VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1186/01 1711114
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 201114Z JUN 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 9554
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 001186 
 
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 15 
 
This is CWC-57-07. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
SECOND REV CON: MEETING OF SP AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRY REPS 
--------------------------------------------- ----------- 
 
¶1. (U) On June 11, Amb. Lyn Parker (UK) chaired a meeting of 
States Parties and chemical industry representatives for the 
preparation of the Second RevCon.  In his opening remarks, 
the Director General made mention of: UNSC 1540, the chlorine 
gas attacks in Iraq, the importance of establishing national 
implementation measures (Article VII), the key role industry 
plays in partnerships with the TS and governments, increasing 
numbers of industry inspections (1998-2002: 502 inspections, 
2003-2007: 807 inspections), increasing number of inspectable 
sites (particularly OCPFs: 54 percent increase since 1998), 
TS initiative to change the current OCPF site selection 
 
SIPDIS 
methodology, the ongoing "start-up" period for sampling and 
analysis activities during subsequent Schedule 2 inspections, 
the value of the VIS, and the necessary balance between 
intrusiveness and the object and purpose of the CWC during 
inspections. 
 
¶2. (U) The Technical Secretariat made a series of 
presentations: 
(1) Per Runn discussed industry issues open and resolved 
since the First RevCon; 
(2) Sandor Laza discussed experiences from industry 
declarations; 
(3) Bill Kane presented an overview of implementation 
requirements under VA Parts Vi, VII, VIII, and IX. 
(4) In addition, Jiri Matousek, chairman of the Scientific 
Advisory Board, discussed the activities of the SAB since the 
First RevCon.  (These briefings were faxed back to 
Washington.) 
 
¶3. (U) During the afternoon's open forum, industry reps made 
several formal presentations: 
-- Neil Harvey, WMD Issue Leader for CEFIC (European chemical 
industry trade organization), discussed trade and production 
controls within the EU; 
-- Pietro Fontana, CAS Issue Leader for CEFIC, presented a 
rather disjointed collection of issues - limitations of the 
use of CAS numbers, whether too frequent Schedule 2 
inspections make for an unnecessary overlap to records review 
(given the "3-year look back"), and why the TS reporting on 
converted and destroyed CWPFs does not appear to add up in 
his opinion; and 
-- Dr. Tony Baslock of Contract Chemicals Ltd (also 
representing Chemical Industry Association (UK)) presented a 
number of items coming from their NA Advisory Committee and 
his company's inspection experience. 
-- The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) 
tabled a paper in which they discuss the role of industry in 
the CWC, ICCA support for the CWC, and a number of key ICCA 
positions. 
-- The UK delegation tabled a paper entitled "Technological 
and Structural Developments in the Chemical Industry and 
Their Implications for the CWC."  (All of these documents 
were faxed back to Washington.) 
 
¶4. (U) A few interventions stood out: 
-- The Indian Chemical Council repeated a topic often 
discussed by their National Authority, that of the "inherent 
hierarchy of risk" and the Schedules of chemicals.  (See 
their paper on the OPCW external server.)  She also discussed 
the importance of Article XI and the promotion of free and 
responsible trade, including a possible organization to help 
resolve disputes between SPs.  The Indian NA went on to call 
on the TS to prepare a paper on "lessons learned" from 
verification to date to have a better understanding upon 
which to discuss frequency of inspection and related issues. 
-- CEFIC made at least two comments about the varying mixture 
threshold levels (from 0 to 80 percent) within national 
implementing measures, which the Del read as a clear poke at 
the existing U.S. threshold for Schedule 3.  He also 
expressed concern about how the DG's new OCPF initiative 
would focus more on the largest industries.  In response to 
 
the UK NA paper and the briefing by Tony Bastock, he also 
emphasized that the capability of a reaction system is not 
the issue, but rather its outcome. 
-- The representative from the Chinese NA pointed to the 
successful verification activities to date and asked what the 
focus should be now, pointing to a continuing emphasis on 
Scheduled chemicals rather than OCPFs.  She also questioned 
what role the EC should have in light of the DG's recent 
initiative on OCPF site selection.  She also asked about the 
number of uncertainties, etc. that have come form the various 
inspection types (Schedule 1, etc.).  She also discussed 
briefly their experiences over their inspections at 89 sites 
to date.  She also pointed out a case where a change in the 
organization of a Schedule 2 company resulted in inspections 
during two subsequent years. 
-- The representative from the Korean Specialty Chemical 
industry Association said they had hosted 25 inspections to 
date.  Given that their experience shows that records review 
takes about half of the time and effort within an inspection, 
he questioned whether pre-work by both the NA and the TS 
might speed up the process and conserve TS funds. 
 
¶5. (U) Del rep discussions with Ted Cromwell (American 
Chemistry Council) indicated that he was pleased with the 
event and the opportunity to interact with the Del, the TS, 
and industry colleagues.  He was particularly pleased that 
discussions on the margins with Krzysztof Paturej (Director 
of the Office of Special Projects) resulted in ACC taking the 
lead for the organizing of the industry security forum and 
ICCA taking the lead for the industry verification forum 
within the Industry and Protection Forum in conjunction with 
the 10th Anniversary, to be held in November. 
 
----------------- 
VIR CONSULTATIONS 
----------------- 
 
¶6. (U) The June 12 consultation on the 2006 VIR was 
relatively sedate.  The Del deployed the general aspects of 
guidance (pleased with the increasing quality of the VIR, 
etc.) and said that detailed comments would follow.  Most 
other delegations followed this same pattern.  A few 
delegations - Russia, Japan, and, particularly Germany - made 
more specific comments throughout the review.  Germany 
insisted that the chair (EC Chair, Amb Arguelles of the 
Philippines) prepare a summary of the meeting. 
 
¶7. (U) The UK and Germany made brief interventions about 
their two industry inspections that resulted in 
uncertainties.  India also pointed to their national paper 
from EC-48 during the discussion on their destruction program. 
 
¶8. (U) Iran made two interventions: (1) Given that the 
deadline has passed, would the TS give an update on the 
destruction of CWPFs?  The TS committed to discussing this 
during the upcoming destruction informals, as well as in a 
paper for EC-50.  (2) Requested an update on the cases of 
transfer of Schedule 2 chemicals to a non-State Party.  The 
UK gave the details of their recommendation to their customs 
organization for prosecution.  The TS said that no further 
obligation was required of the SPs.  Iran insisted that the 
UK handle this more seriously and keep the EC informed of 
progress on these cases, as they were legally "breaches of 
the CWC." 
 
¶9. (U) The TS reported that their intention is to produce a 
VIR corrigendum for EC-49, and asked that SPs finalize their 
comments accordingly.  If needed, further corrigenda would be 
produced after that time. 
 
----------------------------------- 
INDUSTRY CLUSTER: LATE DECLARATIONS 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶10. (U) During the previous consultation in April, Iran and 
South Africa, supported by others, requested a paper from the 
TS outlining the history of this issue and how they felt the 
 
SIPDIS 
current facilitator's draft decision text would help resolve 
 
those issues.  Despite their insistence that this could be 
done easily and quickly, the TS did not release this paper 
until June 12 consultation opened.  Even though the revised 
draft decision was prepared back in April, given that the TS 
paper was released so late, the comments by delegations was 
limited to saying that they needed more time for their 
capitals to review the documents. 
 
¶11. (U) Given the unsatisfactory outcome of the consultation, 
the facilitator (Larry Denyer, U.S.) is working to schedule 
an additional meeting to discuss delegations' comments during 
the week of July 9.  This seems the only option to needed 
progress, given that there is only one other formal Industry 
Cluster week in early September before EC-50, the last EC 
before the CSP. 
 
¶12. (U) South Africa consulted privately with the facilitator 
after the meeting.  Even though their industry is small, they 
declare on time and regularly host inspections.  But they 
clearly see their role as protecting the smaller NAs within 
Africa, and they will have great difficulty in accepting the 
concept of "nil declarations."  Given that Iran, India, and 
New Zealand seem to have similar concerns, there is 
significant doubt now that this decision can move forward. 
The current text already includes several concessions that 
many delegations of industrialized SPs would rather not have 
but are willing to allow for the sake of progress.  Further 
concessions would probably kill the decision. 
 
¶13. (U) The facilitator will look at a number of options, 
both short and long-term, to use in the September meetings, 
if the July meetings show no progress. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
INDUSTRY CLUSTER: TRANSFER DISCREPANCIES 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶14. (U) This consultation marked no significant progress on 
this issue.  Although many delegations spoke in favor of the 
current draft decision language (both with and without the 
bracketed text), many other delegations said they require 
more time to get a reaction from their capitals. 
 
¶15. (U) Japan was actually the most vocal in questioning much 
of the current decision text.  Their biggest concern seemed 
to be any additional burden on Schedules 2 and 3 companies. 
They also pointed out the difficulties that arise between the 
Customs Union and the rest of the world, indicating that 
perhaps two options for a solution should be considered 
simultaneously, an idea that drew much concern. 
 
¶16. (U) As they did at the late declarations consultation in 
April, Iran asked the TS to prepare some background material 
to lay out exactly what the current draft decision would do. 
(Note: This delegation seems unwilling to do its own homework 
but rely entirely on the TS to do this.) 
 
¶17. (U) Although the co-facilitators first considered the 
possibility of an additional meeting in July to help make 
progress before EC-50, they later reconsidered and will wait 
until the regularly scheduled meeting, which will probably be 
in early September. 
 
------------------------------------- 
INDUSTRY CLUSTER: OCPF SITE SELECTION 
------------------------------------- 
 
¶18. (U) As was reported previously, the facilitator followed 
through with his threat and canceled his June 13 
consultation.  He also resigned as facilitator for this 
consultation. 
 
------------------------------------------- 
ARTICLE VI: SEQUENTIALS INSPECTIONS AND S&A 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶19. (SBU) Del rep learned from Bill Kane (Head of Industry 
Verification Branch) that planning for a pair of sequential 
 
inspections within the U.S. was "on their radar," certainly 
in 2007.  In discussions with the Swiss NA rep, del rep 
learned that the Swiss have now hosted sequential inspections 
pairing Schedule 3 and UDOC sites, as well as two Schedule 2 
sites.  In these cases, both inspections were completed 
within a week.  The Swiss also reported that they have hosted 
"two" inspections to date this year, one being a pair of 
sequential inspections. 
 
¶20. (U) Del has learned that the TS has now carried out six 
total Schedule 2 inspections incorporating sampling and 
analysis: Switzerland, the UK, China, India, Italy, and the 
Netherlands (earlier this month).  In the June 12 WEOG 
meeting, the Dutch reported on their recent experience. 
Their analysis was performed in "open" mode, which they felt 
was to their advantage, as their felt certain that an 
analysis in "blinded" mode would have resulted in a "false 
positive."  As no further details were given, Del will 
discuss this further with the Dutch delegation. 
 
-------------------------- 
UN-OPCW HIGH-LEVEL MEETING 
-------------------------- 
 
¶21. (U) At a June 15 meeting, most delegations expressed 
support for the Polish-Dutch initiative for the Sep. 27 
UN-OPCW meeting in New York.  Tadeusz Chomicki, Deputy 
Director in the Department for Security Policy in the Polish 
MFA, and Henk-Cor van der Kwast, head of the nonproliferation 
desk of the Dutch MFA, provided the briefing to delegations 
about the high level meeting. 
 
¶22. (U) Chomicki noted that the OPCW will be sending letters 
to NGOs and notes verbale to UN member states to drum up 
support for the event. The Dutch and Polish Foreign Ministers 
will definitely attend, and they hoped other delegations 
would press for Ministerial attendance. They will brief 
delegations in early September on the state of preparations. 
DG Pfirter and the Regional Coordinators will be invited to 
speak. 
 
¶23. (U) France started the Q&A session by expressing support 
for the proposal and asking about the agenda. Chomicki 
replied that this is still being considered. He noted that 
the date was selected because there are no other events 
scheduled at the UN. He emphasized that it will be a public 
event with the press in attendance, and that there would be a 
press conference after the meeting. France suggested inviting 
the Chair of the 1540 Committee, and Chomicki thought that 
was a good suggestion. India asked about the intent behind 
the meeting and asked specifically about the reference in 
written material to "renewed commitment to multilateralism." 
Chomicki replied that, frankly speaking, there had not been 
many successes in recent years in the disarmament field. This 
meeting is an effort to strengthen efforts in this area. 
 
¶24. (U) Iran then made its move, first asking if this was a 
Dutch-Polish proposal to have a meeting or an announcement to 
delegations that this is going to happen. Chomicki replied 
that this is a proposal from the two countries and they were 
not seeking OPCW approval. However, to make it a success, 
they certainly needed support from other SPs. Iran then said 
that if this is being done in the name of the OPCW, the 
Netherlands and Poland alone should not speak for all 
delegations. There had been no discussion on this step, and 
Iran knew of no basis for this meeting to be arranged. 
 
¶25. (U) While stating that this does not mean Iran 
necessarily opposes the idea, it did want to make sure it was 
procedurally correct. Iran added, however, that it did not 
approve of having delegations face a "pre-cooked resolution 
text" to be approved on Sep. 27. Chomicki replied that the DG 
had raised this idea at CSP-11 and there had also been 
mention of it in a TS note. The Dutch and Poles had simply 
picked up on the invitation to make this happen. Chomicki 
emphasized that this is a 10th anniversary event and, in that 
respect, is not strictly an OPCW event. 
 
¶26. (U) Australia came in and said that UN delegations 
arrange meetings like this all the time in New York and that 
Poland and the Netherlands were perfectly within their right 
to set up this event. Del rep came in to say that the U.S. 
supported the meeting, appreciated the Poles and the Dutch 
taking the initiative, and totally agreed with Australia on 
the procedural issue. Pakistan, Spain and Switzerland 
expressed support for the meeting. 
 
¶27. (U) Iran came back again, saying there had never been any 
mention of a UN-OPCW high level meeting. They added that 
there is a difference between a seminar scheduled by 
delegates at the UN and an OPCW-UN high-level meeting. Use of 
that title carries certain connotations, and is important. 
South Africa came in to support the Iranian point on the 
title of the meeting, stating that it carries a certain 
formality. The South African FM could not sign on to a 
document from such a meeting without ensuring that it fully 
supported all of the text. A high-level event carries 
particular weight, and it would be important to check on the 
procedural requirements. Chomicki replied that the drafters 
of the proposed resolution had worked to stay within the 
parameters of the annual document which came out of the First 
Committee. 
 
¶28. (U) Germany expressed support for the meeting, and 
expressed concern that a positive substantive step was being 
challenged on procedural grounds. Perhaps a modification of 
the title of the event and to the resulting document would 
assuage Iranian concerns. Austria expressed support for the 
German proposal. Cuba intervened three times to basically say 
that it will need to go to Havana to seek guidance and will 
also stay in touch with NAM delegations in New York. 
 
¶29. (U) At the end of the session, Chomicki and van der Kwast 
made the effort to talk to Iran, which was working to stir up 
support from other NAM delegations. However, the general 
feeling among WEOG delegations and TS staff seemed to be that 
while Iran would continue to raise questions and make things 
difficult, they could be mollified with the types of small 
face- saving measures proposed by Germany, and the 
Dutch-Polish meeting certainly would take place. 
 
¶30. (U) Javits sends. 
SCHOFER