VZCZCXYZ0024
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1905/01 2901444
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 171444Z OCT 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0545
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 001905 
 
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 TWO 
WEEKS ENDING OCTOBER 12, 2007 
 
This is CWC-81-07. 
 
------------------------------------------ 
PREPARATIONS FOR THE EC VISIT TO ANNISTON 
------------------------------------------ 
¶1. (U) On October 2, Del Reps were invited to join the 
Executive Council Bureau meeting to answer questions on the 
upcoming visit to the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal 
Facility.  Gabrielle Coman-Enescu of the Technical 
Secretariat also attended for the same purpose.  The 
 
SIPDIS 
Ambassadors had few questions other than on logistics.  The 
Russian delegate noted their intention to ask about meeting 
destruction deadlines.  The Algerian ambassador asked about 
press coverage; before anyone had a chance to respond, the 
Russian delegate stated there should be &no press.8  The 
Director General offered a TS briefing before the visit to 
the EC Chairman.  The DG also offered TS support in drafting 
the report of the visit and noted that the EC members on the 
visit and the U.S. should all see the draft text of the 
report before it is finalized.  A final briefing before the 
visit is planned for October 18. 
 
---------------- 
AMMAN WORKSHOP 
---------------- 
¶2. (SBU)  Del Rep continues to coordinate with the Technical 
Secretariat, UK and Japanese delegations on arrangements for 
 
SIPDIS 
the workshop with Iraq, now set for October 28 ) 31.  Iraqi 
representatives in The Hague were on leave following the end 
of Ramadan so Del Reps were unable to meet with them 
directly, but they had conveyed their government,s initial 
commitment to the workshop to the TS before they disappeared 
on holiday.  Horst Reeps (TS Verification) continues to push 
the U.S. and U.K. to provide imagery. 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
OEWG: PREPARATION FOR THE SECOND REVIEW CONFERENCE 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶3. (U) On October 2, Amb Lyn Parker (UK) chaired a meeting of 
the Open-Ended Working Group on preparations for the Second 
Review Conference (RevCon).  The discussion centered on the 
recommendations included in the preliminary report of the 
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) to the Second RevCon (Annex 2 
of SAB-10/1, dated 23 May 2007), an earlier Iranian proposal 
for a special meeting of experts from capitals with the SAB 
to discuss their recommendations, a review of the June 11 
Industry Forum, and next steps. 
 
¶4. (U) Several delegations made positive statements regarding 
the preliminary SAB report and its recommendations.  In 
particular, several WEOG delegations had positive reactions 
to SAB comments on the increasing importance of the &general 
purpose criteria8 and OCFP verification in a time of 
technology change, a comprehensive OPCW chemical analytical 
database (OCAD) and analytical capabilities (including 
biomedical), and the role of national and international 
societies (i.e., IUPAC).  Although acknowledging the possible 
need to revisit the Schedules of chemicals, Russia stated 
that current effective implementation topics (e.g., timely 
declarations and Article VII) are a higher priority. 
Germany,s position on the SAB comments regarding ricin, 
saxitoxin, and salts, is that they should be reviewed and the 
Schedules expanded if they need to be included.  The 
Netherlands asked a more general question about how to turn 
the SAB,s recommendations into something of policy impact. 
Germany also stressed the importance of seeing a report from 
the DG on the &trial period8 for sampling and analysis 
(S&A) during routine Schedule 2 inspections before deciding 
on future work.  Iran brought up whether the SAB had any 
technology recommendations for possessor States to help in 
accelerating destruction, to which both the Chair and the SAB 
representative responded ) forcing States Parties to look at 
new technologies would require at least a five year 
investigation, which would be of no real use in the much 
shorter term of the 2012 deadline. 
 
¶5. (U) When the Chair opened the discussion on Iran,s 
 
earlier proposal about having a meeting of experts with the 
SAB, not even their South African supporter from the previous 
meeting came to their defense.  Most delegations were 
concerned about the timing for such a meeting, how this might 
be done without budgeted funding for it, etc.  In the end, 
the Chair and the DG committed to looking at the timing for 
the 2008 meeting of the SAB to see if it could be scheduled 
before the RevCon and could accommodate an informal 
&encounter8 with delegations. 
 
¶6. (U) In general, delegations were very positive about the 
June 11 Industry Forum and the opportunity it gave for 
interaction between industry representatives and delegations 
from various States Parties.  Some delegations reiterated the 
points their industries made during the Forum, including fair 
approach to inspection implementation, limited role of OPCW 
in chemical control, hierarchy of risk, and quality of OCPF 
declarations.  South Africa acknowledged that, despite the 
advance notice of this Forum, the geographical distribution 
of industry representatives was not ideal. 
 
¶7. (U) Finally, the Chair laid out the overall plan for the 
next few months.  He provided at this meeting the Chairman,s 
proposed outline of the RevCon report, which he intends to 
discuss at the next meeting (October 16).  Based on input at 
that meeting, a revised draft will be distributed in January, 
along with a draft political statement. 
 
--------- 
ARTICLE X 
--------- 
 
¶8. (U) Jitka Brodska (Czech Republic) chaired an informal 
consultation on Article X on October 9.  Genadi Lutay 
(Assistance and Protection Branch) provided information 
regarding the Article X, para 7, Offers of Assistance, 
describing the options available and a breakdown of how 
States Parties have responded.  He stressed the need to 
encourage use of the unified format for reporting 
declarations. He noted that only one bilateral agreement 
exists to date and expressed the Technical Secretariat,s 
desire for more bilateral agreements. 
 
¶9. (U) Protection Network.  Kristina Rodriguez (Special 
Projects) discussed the history of the Protection Network and 
its current composition.  She clarified that its role is to 
provide advice and assessment, and lecture and inform.  A 
meeting of the Protection Network is planned for September 
¶2008. 
 
¶10. (U) Qualified Experts.  Ervin Farkas (Assistance and 
Protection Branch) informed delegates of the plan to 
establish a core group of experts, providing training and 
equipment and ensuring readiness by 2008. He pointed out that 
the role of the experts would be specific according to their 
area of expertise and that their terms of employment would be 
similar to that of a special services agreement. 
 
¶11. (U) Readiness.  Ervin Farkas also made a presentation 
with information regarding inspections of unilateral offers. 
He stated that the Technical Secretariat plans to inspect all 
forty States Parties with unilateral offers by the end of 
¶2009.  China questioned the selection method, to which Farkas 
responded that there was an effort to ensure some 
geographical distribution.  He also pointed out that 
geographical gaps exist that could result in delays in 
delivery of equipment in an emergency. 
 
¶12. (U) Iran made a request that the Technical Secretariat 
clarify to States Parties what further equipment is needed. 
The Iranian delegate also pointed out that Iran has a long 
standing request for the issue of providing assistance to 
victims of chemical weapons to be brought in under Article X. 
 Brodska agreed to discussion on this topic at a later date. 
 
---------- 
ARTICLE XI 
---------- 
 
 
¶13. (U) On October 10, Li Hong (China) chaired a consultation 
to draft recommendations for the upcoming CSP on the 
implementation of Article XI.  The text for discussion was 
distributed the afternoon before the meeting and most 
delegations were seeing the text for the first time during 
the meeting.  As a result, no delegation had guidance from 
capital, and the meeting became one of superficial editing 
rather than substance.  Although the facilitator,s text 
relies heavily on text from past decisions, many elements are 
abbreviated and taken out of context.  Because of the wording 
of the facilitator,s text, many delegations assumed that the 
goal was a decision for the CSP, a fact that Cuba and others 
tried to leverage into agreement to do so. 
 
¶14. (U) The issue of real disagreement was whether some type 
of action plan is needed to move this work forward.  The 
facilitator tried, in his text, to give two options: (1) a 
&Roadmap8, and (2) a &plan of action.8  Even though many 
NAM delegations spoke in favor of an action plan, many other 
delegations questioned whether either of these options was 
needed.  The Canadians were very helpful in reminding 
delegations of the balance that was achieved in C-10/DEC.14 
and the extensive detail it contained on needed actions. 
This allowed Del Rep and other delegations to intervene and 
support the idea of using C-10/DEC.14 as our outline for 
ongoing work. 
 
¶15. (U) The facilitator planned to produce another draft and 
call another consultation soon. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
 
¶16. (U) On October 10, Del Reps met with TS Legal Adviser 
Onate regarding current status of Article VI target States 
Parties (SPs), particularly the &20-in-108 SPs (i.e., those 
with chemical industries who have not as yet met their 
Article VII obligations).  Amb Onate agreed with our general 
assessment of the status of these SPs and was supportive of 
our initiative to reach out to those in most need of our 
focused assistance.  He also agreed to continue to work with 
us in this effort and provide insights into avenues that 
might provide the greatest results. 
 
¶17. (U) That afternoon, Kimmo Laukkanen (Finland) chaired a 
consultation to work on a draft decision for the upcoming 
CSP.  As the facilitator,s draft had changed significantly 
from that reviewed during EC-50, Del Rep and other 
delegations expressed surprise that the earlier text (which 
many favored) had been abandoned.  Given that another meeting 
will be held on October 15, most delegations were clearly 
saving their thoughts for the next meeting.  Del Rep pointed 
out some of our biggest concerns with the new texts, while 
expressing appreciation for some additions (i.e., paragraph 
6) which were clearly added to address our preferences. 
Other delegations also express favor for paragraph 6 and its 
further focusing of the effort.  Del Rep forwarded the 
remainder of our comments and textual recommendations to the 
facilitator later in the week. 
 
------------ 
UNIVERSALITY 
------------ 
 
¶18. (U) On October 5, Said Moussi (Algeria) chaired a 
consultation to review a draft decision for the upcoming CSP 
on universality.  At the beginning of the meeting, Moussi 
circulated a new draft incorporating some of the changes 
raised at the previous consultation (ref CWC 78-07).  While a 
number of delegations suggested editorial and formatting 
changes, Iran stood out for suggesting a number of additions 
to the text.  Most of the text proposed by Iran came directly 
from the CSP-10 decision on universality (CSP-10/DEC.8), 
rather than the most recent decision adopted by CSP-11 
(CSP-11/DEC.11). 
 
¶19. (U) Many of Iran's suggestions focused on adding the 
phrase "in particular those whose non-adherence is a cause of 
serious concern" after "States not Party" in a number of 
clauses.  This prompted several delegations to question 
whether such language was necessary.  Iran's most notable 
suggestion was to add a reference to the transfer of Schedule 
3 chemicals to non-States Parties, borrowing language 
directly from an EC-47 decision on transfers (EC-47/DEC.8). 
As with many of Iran's suggestions, other delegations could 
not see a reason to include this random reference. 
 
¶20. (U) On October 11, Moussi chaired another consultation to 
review paragraph-by-paragraph a revised draft decision on 
universality.  An updated draft had been circulated prior to 
the meeting.  Editorial changes only were suggested for the 
first six preambular paragraphs, with many delegations 
reserving the right to return to these after they received 
final guidance. 
 
¶21. (U) Preambular paragraph 7 resulted in significant 
discussion.  Del Rep pointed out that this referred to 
language from a CSP-11 decision on the transfers of Schedule 
3 chemicals to non-SPs but did so in an incomplete and 
unbalanced way.  Several other delegations joined in, 
pointing out that this text seemed out-of-place.  Iran, as 
expected, wanted to know why it was inappropriate to state 
something that was factual, ignoring the careful balancing of 
language in the Schedule 3 transfers decision. 
 
¶22. (U) Several delegations felt that some of the operative 
paragraphs (e.g., OP1 and OP3) were more appropriate in the 
preamble.  As in the previous meeting, there was considerable 
concern expressed about the repeated use of the phrase 
&...States not Party, in particular, those whose 
non-adherence is a cause of serious concern...8 throughout 
the text. 
 
¶23. (U) True to form, at the end of the meeting, Iran 
suggested the addition of two new operative paragraphs: one 
asking the EC Chairman to contact the non-SPs (much as he did 
under the Article VII decision); and the second asking the TS 
to maintain a rolling report of the status of universality 
(again, as is done under Article VII).  Del Rep, supported by 
other delegations, questioned the appropriateness (and, 
possibly, the legality) of such an action by the EC Chairman 
with countries that are not part of the OPCW, have not been 
involved in his selection as EC Chairman, etc. 
 
¶24. (U) The facilitator will produce another draft and hold 
another consultation on October 18. 
 
-------- 
STAFFDEL 
-------- 
 
¶25. (U) Two staff members from the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee, Thomas Moore (representing Sen. Lugar) and Anthony 
Wier (representing Sen. Biden), visited The Hague, October 
10-12.  They met with the DG, the DDG, and Richard Ekwall 
(the DG's Chief of Cabinet) before having individual 
consultations on Verification and Inspection, International 
Cooperation and Assistance, Human Resources, and Budget. 
Ekwall hosted a dinner for the staffers which gave them an 
opportunity to meet and talk with American citizens and other 
staff working in various capacities in the TS.  The DG also 
hosted a lunch for them with senior management. 
 
¶26. (U) The staffers, final day was spent meeting with the 
Del before having informal conversations with other 
delegations.  They met with Angela Peart (Canadian deputy 
perm rep), followed by Miguel Garcia-Zamudio (Mexican deputy 
perm rep) and Erasmo Lara Cabrera (Mexican legal counsel). 
Amb. Javits also hosted an informal working lunch on October 
12 after his return to The Hague. 
 
¶27. (SBU) A common theme raised throughout their OPCW 
consultations and during their meeting with the Canadian rep 
was the negative impact of delayed payment of the U.S. 
 
assessed contribution.  Moore and Wier questioned the impact 
of the tenure policy on operations.  They expressed 
particular satisfaction with the depth of the information 
they received from the Secretariat, particularly the lengthy 
and detailed sessions with the Verification and Inspection 
divisions. 
 
  JAVITS SENDS. 
Arnall