.  She 
noted that some SPs send policy people over first responders, 
and that is when errors can happen when taking the training 
back home.  Mworia further noted the TS cannot dictate who 
can come to their courses.  South Africa asked if there is a 
framework in which APB activities can build onto each other. 
Lutay said they do so when they can, but it is not generally 
practical. 
 
¶16. (U) One topic that came up in this discussion with Lutay 
and Mworia was creation of a regional capability.  Training 
should be focused on a regional entity with the capability to 
help others.  And make certain they have all the necessary 
equipment available close at hand.  In that case, if the need 
arises for assistance, it can come from highly trained people 
who are in the same geographic region and can get there 
sooner than from Europe or elsewhere.  This was not further 
discussed, but del rep believes this could be the direction 
the TS moves in coming sessions. 
 
¶17. (U) In response to a Chinese query on putting the 
databank on the external server, Lutay said there continue to 
be technical/computer issues between the databank and the 
external server, but they are working on it.  Del rep 
requested earlier submission of the report so delegations 
could review and discuss it prior to approving it in the EC. 
The facilitator said she would make a point to put these 
consultations on next year's schedule. 
 
¶18. (U) On agenda item 2, National Protective Program (NPP) 
submission (Article X, para 4), the facilitator noted the low 
rate of submissions and gave three suggestions to raise 
submission rates. 
-- First, use all APB activities to promote submission. 
-- Second, the facilitator noted regional patterns and 
suggested working that angle. 
-- Third, the facilitator noted the synergy between Article X 
and Article VII.  Brodska said there were 34 Technical 
Assistance Visits scheduled for 2007 and of those 25 have not 
submitted the NPP.  She suggested asking the TAVs to work on 
this during their workshops. 
 
¶19. (U) Italy asked what the TS has done to promote 
submissions -- how are they using the format delegations 
worked so hard to pass in 2004.  Lutay answered by reciting 
their usual practices (mailings, workshops).  Del rep 
suggested e-mailing the form to NAs where possible and echoed 
the facilitators suggestion of having the TAVs provide 
 
information on NPP submissions. 
 
¶20. (U) On agenda Item 3, APB Activities, the TS again went 
over its programs for 2007.  There was no real discussion on 
this topic, but it led into a discussion of Article X, para 7 
offers of assistance.  The TS said the recent letter asking 
for delegations to renew offers is intended to ensure offers 
of equipment and materials offered are still in working 
order.  The TS said it plans to follow up with countries who 
made unilateral offers to see if they could change those into 
bilateral agreements. 
 
¶21. (U) On agenda Item 4, Any Other Business, the UK referred 
to the TS promise to send out letters in January requesting 
updates to the protection network experts list.  The TS said 
they sent out e-mails and had not received much response. 
They further noted they will be hosting a Protection Network 
Meeting in November and hope to be able to have an updated 
list prior to that meeting.  The Netherlands noted that they 
had not received an email and have a number of experts to 
change.  The facilitator said this is obviously an important 
topic and will be discussed in the next meeting.  Tunisia 
said that at a recent APB workshop in their country, there 
was a problem with an inadequate number of translators, and 
requested voluntary contributions toward this expense.  Lutay 
noted they provide translators whenever possible, however 
some training is too complicated to be done with translation. 
 
¶22. (U) The facilitator said consultations would begin again 
in September/October.  Further, she did not think report 
language was necessary for the EC, and no delegation 
disagreed. 
 
¶23. (U) Comment: Del rep has gone to a number of different 
consultations on a variety of issues over the past three 
years.  Some are sparsely attended, but nearly all Article X 
consultations have a wide and diverse attendance, indicating 
that a broad spectrum of SPs place great importance on 
Article X.  Unquestionably, much more could be accomplished 
in Article X meetings, but the sizable attendance is a 
positive sign, as is the fact that there are generally fewer 
efforts by normally obstreperous delegations to block work. 
 
¶24. (U) Ito sends. 
ARNALL