VZCZCXYZ0156
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0222/01 0651523
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 051523Z MAR 08
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1174
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000222 
 
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 
WEEK ENDING FEBRUARY 29, 2008 
 
REF: A) THE HAGUE 180 
 
This is CWC-10-08. 
 
--------- 
SUMMARY 
--------- 
 
¶1. (U) The week of February 25)29 primarily marched 
in place.  Delegations spent a lot of time on the 
provisional agenda for the Review Conference, with no 
agreement except growing convergence that the only 
broadly acceptable agenda would closely track that of 
the first Review Conference.  Due to the late 
distribution of the consolidated RevCon draft report 
text, discussion at the Open Ended Working Group was 
limited and will continue at the next OEWG on March 
¶13.  A second Article X meeting in two weeks on 
assistance lacked focus and outcome but continued the 
process of discussion.  An Article XI facilitation 
discussed the Director General,s report but still 
planned to defer discussion by the Executive Council 
to the next session (June). 
 
¶2. (SBU) Much more productive was the visit by the 
VCI team who met with a large array of officials in 
the Technical Secretariat and witnessed an actual 
demonstration of the Verification Information System. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
EC CHAIR'S MEETING ON PREPARATIONS FOR EC-52 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) On February 25, the Executive Council Chairman 
Amb. Arguelles (Philippines) chaired the informal 
meeting in preparation for EC-52 and quickly went 
through the preliminary agenda (reftel).  Ireland 
reported on behalf of the facilitator that she plans 
to request deferral of consideration of the Director 
General,s Article X status report as there had not 
been time to schedule consultations to discuss the 
report.  South Africa suggested that the same be done 
for the DG's Article XI status report; the Article XI 
facilitator (Li Hong, China) announced that he would 
hold consultations on February 29 which would include 
discussion of the report. 
 
----------------------------------- 
OEWG: REVIEW CONFERENCE PREPARATION 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (U) On February 26, Amb. Lyn Parker (UK) chaired 
an informal OEWG specifically to discuss the RevCon's 
provisional agenda.  Amb. Javits reported on the work 
and progress of the "informal informal" meetings of 
interested parties that he chaired on February 22 and 
25 (reported reftel).  After extensive debate on the 
same issues (&complete and general disarmament,8 
terrorism, science and technology, and the OPCW,s 
external relationships), Amb. Parker proposed a 
compromise text that would be forwarded to the 
Executive Council unless consensus could be achieved 
on another draft.  A number of delegations welcomed 
Amb. Parker's efforts but cited problems with the new 
formulation.  Amb. Javits agreed to chair another 
"informal informal" in the afternoon. 
 
¶5. (U) During the afternoon meeting of interested 
parties (Algeria, Canada, China, Cuba, France, 
Germany, India, Iran, Italy, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, 
Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, South Africa, the UK as 
observer, and the U.S.), most delegations present 
indicated their dislike for Amb. Parker's compromise 
from the morning.  Only Algeria spoke out strongly in 
its favor, apparently because the compromise 
addressed its desire to include terrorism on the 
agenda.  Cuba and other NAM delegations reiterated 
that their agreement not to press for "full 
 
implementation of Article XI" in the agenda was part 
of a package deal and should not be taken for granted 
as a concession if other items re-open for 
discussion.  With no agreement on Parker's proposed 
agenda, a number of delegations (including Iran, 
Mexico, and South Africa) spoke in favor of returning 
to the agenda of the First RevCon, noting that it is 
broad enough to still be relevant. 
 
¶6. (U) At the beginning of the February 27 OEWG 
meeting, Amb. Parker announced that,contrary to 
previous information, the OEWG does not require an 
extension of its mandate following EC-52 due to the 
broad terms of the working group,s creation.  He 
noted that the next OEWG meeting on March 13 will be 
the last opportunity to discuss the composite draft 
text for the RevCon report as the Technical 
Secretariat (TS) needs the text for translation and 
 
SIPDIS 
distribution to all States Parties in advance of the 
Review Conference. 
 
¶7. (U) Turning to the draft report text, Amb. Parker 
reiterated the need to move forward with discussions 
given the short timeline and called on all 
delegations to provide feedback.  He specifically 
noted that the NAM had only provided comments on 
blocks 1 and 2; Cuba responded that the NAM still had 
not finalized its views on blocks 3 and 4. 
 
¶8. (U) Only Korea, Japan, and some WEOG delegations 
provided any substantive comments, and there was no 
debate on the points they raised.  Most delegations 
indicated that they and their capitals were still 
reviewing the consolidated text and would aim to 
provide substantive comments by the March 13 OEWG 
meeting.  The only discussion focused on procedural 
issues, with Iran and South Africa again calling for 
a "rolling text" with all proposed amendments. 
 
¶9. (U) At the end of the meeting, Amb. Parker 
returned to the issue of the provisional RevCon 
agenda. Amb. Javits reported on the outcome of the 
previous days' "informal informals" highlighting the 
growing support for returning to the First RevCon 
agenda along with the agreement at the agenda would 
not preclude discussion or report text on any issue 
relevant to the convention.  Amb. Parker noted that 
even the First RevCon agenda would require a few 
minor alterations and expressed his deep 
disappointment that despite five years of change, the 
group could not agree on any new language. 
 
-------------------------- 
MEETING WITH WEOG &OTHERS8 
-------------------------- 
 
¶10. (U) On February 29, Del reps met for coffee with 
Mike Byers (new Australian delegate), Angela Peart 
(Canada), and Bronwyn Shanks (New Zealand) to discuss 
the upcoming EC session and RevCon.  The discussion 
focused on the growing EU-NAM polarization apparent 
in the large meetings and a role for more moderate, 
independent voices. 
 
-------------------- 
ARTICLE X ASSISTANCE 
-------------------- 
 
¶11. (U) Following a meeting earlier in the month to 
discuss ways to achieve closer coordination between 
donors and the Assistance and Protection Branch 
(APB), the Article X facilitator Jitka Brodska (Czech 
Republic) invited interested parties to attend a 
meeting to consider the concept in the context of 
Article X.  The Netherlands representative emphasized 
that the intention of the meetings was to be 
informal, inclusive, constructive, and non- 
confrontational. 
 
 
¶12. (U) The facilitator had prepared a paper with 
suggested topics for discussion.  Delegations had 
received e-mailed copies of this paper and it was 
agreed to present it immediately to Gennadi Lutay 
(Head, APB).  Several members of the APB then joined 
the meeting.  Lutay had little time to consider the 
content of the paper and his subsequent comments were 
little more than a description of successful past 
practices. 
 
¶13. (U) Several delegations commented that the APB 
could do a better job of presenting information in a 
form more easily digested by capitals.  Italy pointed 
out that better information, particularly on Article 
X success stories, could help States Parties justify 
greater commitments in the future.  The group agreed 
to continue the discussion in May. 
 
---------- 
ARTICLE XI 
---------- 
 
¶14. (U) On February 29, facilitator Li Hong (China) 
held a consultation to discuss the DG's Report on the 
status of implementation of Article XI (EC-52/DG.4, 
dated 7 February 2008).  Natalia Gordienko (Senior 
Officer, International Cooperation Branch) made a 
comprehensive presentation on ICB's programs, 
including information on monitoring and evaluation of 
the programs, funding details, and plans for 2008. 
Points of interest: 12 former participants in the 
Associates Program are now TS employees (11 within 
the Inspectorate); and the number of participants in 
the 2008 Associates Program will be increased from 24 
to 28, made possible through program consolidation 
and shortening the program from ten to nine weeks 
(eliminating the one-week segment in The Hague). 
 
¶15. (U) Many delegations welcomed the additional 
information in the presentation and requested this in 
writing and in future reports.  South Africa and 
China noted that they need more time to review the 
report and suggested that the facilitator make 
request from the floor to defer consideration, as 
will be done for the DG's report on Article X. 
Germany was quick to point out the differences 
between these situations, as there have been no 
Article X consultations since release of that DG 
Report. 
 
¶16. (U) The facilitator announced his intention not 
to hold further consultations until after the Review 
Conference.  In the meantime, he will work on a draft 
of "concrete measures" to direct discussions leading 
up to EC-53, with the goal of a follow-on decision at 
CSP-13. 
 
------------------- 
VCI TECHNICAL VISIT 
------------------- 
 
¶17. (SBU) Lisa Von Colln, Rose Ann McHenry and Dean 
Otey visited The Hague 26-29 February for meetings 
with the TS about the Verification Information System 
(VIS).  They met with the VIS Development Team, 
including  Per Runn (Head, Policy and Review Branch), 
Sandor Laza and Sally Elford (Information Evaluation 
Industry, Declarations Branch), Leo Espinoza 
(Information Processing and Validation, Declarations 
Branch), Philipp Amann (Documents Registration and 
Archiving, Declarations Branch), Jose Bento da Silva 
and David Leon Sanchez (Software Development, 
Information Services Branch), and Paul Raines (Head, 
Information Systems Security).  Highlights of the 
discussion with the VIS Development Team included: 
 
- initial release of VIS is scheduled for late 2008; 
 
- the TS is developing a tool for National 
Authorities to submit electronic declarations and 
plans to release it in all official languages except 
Chinese; 
- China is in the final stages of implementing its 
system for electronic declarations; 
- Russia also has a system in place which the TS 
expects can be used for electronic declarations; 
- States Parties will continue to receive paper, in 
addition to electronic, declarations information; 
- electronic information will be periodic snapshots 
of the declarations database; 
- States Parties will receive evaluated final-version 
data, not initial declared data; 
- the format of the Verification Implementation 
Report (VIR) will change, but the information 
provided will not be reduced. 
 
¶18. (U) Sanchez, Elford, and Runn also demonstrated a 
test version of the VIS, including the new Document 
Tracking System (DOTS) for auditing and archiving all 
declarations-related documents.  They plan to 
demonstrate the VIS at the next Industry Cluster 
meeting in May. 
 
¶19. (SBU) During the VCI team,s debrief to the 
delegation following their meetings, Amb. Javits 
requested language about the VIS for his statement to 
the Review Conference.  Del recommended that the 
demonstrations be offered early and often, including 
at the Review Conference, to increase awareness of 
the project and to mitigate any concerns about it 
through the opportunity to see it and ask questions. 
We will follow up with the Technical Secretariat on 
possible demonstration opportunities. 
 
¶20. (U) Javits sends. 
Schofer