VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1931/01 2971031
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 241031Z OCT 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0596
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 001931 
 
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 OCTOBER 19, 2007 
 
This is CWC-84-07. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
¶1. (U) On October 15, Kimmo Laukkanen (Finland) chaired a 
consultation to draft decision text for the upcoming CSP on 
Article VII.  The meeting was well-attended but not 
productive.  Iran raised two significant points that 
seriously sidetracked discussions: (1) as the EC did not make 
recommendations at EC-50 and has no regular meeting before 
the CSP, the EC does not have a formal way to make 
recommendations in the form of a decision but should rely on 
report language that allows the work of the action plan to 
continue; and (2) in this light, the text should be written 
as generic elements that could be used for either a decision 
or report language at the CSP.  This led to lengthy 
discussions about procedure and very little of substance. 
Del rep presented USG concerns with portions of the current 
text that were covered during the meeting. 
 
¶2. (U) During the October 16 WEOG meeting, this situation was 
discussed.  The Dutch delegation were very firm on the need 
for a decision, stating that Dutch voluntary contributions 
for Article VII assistance and support for a continued EU 
Joint Action would end without a clear indication that the 
OPCW had not suddenly reduced its priority for Article VII 
efforts.  Also, the Germans expressed concern with paragraph 
6 of the current text (giving priority assistance to SPs with 
chemical industries, etc.) because it differentiates between 
SPs in need, something they are looking to avoid in areas 
like universality. 
 
¶3. (U) Because of the lack of progress on October 15, the 
facilitator called another meeting on October 19.  The tone 
was much more productive.  However, it was clear that Iran 
was still making seemingly minor editorial suggestions in 
order to justify having only report language at the CSP that 
calls for work to continue under the Action Plan.  The Dutch 
delegation made the point they had made during the WEOG 
meeting ) no decision, no Dutch voluntary contributions in 
support of Article VII outreach, etc. 
The facilitator scheduled the next meeting for October 25, 
promising a new draft text. 
 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
WEOG DISCUSSION: MANY MOVING PARTS 
-------------------------------------------- 
¶4.  (SBU)  At its weekly meeting October 16, in addition to 
Article VII as noted above, the WEOG discussed the rotation 
of chairmen for the Second Review Conference.  Canada noted 
that legally the Conference chairman would also chair any 
special meeting during the year, including the RevCon.  U.K. 
rep noted that the Review Conference Board has discussed the 
Asian Group taking the chair, with the African 
representative/future CSP chair (Sudan) present and not 
objecting.  Discussion followed on whether a procedural 
decision will be necessary in the CSP, and on possible Asian 
candidates other than Iran ) no one knew of any candidates 
coming forward other than Iran. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  There was also discussion of whether any of the 
ongoing facilitations (Articles VI, VII, X, XI and 
universality) would have agreed language in time for the CSP 
and whether a meeting of the EC would be necessary to approve 
decisions before the Conference.  The TS Legal Advisor had 
advised delegates that a consensus text would not/not require 
a special session of the EC.  Several WEOG delegations 
questioned whether it was desirable to take decisions 
directly to the full Conference, and whether such a procedure 
would not, in fact, undermine the authority and role of the 
EC. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
OEWG: PREPARATIONS FOR THE REVIEW CONFERENCE 
-------------------------------------------- 
¶6. (U)  On October 16, U.K. Amb. Lyn Parker chaired the first 
 
RevCon Working Group meeting since distribution of the draft 
outline report on October 2.  In general, feedback on the 
draft outline was positive, and delegations seemed to agree 
that it offered a good basis for future work.  Portugal, 
speaking on behalf of the EU, also referred delegations to 
the EU common position posted on the external server.  A 
surprising number of delegations had clearly reviewed the 
outline in detail and were prepared to offer at least initial 
thoughts.  France recommended adding terrorism to the 
implications for global security session, a suggestion that 
was echoed by several other delegations. 
 
¶7. (U) Noteworthy was the presence of Iranian Ambassador 
Ziaran, who offered several suggestions on separating 
discussions of the organization of work from the progress in 
implementation, and inquired as to whether a political 
declaration, separate from the report (as was tabled at the 
first RevCon), would be necessary this time.  South Africa 
noted that this is a preliminary draft, and that it might be 
useful to look at the future implementation of Article XI, a 
suggestion neatly dealt with by the Chair, who replied that 
the general declaration could likely include forward-looking 
thoughts.  Dutch Ambassador Maarten Lak suggested that the 
role of industry be highlighted in several areas, a 
suggestion in keeping with previous Dutch recommendations on 
industry outreach as one of the key future efforts for the 
OPCW.  Amb. Parker concluded by responding to an earlier 
question about the organization of work/drafting, 
recommending that the working group first address the 
substance of the report, then later pull out particularly 
important elements to be highlighted in a general 
declaration. 
 
¶8. (U) The Director General,s paper for the Review 
Conference was reported to be in progress and will include 
the Secretariat,s ideas for dealing with new challenges.  It 
is expected to be finalized in early November, in time for 
the next discussion of the OEWG after the CSP. 
 
¶9. (U) Amb. Parker also reminded delegations of the upcoming 
NGO forum on November 19, and noted that the group of 
attendees is rather limited so far, a fact he attributes 
partly to the wide participation of many NGOs in the Tenth 
Anniversary Academic Forum last month. 
 
--------------------- 
P-5 PERIODIC MEETING 
--------------------- 
¶10.  (SBU)  The Chinese Embassy hosted a P-5 meeting on 
October 17, with Ambassadors plus one delegate from Russia, 
France, the U.K. and U.S. as well as China.  OPCW Deputy 
Director General Freeman presented a detailed report on the 
progress of universality, noting that in 2003 there were 40 
states not party to the convention and now only 13.  He then 
gave an update on each of the 13 states and the OPCW,s 
outreach efforts.  Ambassadors raised questions on why some 
of the states had not yet completed accession, but the OPCW 
had no specifics on why Angola, Dominican Republic and the 
Bahamas have not yet joined.  The French ambassador stated 
that his government plans to host a Middle East conference, 
similar to the Rome seminar, during their EU presidency next 
year (July to December 2008).  When asked about North Korea, 
the Chinese ambassador stated that it is too early to add 
chemical weapons to the nuclear agenda of the six-party 
talks; the Russian ambassador agreed. 
 
¶11. (SBU)  Discussion then turned to the CWC anniversary 
events and the OPCW,s efforts to encourage implementation of 
the convention with the added publicity.  The British 
ambassador said that while governments were aware of the 
convention, public knowledge remains low; he cited the need 
to deepen awareness in academia, industry and the media.  The 
French noted that the upcoming Review Conference would be a 
good public relations opportunity.  The Russian ambassador 
suggested that the P-5 exchange views on key issues before 
the RevCon.  The U.K. recommended late January as a good time 
to do so.  The French will host the next P-5 meeting and will 
put the Review Conference as the main agenda item. 
 
 
--------------------- 
REGIONAL RECEPTIONS 
--------------------- 
¶12. (U)  Ambassador Javits is hosting a series of receptions 
for each of the regional groups before the CSP.  First up was 
the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) on October 17, 
then the Eastern European Group on October 18.  Delegations, 
particularly those from eastern Europe, expressed gratitude 
for the opportunity to meet with the del and each other. 
Future receptions include the Asian Group October 23, the 
Latin American and Caribbean Group (GRULAC) on October 29, 
and the African Group on November 6.  The African Group 
reception will be during the CSP since so many of the African 
countries do not have resident staff in The Hague. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
INDUSTRY CLUSTER ) TRANSFER DISCREPANCIES 
----------------------------------------- 
¶13. (U) On October 17, Kiwako Tanaka (Japan) chaired a 
consultation to discuss the latest facilitator,s note and 
draft decision text on guidelines regarding declarations of 
import/export data for Schedule 2/3 chemicals.  Many 
delegations (e.g., U.S. and U.K.) spoke favorably about the 
new text, in general.  Several delegations (e.g., Australia 
and Italy) were concerned that the lack of specific 
definitions for terms like &dispatch8 and &long term 
storage8 made these guidelines difficult to interpret and 
implement.  Del rep deployed guidance and reserved the right 
to reevaluate the text in light of accommodations of changes 
requested from other delegations.  Germany had similar 
comments. 
 
¶14. (U) Iran (without guidance from capital) said that they 
found the approach impractical because transit countries are 
not asked to report.  (Their representative, Hajizadeh, 
claimed to have experience dealing with transfer discrepancy 
issues in Tehran before joining their delegation.)  Iran also 
objected to any mention of Article VII in this decision, even 
after the Legal Adviser,s Office staff member stated it 
would be appropriate to be here if the decision would mean a 
need to arrange or modify administrative measures to put the 
guidelines into practice (which certainly seems to be the 
case given the large number of SPs still lacking in this 
area). 
 
¶15. (U) The facilitator will work on a modified draft to try 
to incorporate the suggestions by delegations.  She also 
announced that Rebekka Wullimann (Swiss NA) has agreed to 
join her as co-facilitator (taking the place of Merel Jonker 
of the Dutch delegation who has moved on to new 
responsibilities).  The EC Chair has been informed and the 
approval process initiated. 
 
------------------------------------ 
INDUSTRY CLUSTER ) LATE DECLARATIONS 
------------------------------------ 
¶16. (U) On October 17, Larry Denyer (US Del) chaired a 
consultation on the draft decision regarding late submission 
of declarations.  Input was constructive and progress was 
made.  In the end, Iran made a last-minute suggestion to 
delete the last five paragraphs of the decision (focused on 
assistance and reporting), claiming that these were already 
dealt with under Article VII efforts.  Although lacking real 
logic, it seems obvious that they want to use this as a way 
to balance this with Article VII with Article XI. 
 
¶17. (U) Given the progress made and the limited time 
available during this first meeting, a second meeting was 
called on October 19.  Iran and a few other delegations did 
not attend, presumably because of the relatively short 
notice.  However, good progress was made again with this 
smaller group.  Iran,s proposal to remove the final 
paragraphs of the decision was rebuffed as these are the most 
important aspect of the decision for delegations like South 
Africa. 
 
¶18. (U) The facilitator will prepare a new draft based on 
 
comments from delegations early in the week of October 29, 
with the intent to hold another consultation later that week. 
 
------------------------- 
PREPARATIONS FOR EC VISIT 
------------------------- 
¶19. (U) Amb. Javits and Del rep met with EC visit 
participants on October 18 to review the visit program, 
safety requirements, and additional administrative 
arrangements prior to the departure of the delegation on 
October 21 for Washington.  Del rep provided a one-page 
update on progress at the Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal 
Facility, and Chemical Demilitarization Branch officer 
Gabriela Coman-Enescu, who will be accompanying the 
delegation to Anniston, provided an overview of verification 
and optimization measures at the facility.  EC participants 
had some questions about terminology used in the TS 
presentation, and about whether they would have access to 
inspectors (France) during the visit, but none on the visit 
program itself. 
 
¶20. JAVITS SENDS. 
Gallagher