VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #2047/01 3441610
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 101610Z DEC 07
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0798
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 002047 
 
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 THE 
WEEK ENDING DECEMBER 7, 2007 
 
 
This is CWC-92-07. 
 
-------------------------- 
REVCON WORKING GROUP 
-------------------------- 
¶1. (U)  On December 4, UK Ambassador Lyn Parker chaired a 
meeting of the Open Ended Working Group on Preparations for 
the Second Review Conference to discuss initial reactions to 
the recently distributed &Note by the Technical Secretariat: 
 Review of the Operation of the Chemical Weapons Convention 
since the First Review Conference8 (WGRC-2/S/1).  Director 
General Pfirter introduced the paper by reviewing its general 
outline, and highlighting challenges that lie ahead in 
several key areas:  complete destruction of chemical weapons 
by the 2012 deadline; the future shift in the Organization,s 
focus from disarmament to non-proliferation; encouraging 
States Parties with significant chemical industries to 
fulfill their Article VII obligations; and working toward 
universal implementation of the Convention. 
 
¶2. (U) Amb. Parker suggested that future discussions on the 
paper might be organized by the major headings used in the 
paper itself.  He added that it will be important for him to 
develop a sense of how many of the policy issues raised 
within could realistically be addressed at the RevCon itself, 
and which might be better treated by simply laying out a path 
for future work. 
 
¶3.  (U) A surprising number of delegations had fairly 
detailed comments, in all cases caveated as preliminary. 
Most delegations offered support for consideration of the 
future shift in the OPCW,s focus, with Japan noting its view 
that with the shift in focus, the Organization will also need 
to undergo a structural adjustment.  Many also noted the 
importance of resolving the site selection methodology for 
OCPFs and the possibility of refining declarations for these 
facilities.  It was also encouraging to hear a number of 
delegations (mainly WEOG) state up front that they agree that 
2008 will be too early to establish or even discuss possible 
courses of action for the U.S. (and perhaps Russia) in 2012. 
Canada also noted that the possibility still exists that 
other states possessing chemical weapons may come into the 
treaty at a later date, which will also necessitate 
consideration of post-2012 destruction. 
 
¶4. (U) A number of other specific comments were provided. 
Australia and France both raised the importance of exploring 
and enhancing the OPCW,s role in the global fight against 
terrorism.  Australia, Canada and the Netherlands recommended 
that the topic of Schedule 2A/2A asterisk be taken up again 
as an urgent matter.  Australia, later echoed by Italy, also 
expressed concern that a ban on Schedule 3 transfers to 
States Not Party might be detrimental for efforts to achieve 
universality, and that it could even encourage the growth of 
unregulated indigenous production in the states that remain 
outside the Convention.  France and Germany said they were 
not fully convinced of the utility of sampling and analysis 
during Schedule 2 inspections and, as such, stressed the 
importance of a TS report on their experience during the 
trial period.  Germany and China both expressed some concern 
over the use of &open source8 information for verification 
activities. 
 
¶5. (U) Germany made a lengthy intervention in which it 
highlighted its disagreement with the concept that industry 
and destruction verification are or should be treated in a 
similar manner, noting its view that the industry 
verification regime was intended to be more of a confidence 
building measure.  Germany also recommended that the industry 
issues be considered as a package; on OCPF inspections, for 
instance, a simple increase in the number of inspections is 
not the solution.  The German delegation noted its view that 
in Schedule 2 inspections with sampling and analysis, the 
possibility to use the blinded mode of the software should 
absolutely be retained. 
 
¶6. (U) India also made an intervention that focused almost 
entirely on stressing the importance of completion of 
 
chemical weapons destruction as the top priority for the 
Organization.  In fairly stark contrast to other statements 
indicating the RevCon should not be consumed with the issue 
of 2012, the Indian Ambassador stated that without the luxury 
of knowing when destruction will be complete, the 
Organization cannot afford to focus on other issues.  India 
also made token references to the hierarchy of risk in 
industry inspections and the possibilities of assistance to 
states with growing chemical industries. 
 
¶7. (U) Also noteworthy were the delegations who did not 
comment; Iran, Cuba and Russia were conspicuously silent. 
The Director General closed with remarks that the paper was 
intended to provide a full spectrum of issues as &food for 
thought8 for the States Parties to decide the RevCon 
priorities.  The Chair noted that the Work Plan for the 
Working Group has been updated, and that an updated outline 
of the draft report will be circulated prior to the next 
meeting of the group on December 12.  A note summarizing 
discussions so far and papers submitted (national, academic, 
NGO) will also be issued soon, primarily for the benefit of 
States Parties that do not attend the Working Group meetings. 
 
 
-------------------------- 
WEOG DISCUSSIONS 
-------------------------- 
¶8. (U)  The WEOG meeting on December 4 reviewed the results 
of EC-51, briefly discussed the report of the EC visit to 
Anniston, and discussed the RevCon Working Group meeting 
immediately following.  Under EC-51, Germany noted that a way 
ahead has yet to be established for the approval of Russia,s 
Maradykovsky Facility Agreement and Verification Plan. 
 
¶9. (U) On the visit report, there was widespread agreement 
that the report should not be subjected to further 
negotiation, although Germany noted its expectation that some 
capitals (read:  Berlin) may have comments or further 
questions for the visited State Party.  When the U.S. 
suggested that the writing of the report might be improved by 
accomplishing as much drafting as possible in country (with 
memories still fresh, and without the inappropriate 
involvement of capitals), WEOG Chair and representative on 
the Anniston visit Annie Mari stated this would give the 
visited State Party &too much influence.8 
 
¶10. (U) In the context of the RevCon Working Group, the Chair 
raised the topic of the recent NGO meeting, and the growing 
number of references to &non-lethals.8  U.S. Rep noted the 
importance in future discussions of adhering strictly to 
Convention terminology, and avoiding the inappropriate 
combination of issues (e.g. &incapacitants8 and riot 
control agents) that are clearly intended by the CWC to be 
treated separately.  The UK delegation also made a pitch for 
delegations to make substantive interventions at the upcoming 
meeting, and also to agree where possible with the DG,s 
introduction to the TS paper, which the Chair would 
apparently take as tacit approval to incorporate much of the 
text (or at least general concepts) in the draft outline 
report. 
 
------------------- 
REVCON CHAIR UPDATE 
------------------- 
¶11. (SBU)  Japanese delegate told del reps that Pakistan, as 
chair of the Asia regional group, had formally circulated the 
candidacy of the Saudi Ambassador for the chair of the Review 
Conference.  With rumors of Indian interest in the chair, it 
may well have been a pre-emptive move by Pakistan to prevent 
India,s coming forward.  The Asia Group has not yet 
scheduled a meeting, but it will likely be in January. 
 
¶12. (U) BEIK SENDS. 
Arnall