VZCZCXYZ0004
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #2010/01 3251700
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 211700Z NOV 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0723
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 002010 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/ACV, IO/S, 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) 
NSC FOR SMITH 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR 
NOVEMBER 13 - 21, 2007 
 
This is CWC-90-07. 
 
-------------------------- 
WEOG ) REVIEW OF THE CSP 
-------------------------- 
 
¶1. (SBU)  The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) held 
its normal weekly meeting on November 13.  Discussion was 
dominated by the review of the Conference of States Parties 
the week before.  While several delegations began by noting 
that all,s well that ends well (quoted in different 
languages), resentment surfaced at Iran being &treated as a 
super power,8 and the fact that the majority of CSP 
delegations were left out of negotiations for much of the 
week and not kept informed of developments.  Several 
delegations saw the Cuban role in mediation as helpful, and 
others noted that the NAM is not monolithic and can be split. 
 Others warned that the NAM should not be identified with 
Iran; NAM countries have very different interests on many 
issues.  France suggested that the EU could be brought in as 
a &component8 or counter-weight to the NAM.  U.S. del noted 
that the only way to avoid the Iranians holding decisions 
hostage is for lots of other delegations, including NAM 
members, to stand up vocally to the Iranians. 
 
¶2. (SBU) A common theme among the WEOG reactions to the CSP 
included the need to keep facilitators involved in 
negotiations, the difficulty in getting volunteers for the 
facilitators, jobs and the need to recruit and keep 
motivated people in that role.  Most delegations agreed that 
the vote called for by Morocco to contest the African 
Group,s candidates set a bad precedent and may affect future 
meetings; the lack of consultations with the African missions 
in Brussels was cited as problematic, starting with the 
African Group,s vote for the CSP chair.  More generally on 
voting, delegations felt that there was not enough time, none 
to consult capitals, and that the vote may have been improper 
in the first place.  There was general agreement that Legal 
Advisor Onate,s opinion on the challenge to the African 
candidates should have stood, with no subsequent vote 
conducted.  (Note:  The Director General hosted a lunch for 
November 21 with Morocco as the guest of honor.  The Moroccan 
ambassador assured the group that their challenge to the 
Executive Council seat was behind them.) 
 
¶3. (U) WEOG delegtions agreed that Executive Council 51 
should beshort and asked Coordinator, Annie Mari (France), 
to make a formal request to the Secretariat to shoten the 
session.  Mari later reported that the Scretariat (Khodakov) 
responded that it could notchange the official schedule on 
its own, but tha the Council could certainly agree to end 
early. (Note:  A similar response came to the U.S. reques 
to take Articles VII, XI and Universality off te EC-51 
agenda ) the Secretariat said it could nt do so, but the 
Council could.) 
 
------------------------- 
OEWG ) REV CON PREPARATION 
------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) On November 15, Amb.Lyn Parker (UK) chaired a meeting 
of the Open-Ened Working Group overseeing preparations for 
theSecond Review Conference (RevCon).  The topic for his 
session was the general purpose criterion (GC). 
 
¶5. (U) In response to an ealer request from the 
Netherlands, Amb. Onate (TS Legal Adviser) presented an 
overview of how the GPC is being implemented in national 
legislation.  Amb. Onate explained that the GPC came 
originally from the BWC negotiations and entered into early 
negotiations of the CWC.  He stated that, under the GPC, all 
toxic chemicals are considered chemical weapons (CW) unless 
their uses, types, quantities, etc. are consistent with the 
object and purpose of the CWC.  (Note: This statement will be 
placed on the OPCW external server, along with other 
statements from the meeting.) 
 
¶6. (U) About national legislation specifically, Onate stated 
 
that: 
-     Some States Parties (SPs) incorporate the CWC by 
reference. 
-     Some SPs address the GPC directly in their legislation, 
with small adjustments for unique national considerations. 
-     123 SPs (68%) have included the GPC in their 
legislation. 
-     120 SPs have adopted Article I prohibitions in their 
legislation. 
-     The legislative kit the TS uses when working with 
National Authorities (NAs) includes GPC elements. 
-     Recently, some SPs have asked the Legal Adviser,s 
Office (LAO) whether it would be consistent with the CWC to 
include additional elements in their legislation (e.g., 
inclusion of environmental harm in their definition of toxic 
chemical, limitations on the use of toxic chemicals for law 
enforcement purposes domestically).  LAO,s response has been 
that, although these additional measures are the prerogative 
of the NAs, these measures are beyond the scope of the CWC. 
 
-     Some SPs have included no thresholds for Schedule 2 and 
3 chemicals, seeing this as a measure to strengthen control 
and security domestically.  Switzerland has responded to this 
practice recently, stating that it causes difficulties for 
matters of import/export reconciliation (as one example). 
 
¶7. (U) Amb. Onate also mentioned briefly (without naming the 
U.S. as the country discussed) the November 8 Herald-Tribune 
editorial that cast a poor light on new chemical security 
regulations.  (Note: Onate mentioned this editorial in 
passing to Delrep during the CSP.) 
 
¶8. (U) Del deployed guidance as part of its intervention to 
reinforce the presentation of the Legal Advisor, with the 
examples of U.S. law particularly helpful as illustrations. 
 
¶9. (U) Italian delegate made a brief intervention about the 
role of the GPC in their legislation, but mentioned 
industry,s concerns with this concept, particularly in light 
of declarations.  He then stated the importance the Italian 
government places on the TS role in developing databases. 
This issue was also raised earlier by Italy during the 
Industry and Protection Forum, noting that their legislation 
is list-based only, and they are greatly concerned that there 
are holes in their lists.  They did not receive any sympathy 
in this regard, particularly from those SPs who were wise 
enough to avoid the trap of such lists. 
 
¶10. (U) The UK, the Netherlands, and Canada made brief 
interventions about their legislative process and outreach 
efforts to promote understanding of the GPC.  This resulted 
in a discussion on the mention of harm to both humans and 
animals in the CWC and how that conformed to issues of pest 
control, etc. 
 
¶11. (U) Iran made repeated interventions about the importance 
of balancing Articles I and II with Article VI in discussions 
of the GPC.  They also made vague references for the need to 
look at the use of RCA by SPs beyond its jurisdiction, the 
use of RCA in warfare, and developments in incapacitating 
agents. 
 
¶12. (U) When South Africa intervened to question the extent 
of the problem we are trying to address, Onate stated that 
the GPC was fairly straight-forward in response to Articles I 
and II, but that it became more difficult when looked at 
under Article VI.  He stated that it was necessary to put 
into place rules to allow the verification regime to move 
forward.  But, he also said that some might argue that the 
heart of the GPC lies in Article VI para 2. 
 
¶13. (U) Amb. Parker noted the Non-Governmental Organizations 
Forum on November 19 had received more confirmations of 
attendance.  He reported that the Director General,s paper 
with ideas for the Review Conference would form the basis for 
discussion at the next OEWG meeting on December 4.  The DG,s 
paper should be published by November 23.  Parker also 
announced that beginning mid-January, there would be weekly 
 
meetings of the OEWG, with a projected draft report to be 
completed by the end of February.  The RevCon work schedule 
will be distributed at the next meeting. 
 
------------------------------------ 
INDUSTRY CLUSTER ) LATE DECLARATIONS 
------------------------------------ 
 
¶14. (U) Based on the deferral of this decision at the special 
EC meeting during the week of the CSP, the facilitator (Larry 
Denyer, Del) met with TS staff, including a LAO 
representative, about the way forward.  LAO agreed that this 
decision, with minor structural modifications (not 
substantive), could be introduced to EC-51 as a stand-alone 
decision.  The EC has received a mandate from the CSP to 
address this issue and, as such, is empowered to take such a 
decision.  This is strengthened by the precedent set by a 
previous EC decision on the transfer of Schedule 3 chemicals 
to non-SPs.  The necessary changes were made to the decision 
text, which was been distributed to delegations in advance of 
a consultation on November 21. 
 
¶15. (U) In the November 21 consultation, the text was only 
opened because India and a few other delegations had received 
specific textual instructions from their capitals.  These 
comments focused on operative paragraphs (OP) 3 and 7. 
Although the discussions were extensive, the resulting 
changes to these paragraphs were minimal.  Iran made their 
usual generalizations about whether several pre-ambular and 
operative paragraphs were even needed, but, in the end, they 
backed down when the discussions on OP 3 and 7 came to a 
successful conclusion; however, they did say they need to get 
final instructions from Tehran regarding PP 2 (i.e., CSP-3 
report language expressing &serious concern8 over those 
without initial declarations).  The result was a consensus 
decision text.  The minor changes to the text will be 
incorporated into the text by PMO as EC-M-27/DEC/CRP.4/Rev.2. 
 This document will be posted on the external server by 
week,s end and presented to EC-51 for approval. 
 
------------------------------------------- 
MEETING WITH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 
------------------------------------------- 
 
¶16. (U) On November 19, Amb. Lyn Parker (UK) chaired a 
meeting with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) as part of 
the Open-Ended Working Group,s (OEWG) preparations for the 
Second Review Conference (RevCon).  Representatives of the 
following NGOs participated: Arms Control Association (ACA); 
Bioweapons Prevention Project (BWPP); Center for Arms Control 
and Non-Proliferation; Green Peace ) War Victims; Harvard 
Sussex Program (HSP); International Federation of University 
Women (IFUW); International Network of Engineers and 
Scientists for Global Responsibility (INES); International 
Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC); Pugwash 
International; Society for Chemical Weapons Victims Support 
(SCWVS); University of Leeds; Verification Research, Training 
and Information Centre (VERTIC); Weapons of Mass Destruction 
Injured Society (WMDIS); and World Federation of Scientific 
Workers (WFSW).  Green Cross International (GCI) was 
registered to participate but did not show.  In addition, two 
other individuals attended in their personal capacity ) 
Richard Guthrie and Dr. Walter Krutzsch. 
 
¶17. (U) The meeting began with a brief statement by the 
Director General (DG), in which he marked the importance of 
this event in preparation for the RevCon.  Robin Black 
(Porton Down) made a presentation on the activities of the 
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) since the First RevCon.  This 
presentation addressed topics raised in the SAB report to the 
DG in preparation for the RevCon: captive use of Schedule 1 
chemicals; salts of scheduled chemicals; structure of ricin; 
the status of CAS Registry numbers; sampling and analysis 
(including biomedical); and advances in science and 
technology.  (Note: It was learned on the margins of the 
meeting that the term of Jiri Matousek (Czech Republic) as 
chair of the SAB has ended, and his successor will be named 
at their February meeting.) 
 
 
 
 
¶18. (U) A series of NGOs made presentations on a variety of 
topics, the general themes of which are listed below: 
-     Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation: 
Incapacitating Chemicals and the Law Enforcement Provision. 
The presenter (Alan Pearson) also talked up a new book he 
co-wrote with Chevrier and Wheelis entitled &Incapacitating 
Biochemical Weapons: Promise or Peril?8, copies of which he 
made available to the group. 
-     INES: INES and its engagement in implementing the CWC. 
This presentation was mostly an advertisement and history of 
their work. 
-     WFSW: Working for General and Comprehensive Chemical 
Weapons Ban.  Again, this presentation was mostly an 
advertisement and history of their work. 
-     VERTIC: This presentation touched on three major 
topics: (1) national implementation, (2) compliance 
(mentioning non-lethal weapons), and (3) verification. 
-     SCWVS: Chemical weapons in Iraq-Iran war.  This 
presentation by an Iranian victim gave a historical 
perspective, the goals of SCWVS, and its activities to date. 
-     HSP: This presentation presented the lessons learned 
from BWC RevCons to strengthen the upcoming CWC RevCon ) 
early preparation and planning, reaffirm CWC comprehensive 
scope, focus on national implementation, broader concept of 
CWC implementation, widen and deepen synergies, and reach out 
to all stakeholders.  Although not discussed, HSP distributed 
copies of their paper &Non Lethal Warfare and the Chemical 
Weapons Convention.8 
-     ACA: This presentation touched on destruction of 
chemical weapons stockpiles, trade in dual-use chemicals, 
proliferation concerns, national implementation, 
&non-lethal8 chemical agents, and verification. 
-     Richard Guthrie: NGO participation in meetings of 
global arms control treaties. 
-     BWPP: Lessons from Geneva: learning from the BTWC. 
-     IUPAC: Why should awareness be an important issue? 
This presentation discussed the progression of understanding 
about the CWC within the scientific community (including 
mention of Responsible Care) and the need for further work. 
-     Alastair Hay (Leeds): Multiple Uses of Chemicals: 
making the right choice.  This was a rehash of a presentation 
he made at the Academic Forum, focusing on OPCW-IUPAC 
chemical education and outreach efforts. 
-     Dr. Walter Krutzsch: Implementation of the CWC.  This 
was also a slimmed-down rehash of a presentation he made at 
the Academic Forum.  It includes several controversial 
presumptions ) that the independence of the TS has been 
compromised; that the inviolability of records, samples and 
approved equipment are being &routinely violated during 
hundreds of inspections8; that the practice of reaching 
consensus leads to EC agreements &set at the lowest common 
denominator.8  Although not discussed, he also distributed a 
paper (together with Adolf von Wagner) entitled &CWC 
Implementation and new Developments.8 
-     Pugwash:  This presentation was a general overview of 
the CWC and the role of the RevCon, emphasizing the value of 
including all stakeholders. 
 
¶19. (U) Several other papers were made available to 
participants: 
-     &Beware the Siren,s Song: Why  Non-Lethal, 
Incapacitating Agents are Lethal8 by Klotz, Furmanski, and 
Wheelis (March 2003) 
-     &Verifying the Chemical Weapons Ban: Missing 
Elements8 by Jonathan Tucker 
-     &,Off the Rocker, and &On the Floor,: The 
Continued Development of Biochemical Incapacitating Weapons8 
by Neil Davison of University of Bradford (August 2007) 
-     The DG,s statement at the Conference on Investigation 
of Legal Aspects of Using Chemical Weapons (Tehran, June 2007) 
 
¶20. (U) During the open discussion, India reacted to IUPAC,s 
statement that a shift of technology/industry to developing 
countries is seen as &a challenge.8  South Africa also 
cautioned against generalizations about developing countries, 
citing a legal case that involved citizens from three SPs 
(South Africa and two developed SPs), and that South Africa 
 
was the only one to date to prosecute its citizen.  The 
responses focused on giving attention to situations where 
technology is being introduced to an area where an 
appropriate regulatory structure does not yet exist.  There 
was also a discussion about the overlaps between the CWC and 
the BWC and whether this created greater strengths or 
potential gaps.  And, finally, a representative of WMDIS (an 
Iranian victim), who did not make any earlier presentation, 
made a brief intervention calling for outreach to survivors 
and their children to replace anger with understanding. 
 
¶21. JAVITS SENDS. 
Gallagher