VZCZCXYZ0015
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1713/01 2611400
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 181400Z SEP 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0300
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 001713 
 
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 SEPTEMBER 14, 2007 
 
This is CWC-77-07. 
 
------------------------------ 
SCENESETTER FOR EC 50: DEJA VU 
------------------------------ 
 
¶1. (SBU) There has been a certain malaise since delegations 
returned from summer holidays, with widespread acceptance of 
the view that there will need to be a special session of the 
Executive Council during the Conference of States Parties to 
pass the budget and perhaps other agenda items.  Alexander 
Khodakov (Secretary to the Policy Making Organs) even 
described the special EC sessions during the CSP as 
now-normal procedure in his presentation to new delegates at 
the OPCW Induction (Orientation) session September 12.  WEOG 
discussion on September 11 assumed a special session would be 
necessary, until budget co-facilitator Diana Gosens of the 
Netherlands asserted that they were trying very hard to 
complete the budget on schedule. 
 
¶2. (SBU) Iran and the NAM are raising issues in several 
different consultations that indicate plans to disrupt EC 
decisions, or perhaps hold some agenda items up unless 
favored programs move forward (such as an action plan for 
Article XI).  The NAM as a body continues to work actively, 
and not just behind the scenes, as evidenced by an EC agenda 
item referencing the Cuban request on behalf of the NAM to 
discuss the DG,s proposal on OCPF site selection.  WEOG is 
working through its coordinator to remove this reference, and 
raise awareness of the precedent being avoided by doing so. 
 
¶3. (U) The reduction in destruction inspection estimates for 
the U.S. and Russia has opened a new but shop-worn point of 
contention over how to re-allocate the money saved from those 
inspections, with WEOG members arguing for more Article VI 
(OCPF) inspections and China and NAM members calling for 
increased international (ICA) assistance (more detail below). 
 Russia has also indicated its intent to block any U.S. 
documents on the agenda, pending approval of its Maradykovsky 
Facility Agreement and Verification Plan. 
 
¶4. (U) Del is working to encourage constructive participation 
at the EC to complete work that can be completed, to save 
precious debate time for important issues to be resolved. 
 
 
-------------------- 
NEW WEOG COORDINATOR 
-------------------- 
 
¶5. (U) Over the summer, the Irish delegation solicited 
nominations on behalf of the WEOG for a new coordinator,  as 
outgoing chair Christer Ahlstrom (Sweden) has assumed new 
bilateral duties and can no longer coordinate the regional 
group.  Annie Mari (France), the sole candidate, was 
unanimously elected at the first WEOG meeting of the fall and 
chaired her first WEOG session on September 11.  She will 
chair an expanded WEOG meeting, including eastern European, 
Japanese and South Korean delegates on September 20, to 
discuss issues of common interest for the upcoming Executive 
Council. 
 
----------------------------------- 
DUTCH CHALLENGE INSPECTION EXERCISE 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶6. (U) In addition to U.S. representative Don Clagett, who 
participated in the observer program for the exercise 
September 10-14, the delegation also attended a more limited 
program of briefings, updates and a site tour of the DSM 
industrial facility in Delft.  Participation was notable; 
much of the Executive Council was represented, which Dutch 
perm rep Amb. Maarten Lak hopes will begin to build support 
for upcoming discussions of the EC role in a challenge 
inspection.  The visitor program was comprehensive, and 
enabled delegations not familiar with challenge inspection 
procedures to gain an understanding of the timeline, 
interactions between inspection team and inspected state 
 
party, and the roles of various parties involved.  The final 
day,s events included a question and answer period. 
Unfortunately, this session was used by NAM States Parties to 
highlight their concerns with the political nature of 
challenge inspections, the possibility of abuse, and to take 
the Dutch to task for not ensuring wide regional 
representation in their observer (as opposed to visitor) 
program. 
 
-------------- 
AMMAN WORKSHOP 
-------------- 
 
¶7. (SBU) Del rep confirmed with OPCW Director of Verification 
Horst Reeps that the TS can support either of the two weeks 
proposed by the U.S. for a follow-up workshop to finalize the 
Iraqi initial declaration, as can the UK.  Japanese 
colleagues have expressed interest in taking a more active 
role in the workshop this time; del has recommended Japan 
coordinate with Reeps on whether additional expertise is 
required.  Del will continue to work with the TS and UK to 
establish a date for the invitation to Iraqi officials and 
follow up with Washington to ascertain the availability of 
key Iraqis for the date selected.  Del will continue to 
encourage prompt, coordinated action on the part of the TS to 
ensure that the upcoming workshop is constructive and geared 
toward completion of the draft declaration. 
 
----------------- 
EC VISIT PLANNING 
----------------- 
 
¶8. (U) Del rep met with delegations of States Parties 
involved in the upcoming EC visit to Anniston.  Del rep 
briefed delegation on the status of preparations to date 
(flight/hotel reservations), reminded participants of their 
individual obligations for flight arrangements and visas, and 
assessed progress being made.  TS Chemical Demilitarization 
Branch officer Gabi Coman-Enescu provided additional 
information to assist with planning, and has offered to brief 
the visiting delegation on the facility layout and basic 
operations and terminology prior to the visit.  Delegations, 
concerns so far seem largely administrative, with the 
exception of the Irish delegation, who recommended in WEOG 
several weeks ago that the WEOG provide input to its regional 
representative on the visit to ensure its concerns and/or 
areas of special interest were addressed.  The UK delegation 
followed up with a list of technical questions on Anniston, 
which have been forwarded to Washington.  Del expects that as 
the visit draws closer, regional groups may become more 
engaged, and will report any developments to Washington. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
 
¶9.  (U) On September 13, Kimmo Laukkanen (Finland) chaired a 
meeting on Article VII.  Amb. Onate (TS Legal Adviser) 
presented the latest report on the status of implementation 
of Article VII (EC-50/DG.10, dated 7 September 2007).  He 
also highlighted a few new items that will be dealt with in a 
corrigendum before the start of the Executive Council, 
including: Cambodia has established its National Authority; 
Kiribati and Qatar have submitted legislation to their 
parliamentary bodies; and Sri Lanka has submitted new 
legislative elements in a hope to make their legislation 
comprehensive.  Except for clarifying questions, there was no 
discussion from delegations.  Because of this, the 
facilitator decided that delegations needed more time to 
review the report and intends to hold another meeting on 
September 17.  Korea made the only substantive comment, 
expressing serious concern for those States Parties who have 
not submitted initial declarations.  Amb. Onate echoed these 
concerns and discussed how simple the process for initial 
declarations is for non-possessor states. 
 
---------- 
ARTICLE XI 
 
---------- 
 
¶10. (U) On September 12, Li Hong (China) chaired his second 
consultation on the topic of Article XI.  Iran and others 
were quick to raise the idea of an action plan for Article 
XI.  Others, like Mexico (who was a co-facilitator for 
drafting the decision taken at CSP-10 (C-10/DEC.14, dated 11 
November 2005)) stopped short of calling for an action plan 
but clearly indicated that action was needed and that the 
previous decision fell short of completeness because of 
compromise.  Perhaps knowing how unpopular an action plan is, 
Iran proposed that a decision be taken at CSP-12 to follow-up 
on and that the elements of the action plan could be laid out 
later.  Many delegations expressed their objection and strong 
concern about such a plan, asking how it was different from 
C-10/DEC.14.  Australia proposed that the upcoming Review 
Conference (RevCon) be used as a platform to discuss progress 
from C-10/Dec.14 and whether an action plan was warranted, 
noting that this led to successful results for Article VII 
and universality coming out of the First RevCon.  Korea 
questioned the utility of an action plan for Article XI, 
noting that there were no easily quantifiable goals as there 
were for Article VII and universality.  Despite the 
objections, the Chinese facilitator committed to bilaterally 
float whatever decision text any delegation (i.e., Iran) 
might forward him.  Del rep asked the procedural question 
about how such a decision could be achieved at the CSP, given 
that the EC is just two weeks away and EC approval is 
necessary before going to the CSP.  To this, the Iranian 
delegate pointed out that a special session of the EC could 
be called on the margins of the CSP to tidy all of this up. 
 
¶11. (U) There was also some discussion about the 
international cooperation and assistance (ICA) work carried 
out by the TS and various States Parties.  South Africa and 
others asked how we could better measure the effectiveness of 
these efforts so that they can be improved over time. 
 
¶12. (U) In an interesting exchange near the end of the 
meeting, Cuba made an impassioned plea for moving this work 
forward, particularly given the delay in getting started.  A 
few minutes later, Cuba took the floor again and read a 
statement on behalf of the NAM that was fairly general but 
called for an action plan, in light of the success of such 
action plans for Article VII and universality.  The Tunisian 
delegate intervened shortly thereafter and reminded the group 
that an action plan could not be launched without consensus 
of the entire group, &including all NAM States Parties.8 
Clearly, she was not consulted about the NAM statement that 
Cuba read, and she was angry.  In fact, an exercised 
discussion amongst NAM delegates continued after the close of 
the meeting. 
 
------------------------ 
FREQUENCY OF INSPECTIONS 
------------------------ 
 
¶13. (U) On September 13, Amb. Dastis (Spain) held a 
consultation on the topic of risk assessment and frequency of 
inspection.  The Director General first took the floor to 
apologize for problems that occurred, preventing complete 
distribution of the TS papers of 25 and 28 May 2007.  Bill 
Kane (Head, IVB) gave a very thorough overview of these two 
documents.  Because of the lack of preparation time for some 
delegations, Amb. Dastis announced that another meeting would 
be held on September 21. 
 
------------------------------------ 
INDUSTRY CLUSTER ) LATE DECLARATIONS 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶14. (U) On September 11, del rep (Larry Denyer) chaired a 
consultation on the topic of &late declarations.8  The 
focus of the meeting was new draft decision text that was 
produced with the assistance of the Canadian and Mexican 
delegations.  Nearly all of the delegations who spoke were in 
favor of this &rather modest8 compromise text, despite 
their early preference for annual nil declarations. 
 
 
¶15. (U) Although acknowledging that this text moved in the 
right direction, Iran still had concerns about the 
significance of the initial declarations problem, any call 
for &deadlines,8 how to target those whose delay is the 
most significant, etc.  This resulted in another statement 
from Russia about those States Parties who are in violation 
of the treaty and how this could be dealt with. 
 
¶16. (SBU) The South African delegate told del rep in advance 
of this meeting that he expected at least one delegation to 
purposely slow down progress on this decision as a means to 
larger gains.  In del rep,s estimation, Iran is working to 
hold this decision, together with the budget and other 
valuable decisions, as bargaining leverage for an Article XI 
decision calling for an action plan. 
 
¶17. (U) Given the ongoing dynamics, del will continue to work 
with interested delegations to see if a way forward can be 
identified. 
 
------------------------------- 
2008 BUDGET CONSULTATIONS ) ICA 
------------------------------- 
 
¶18. (U) On September 12, Diana Gosens (Netherlands) chaired 
the third consultation on the DG,s Draft Programme and 
Budget for 2008.  The topic for the discussion was Programme 
3 (International Cooperation and Assistance). Several 
questions were raised, some in great detail.  South Africa 
and others expressed concern about the inclusion of two legal 
officers (LAO staff) in this budget program and how that 
might indicate adequate (and even increasing) funding to this 
program, when in fact it is not directed at areas under 
Articles X and XI.  The DDG was quick to state that this was 
a management call, as these lawyers are working exclusively 
on Article VII implementation.  China was the first to say 
that perhaps some Articles need not always be a priority 
(meaning Article VII).  South Africa also asked for more 
detail on the break-out of several line items (e.g., research 
projects, support for National Authorities), presumably as a 
vehicle to measuring progress and quality of these programs. 
 
---------------------------------------- 
2008 BUDGET CONSULTATIONS ) OTHER ISSUES 
---------------------------------------- 
 
¶19. (U) Following the brief consultation on the External 
Relations Division on September 14, the DDG reported on the 
budgetary impact of U.S. and Russian reductions in 
inspections, estimating that EUR 570,000 would be available 
for other purposes, if the present ZNG budget is maintained. 
He presented four proposals for possible reallocation of the 
funds within Chapter 1 of the budget, including (a) increased 
sampling analysis, (b) increased training for inspectors, (c) 
increased Article VI inspections by 10 for a total of 210, or 
(d) purchase of additional inspection equipment.  After the 
TS asked for  informal reactions, the debate demarcated 
 
SIPDIS 
clearly between WEOG delegations supporting increased 
inspections, particularly of OCPFs, and the Chinese and NAM 
delegations rejecting any increase in inspections, preferring 
the money go to increased ICA efforts. 
 
¶20. (U) The DG is expected to release a revised budget 
proposal by September 19. 
 
JAVITS SENDS. 
Arnall