VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0067/01 0240740
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 240740Z JAN 08
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 0951
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 000067 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR, 
SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP> 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (ROBERTS) 
NSC FOR SMITH 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP UP FOR TWO 
WEEKS ENDING JANUARY 18, 2008 
 
 
This is CWC-01-08 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (U) January 14-18 saw a gradual increase in scheduled OPCW 
activities following the December/January holiday period. 
Discussions during the French-hosted P-5 meeting seem to be 
an early indicator that the objectives of the P-5 States 
Parties for the Second Review Conference will be marked by a 
general desire to maintain the status quo, as opposed to 
proposing new initiatives. 
 
¶2. (SBU) U.K. Ambassador Lyn Parker used the first RevCon 
Working Group meeting of the year to lay out the work plan 
for the next several months.  The distribution of large 
sections of text at each of the next four meetings will 
eventually afford delegations two opportunities to review and 
comment on the text.  In some cases, the time for review will 
be quite limited, indicating a need for us to have an 
effective clearance mechanism in place for sections as they 
are distributed, particularly in cases where the U.K. 
provides an advance copy on issues of sensitivity to the U.S. 
 
 
¶3. (U) Discussions in WEOG revealed a general dissatisfaction 
with the lack of accountability in the International 
Cooperation and Assistance Division, marked most recently by 
a TS initiative to travel to States Parties to inspect their 
offers of assistance made under Article X, many of which are 
so general as to cause delegations to question the utility of 
such an undertaking.  The Dutch delegation has proposed 
meeting in the coming weeks to discuss how contributions in 
general could be better coordinated, tracked and evaluated. 
 
 
----------- 
P-5 MEETING 
----------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) The French Ambassador hosted the P-5 (China, France, 
Russia, U.K., U.S.) on January 15.  At the last meeting in 
October, the group agreed to focus on the Review Conference 
at this session.  There was a brief discussion of 
universality, the usual topic for the P-5, with general 
agreement that all should pursue opportunities to encourage 
the remaining twelve states to join the Convention, but that 
the time is not yet ripe for concerted joint efforts in North 
Korea or Middle Eastern countries. 
 
¶5. (SBU) On the Review Conference (RevCon), U.K. Ambassador 
Lyn Parker, the chairman of the RevCon Open Ended Working 
Group (OEWG), presented an outline of the work program: 
weekly meetings on "chunks of draft text" for discussion with 
plans for a full draft text by mid-February; this will allow 
two rounds of discussion on the report before the next EC 
session in March.  Parker also mentioned his intent to guide 
the working group through the drafting of two separate 
documents, as was done for the First Review Conference.  The 
political declaration will follow after the first full draft 
of report language, and the two will progress in tandem as 
capital reviews and the second round of discussions take 
place.  A draft agenda for the conference has been 
circulated, based on the First RevCon.  After the meeting, 
Delrep asked privately who would be doing the drafting; Amb. 
Parker said the U.K. delegation with assistance from Ralph 
Trapp.  The Russian delegation had previously expressed 
interest in a P-5 role in drafting, but the Russian 
Ambassador did not raise it during the meeting. 
 
¶6. (SBU) The Chinese Ambassador noted that their domestic 
departments and the military are still studying the Director 
General's paper on the RevCon. The Chinese view is that the 
RevCon should plan for the next five years.  The main purpose 
of the Convention remains destruction of chemical weapons and 
old and abandoned CW.   This is an important issue for China 
since nothing has yet been destroyed there.  The Chinese 
 
Ambassador emphasized that international cooperation issues 
are important for the majority of countries.  She described 
inspection mechanisms as "good" but they need to be 
strengthened; China "understands" the issue of OCPFs but does 
not feel it is yet time to shift the OPCW's focus from 
destruction to non-proliferation. 
 
¶7. (SBU) China also reported on the Asian Group's 
deliberations for the chairmanship of the RevCon.  The Saudi 
Ambassador is the only formal candidate.  The Indian 
Ambassador had initially expressed interest but has not 
followed up; the Chinese Ambassador did not rule her out yet, 
though.  There is no meeting scheduled yet for the Asian 
Group's discussion of the chairmanship.  Amb. Javits raised 
the other leadership positions (COW, etc.) that should rotate 
as well.  Amb. Parker said that normally, the chosen chairman 
would consult with each of the regional groups for their 
candidates; the U.K. hopes this will play out "in good time, 
ahead of the EC." 
 
¶8. (SBU) The Russian Ambassador said that Moscow is also 
still studying the DG's paper but feels it has too much 
interpretation of the Convention by the TS and should be 
"more balanced."  Amb. Javits briefed the group on U.S. 
objectives based on the guidance. 
The French Ambassador agreed with the U.S. emphases.  He also 
noted that the DG's paper was a good stimulus for discussion 
and that the RevCon should be looking to the future and the 
role of the Convention beyond destruction of stockpiles.  He 
raised the question of a special conference before 2012, as 
suggested in the DG's paper.  Amb. Javits responded that the 
2011 CSP will provide an opportunity to assess where we are 
closer to the destruction deadline and whether a special 
session is necessary, advising that it would be best to make 
the decision then.  He seemed to get agreement around the 
table on that point. 
 
¶9. (U) Russia will host the next P-5 meeting on March 18, 
specifically requesting that it take place before the RevCon. 
 
 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
MEETING WITH TECHNICAL SECRETARIAT PROTOCOL BRANCH 
--------------------------------------------- ----- 
 
¶10. (U) Delreps met with Milijana Danevska (Head, Protocol 
and Visa Branch) and Ester Borst-Kadijk (Visa Assistant) on 
January 16.  Danevska and Borst-Kadijk discussed some 
difficulties that the TS has experienced recently in getting 
2-year official visas for inspectors and asked for our 
assistance. 
 
¶11. (U) Delreps also inquired about the procedure for 
updating the U.S. listing in the OPCW Directory, as we had 
assumed that the official list for the Conference of States 
Parties would be published.    Danevska noted that any 
changes should be communicated through a note verbale to the 
Protocol Branch and would be updated immediately in the 
OPCW's electronic directory and by the next CSP in the 
printed directory. 
 
------------ 
WEOG MEETING 
------------ 
 
¶12. (U) There was little discussion during the first Western 
European and Others Group (WEOG) meeting on January 17, with 
Chair Annie Mari (France) and Dutch Ambassador Maarten Lak 
taking the lead.  Mari announced that a French-sponsored 
seminar in Paris on the shifting balance in the OPCW would be 
postponed from February to 25-26 March and encouraged 
delegations to send participants.  She noted that the seminar 
would be of interest to military and diplomatic experts from 
"the expanded WEOG, Russia, and China." 
 
¶13. (U) Mari also announced that the meeting of the Expanded 
WEOG (including non-WEOG EU member states, Japan and South 
Korea) would take place on January 22.  Amb. Lak briefly 
 
touched on the NAM's RevCon statement that he had distributed 
to the WEOG and encouraged discussion of it during the 
Expanded WEOG meeting.  He also spoke about a Dutch proposal 
to coordinate donor efforts, particularly in International 
Cooperation and Assistance.  The proposal was borne out of 
meetings the Dutch delegation had with Amb. Mworia (Director, 
ICA) during which the Dutch del determined that ICA could 
benefit from follow-up and assessment mechanisms for its 
assistance programs. 
 
¶14. (U) The Canadian del informed the WEOG that it had been 
approached by the TS to arrange for a "technical visit" to 
Canada to "confirm its offers of Article X-related 
assistance."  Other dels (France, Germany, Portugal and the 
UK) also noted having received similar requests, though no 
one seemed to understand why the TS wanted to embark on this 
world-wide tour. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
OEWG: PREPARATIONS FOR THE REVIEW CONFERENCE 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶15. (U) Amb. Parker (UK) chaired the first meeting of the 
OEWG for the year on January 17.  There was good turnout but 
almost no discussion.  Amb. Parker outlined the work program 
much as he had for the P-5 (see above) with a little more 
detail.  The first round of discussion for the draft report 
should be completed by February 15, allowing two weeks for 
discussion of the full text, and then three weeks for 
capitals to review it.  The "chunks" of draft text will be 
distributed at each meeting for discussion at the next one. 
The four pieces of text will roughly divide as follows:  (1) 
the opening sections and universality (distributed on January 
17 for discussion January 24); (2) general obligations and 
verification; (3) national implementation methods and 
activities not prohibited by the Convention; and 
(4) assistance and international cooperation, the Scientific 
Advisory Board, the functioning of the organization and final 
paragraphs.  The precise divisions may shift a bit during the 
drafting.  Amb. Parker noted that the key documents being 
used as resources for the drafting are the final report from 
the first RevCon, excerpts from the DG's RevCon paper with 
the TS annex, and comments from all of the OEWG discussions 
over the past year. 
 
¶16. (U) On procedures, Amb. Parker asked for comments on the 
draft agenda at next week's meeting.  NGO participation will 
also be on the agenda.  Parker said the TS will propose 
modalities for an NGO "event" along the lines of the first 
RevCon ) a half day session at another venue.  They are 
considering holding it at the OPCW headquarters to make 
movement back and forth to the Conference easier than the 
Peace Palace, which was used during the first RevCon.  It 
would also be less expensive.  Both the modalities and choice 
of potential participants will be open for comments next 
week.  A related but separate issue is the participation of 
observers, including NGOs, at the RevCon itself.  A decision 
on observers will be taken by the Conference itself, but 
Parker would appreciate early views on this matter. 
 
¶17. (U) The French del raised the matter of ministerial-level 
attendance at the RevCon.  Amb. Parker encouraged all 
delegations to let him know as soon as possible of any 
possible ministerial-level participation. 
 
------------------------------- 
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS (S&A) 
------------------------------- 
 
¶18. (U) Delrep has worked with Bill Kane (IVB, TS) to 
organize a video teleconference on January 31 at 1530 local 
(0930 EST) for TS representatives and State and Commerce 
representatives in Washington.  The purpose of this meeting 
will be to discuss logistics issues that surfaced during the 
November 2007 routine Schedule 2 inspection in the U.S. 
during which S&A activities were carried out.  It is expected 
that another such meeting will be scheduled soon to discuss 
the policy and other practical issues from this same 
 
inspection. 
 
¶19. (U) By the end of February, the TS plans to report on the 
outcome of the 18-month trial period for carrying out S&A 
activities during routine Schedule 2 inspections.  Given that 
several delegations whose countries have hosted Schedule 2 
S&A inspections (e.g., Germany and Japan) have called for an 
opportunity to discuss this report in an open forum, Del 
expects the TS to respond in some appropriate fashion.  This 
could be done in advance and/or as part of the formal agenda 
of the upcoming Review Conference. 
 
¶20. (U) Delrep has learned that the TS has taken the mandate 
it has received in the 2008 OPCW budget and implemented it in 
a way that could have a significant impact on the U.S. 
According to the Japanese del, Kane (IVB) has advised them to 
expect one or two Schedule 2 inspections during 2008 
involving S&A activities.  He also informed them that the 
U.S. will receive the same number of such inspections, and 
that more such inspections will occur in future years. 
Regarding the S&A site selection process, Kane told the 
Japanese del that those Schedule 2 plant sites selected for 
routine inspection during 2008 were reviewed to determine 
whether their technical characteristics warranted use of S&A 
during the planned inspections.  The final list was tempered 
to give some geographical balance; Kane told the Japanese del 
that Japan otherwise could have received as many as four S&A 
inspections.  Japan is anxious to build upon the discussions 
of the TS trial period report to determine the appropriate 
methodology to be used for the future integration of S&A in 
Schedule 2 inspections.  The Japanese del has mentioned 
previously in their RevCon OEWG statements that they believe 
the TS S&A activities should be halted until a full 
evaluation of the TS trial period report is completed by 
delegations and consultations held. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
OCPF DECLARATION MODIFICATIONS ) TS PAPER 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶21. (U) Delrep learned from Bill Kane that the TS staff has 
completed its technical work on its paper regarding 
"improvements" to the OCPF declaration requirements.  The 
paper is now being drafted, with the goal of having it on the 
DG's desk for review and sign-off by the end of January.  The 
paper includes two sets of recommendations: (1) a proposal on 
how product group codes (PGC) could be modified, based on 
existing categories in use elsewhere, to better describe the 
declared industries, a major goal of which is to better 
identify those smaller industries whose activities are of 
lesser relevance to the object and purpose of the Convention 
(and thus give those sites less consideration for 
inspection); and (2) a proposal on new data elements that 
could be added to the declaration regime that would give 
additional technical characteristics, the goal again being to 
improve the ability to better select the most relevant sites 
for inspection.  Kane acknowledges that the first proposal is 
not likely to be very controversial and could possibly be 
implemented through a simple DG Note.  However, the second 
proposal will likely meet significant opposition by many 
delegations because it increases the declaration burden for 
these sites.  India has already expressed strong opposition 
to adding declaration elements to the OCPF regime, as they 
see it as meant to be the simplest of the declaration 
regimes.  This second proposal, however, could lie fallow 
until such time as delegations see a need to consider its 
implementation. 
 
-------------------------------- 
UPDATE ON RUSSIAN CW DESTRUCTION 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶22. (SBU) In meeting with a representative of the Chemical 
Demilitarization Branch (CDB), Delrep confirmed that Russia 
continues to experience problems putting the incinerators at 
its Maradykovsky Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility into 
operation, particularly the largest incinerator designed to 
destroy reaction mass from the VX neutralization process 
 
employed on site.  The reaction mass is being stored in 
sealed tanks, checked regularly by the TS inspection team. 
 
¶23. (SBU) The TS is also engaged in discussions with Russia 
on the facility agreement and verification plan for its 
destruction facility at Leonidovka.  A TS visit to Moscow is 
tentatively scheduled for the end of January, and Russia is 
pressuring the TS to agree to final text in order to 
circulate the documents in time for consideration by the 
March session of the Executive Council.  In confidence, the 
CDB officer indicated one significant point of disagreement 
centers on a Russian desire to receive credit for destruction 
prior to any mutilation or thermal processing of the munition 
bodies; discussions are ongoing. 
 
¶24. (U) Javits sends. 
 
Gallagher