VZCZCXYZ0002
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0264/01 0780944
ZNR UUUUU ZZH (CCY ADX0703A15 MSI4051 611)
O 180944Z MAR 08
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1243
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHGB/AMEMBASSY BAGHDAD
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
RUEASWA/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSA PRIORITY

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000264 
 
SIPDIS 
 
C O R R E C T E D  C O P Y (ADDED ADDRESSEE) 
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 MARCH 14, 2008 
 
REF: A) THE HAGUE 249 (EC-52 WRAP UP) 
 
This is CWC-12-08. 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (SBU) Two events dominated the week of March 10-14 
-- Iraq's delivery of its draft initial declaration 
of its chemical weapons facilities as it joins the 
Chemical Weapons Convention, and the Cuban 
Ambassador's dramatic delivery of the Non Aligned 
Movement's preliminary comments on the draft Review 
Conference report at the eleventh hour of the Working 
Group's preparations. 
 
¶2. (U) Less histrionic, but moving steadily forward 
were consultations on the new format of the OPCW 
annual budget, an organizational meeting of the 
Security Audit Team, a meeting of the Validation 
Group reviewing data for the Central Analytical 
Database, and a conference call to discuss U.S. 
concerns with sampling and analysis. 
 
------------------ 
IRAQI DECLARATION 
------------------ 
 
¶3. (SBU) On March 11, Del received an electronic copy 
of the most recent version of Iraq's draft initial 
declaration.  The CD-Rom was accompanied by a 
personal letter from Iraqi Ambassador Banaa 
indicating that copies were also being provided to 
the UK and Director General Pfirter, and requesting 
U.S. feedback.  In conversation with Iraqi delegate 
Jewad, Delrep inquired as to the progress in Iraqi 
accession; Jewad explained that the CWC law still has 
to be published in an official gazette before 
accession can be finalized.  Jewad was unsure as to 
whether Iraq intended to use its full sixty days 
between depositing its instrument of accession and 
submitting its initial declaration. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Later in the week, Del confirmed with 
Technical Secretariat (TS) Director of Verification 
Horst Reeps that a U.S./UK/TS review of the 
declaration would take place March 19-20 in The 
Hague.  Del also requested Reeps inform Japan, as the 
Japanese have come to expect participation in Iraq- 
related events after funding several of the Amman 
workshops. 
 
----------------------------------- 
OEWG: REVIEW CONFERENCE PREPARATION 
----------------------------------- 
 
¶5. (U) On March 13 and 14, Amb. Lyn Parker (UK) 
chaired two Open Ended Working Group meetings to 
continue discussing the composite draft report for 
the Review Conference, since few delegations had 
commented during the first discussion of the combined 
text on February 27.  Amb. Parker outlined his 
proposed timeline for the weeks leading up to the 
RevCon: 
 
-  March 17: all text due to the UK delegation for 
consideration in the revised draft of the Chair's 
text; 
 
-  March 19: the OEWG meeting will discuss and decide 
how to proceed with consultations in the last two 
weeks before the RevCon; 
 
-  March 20: the next draft of the Chair's text will 
be sent to the TS for distribution (including 
translation) for all SPs in advance of the RevCon; 
 
 
-  March 25 onward: informal consultations will likely 
begin, with the new draft of the Chair's text forming 
the basis of negotiations; 
 
-  March 27: the OEWG meeting will discuss the first 
draft of the political declaration, to be released 
the week of March 24; 
 
-  April 3: the final OEWG before the RevCon will 
decide on attendance of observers, update the Chair's 
report to the RevCon, and look at any outstanding 
administrative issues. 
 
¶6. (U) The March 13 meeting was dominated by 
procedural debates and the Cuban Ambassador's 
announcement on behalf of the NAM States Parties and 
China that their preliminary comments on the 
composite text were being posted on the OPCW external 
server.  The Cuban Ambassador called for 
consultations on the NAM draft to begin as soon as 
possible, following the "successful" model of the 
RevCon agenda.  The Indian Ambassador, and delegates 
from Iran, South Africa and China supported early 
negotiations on the draft text in small groups or 
"task forces" in order to revise the text, with the 
Indian Ambassador stating that both the earlier 
chairman's text and the NAM text should both be 
distributed to all States Parties and discussed side- 
by-side.  Western delegations supported the chair's 
plan for a revised text, with possible negotiations 
of issues or "hot spots" to follow.  A variety of 
views were also expressed on the form and content of 
the political declaration, with Amb. Parker 
describing a broad document for the press and public 
that would emphasize the accomplishments of the 
organization rather than following the report too 
closely.  The Iranian delegation spoke of a "solemn 
declaration" as for the NPT and BWC.  Chairman Parker 
welcomed the NAM paper that he had been "awaiting" 
for some time, and closed the meeting with the 
announcement that Friday's session would focus on 
substance in the report. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The WEOG met Friday morning (March 14) 
before the Open Ended Working Group session and 
discussed tactics on the NAM text.  The group 
generally agreed that the NAM text should not be 
allowed to dominate the OEWG discussion, and that all 
would support the chairman's process for a revised 
draft text.  U.S. del noted that the NAM is not a 
recognized body at the OPCW and that any future 
discussions of the draft text should be open to all 
interested parties and negotiated by States Parties, 
not by groups. Several delegations agreed, with 
Swedish del noting that questioning the NAM text 
would force NAM member states to defend it and 
provide more transparency on how much support any 
individual change might have.  The UK delegation, 
including a brief appearance by Amb. Parker, 
requested WEOG support in challenging the NAM text so 
that the chair would not be forced to include its 
more egregious points in the revised text. 
 
¶8. (U) At the reconvening of the Open Ended Working 
Group on Friday, delegations were remarkably cordial 
and focused on substance in their interventions. 
Most commented directly on the chairman's draft (as 
did the U.S. del), including some delegations that 
have rarely participated (Turkey, New Zealand).  Of 
the comments on the chairman's text given by 
delegations, the following were of particular note: 
 
-  On the issue of declaration of low 
concentrations of Schedule 2A chemicals, Canada asked 
that the draft language be strengthened to express 
concern with the failure to resolve the issue. 
 
Canada went on to say that they would be proposing 
Conference decision language that, pending final 
resolution of the matter, calls for all plant sites 
with production of Schedule 2A chemicals above the 
verification threshold, regardless of concentration, 
to submit declarations.  Switzerland, Italy, the UK, 
Australia, and Sweden echoed this proposal. 
 
-  Canada, Switzerland, the UK, and Sweden felt the 
text regarding advances in science and technology is 
too narrow, focusing only on the Scientific Advisory 
Board.  They suggested that industry, academia, and 
other relevant expertise be included. 
 
-  Although generally supportive of its use, 
Australia called for further discussions regarding 
the regular use of sampling and analysis during 
routine Schedule 2 inspections.  The Netherlands made 
similar comments. 
 
-  The Netherlands called for undertaking challenge 
inspection exercises in conjunction with the TS in 
regions outside of Europe. 
 
-  The Netherlands called for the need of linking 
Article XI efforts with national implementation. 
 
-  In a surprising move from previous 
interventions, New Zealand made reference to the DG's 
paper and its call for further increases in the 
number of OCPF inspections -- something that is not 
found in the current text -- and spoke to their 
nonproliferation value in these rapidly expanding 
industries. 
 
-  As an example of the balancing work ahead, 
Mexico mentioned how the language on national 
implementation (text expresses great concern) seems 
out of balance with that on destruction (text makes 
no mention of any concern). 
 
¶9. (U) While NAM member states did not raise any of 
their issues in the discussion, the Cuban Ambassador 
requested comments on the NAM paper.  The Chinese 
delegation supported the NAM paper but made 
additional points in their national capacity on 
abandoned chemical weapons and OCPF inspections. 
Delegates from Japan, the Netherlands, France and 
others questioned and commented on the NAM text, with 
France noting one paragraph (119 on consensus) that 
they agreed with completely.  There already appears 
to be some backpedaling from the "pledge" on an open 
agenda that was negotiated and recorded in the report 
of EC-52.  Iran and South Africa both stated more 
than once that any discussions or small groups 
meetings between now and the RevCon should occur 
strictly along the lines of the agreed agenda. 
 
¶10. (U) At the end of the meeting, Amb. Parker 
returned to discussion of next steps.  More voices in 
the room supported his revised text than argued 
against it (Iran and India).  Several delegations 
(including the U.S.) spoke in favor of negotiations 
in small groups or the OEWG before the beginning of 
the RevCon.  Amb. Parker stated that the next working 
group (March 19) would discuss how to proceed in the 
time remaining before the Review Conference, and said 
he would offer a proposal on sequential meetings of 
smaller groups to discuss the text by topic. 
 
-------------------- 
BUDGET CONSULTATIONS 
-------------------- 
 
¶11. (U) On March 13, John Freeman (DDG), Ron Nelson 
(Director, Administration), and Labib Sahab (Head, 
Budget) chaired a follow-up consultation to the 
 
Budget Informal held just before EC-52 (ref A) to 
receive delegations' feedback on the proposed new 
budget format.  All delegations generally spoke in 
support of the changes, with many seeking to insure 
that key information will be retained in the new 
format.  Iran and South Africa made a pitch for 
including more information on staffing (e.g., 
geographical representation); this met with 
resistance from Korea and the DDG, who both said that 
the budget should only contain elements with budget 
implications. 
 
¶12. (U) Many of the points raised by the Del were 
echoed by other delegations, including Germany, 
Japan, Korea, and South Africa.  In particular, South 
Africa echoed the U.S. request for a breakdown of 
budgets within program areas.  The DDG said that the 
TS would aim to do this for the 2010 budget but that 
 
SIPDIS 
-- due to time and technical constraints -- it would 
not be possible for the 2009 budget, which is already 
in preparation.  While Iran indicated it wanted more 
time to consider the new format, the DDG said that 
the overwhelmingly positive response from SPs had 
encouraged the TS use the new format for the 2009 
budget document. (Del note: The TS plans to release 
the DG's proposed budget on June 20, just before EC- 
53.) 
 
---------------- 
VALIDATION GROUP 
---------------- 
 
¶13. (U) On March 11 and 12, the Validation Group met 
to review newly proposed analytical data for 
consideration as additions to the OPCW Central 
Analytical Database (OCAD).  The U.S. participants on 
the Group -- Armando Alcaraz and Hugh Gregg (Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory) -- reported to the Del 
that the meetings proceeded without difficulty. 
Although the basic ideas have been captured in the 
national papers of several States Parties, the 
meeting acknowledged the importance of the TS 
preparing a paper explaining the value of and need 
for having some data regarding unscheduled chemicals 
in the OCAD -- e.g., need for analyzing necessary 
derivatives, value during challenge inspections and 
cases of alleged use, value for work with old and 
abandoned chemical weapons, facilitates the work of 
designated laboratories.  This paper would go a long 
way in responding to the direct call by India 
(repeated during EC-52) for such a paper and paving 
the way for quicker approval of newly validated data 
by the EC in the future. 
 
------------------- 
SECURITY AUDIT TEAM 
------------------- 
 
¶14. (U) The first session of the Fifth Security Audit 
Team (SAT-V) met during the week.  Lisa Von Colln 
(the U.S. auditor) reported to the Del that she and 
the other five auditors (representing France, 
Germany, India, Japan, and the Netherlands) agreed on 
the mandate for SAT-V.  Instead of appointing an 
overall chair, as had been done for SAT-III and SAT- 
IV, the audit team decided to rotate responsibility 
for coordinating each audit among the six auditors. 
They also tentatively scheduled the first audit for 
the week of September 22. 
 
--------------------- 
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS 
--------------------- 
 
¶15. (U) On March 14, Delrep organized a conference 
call between ISN/CB and BIS representatives in 
Washington and Gary Mallard of the OPCW Laboratory in 
 
The Hague.  The purpose of the meeting was to help 
resolve long-standing concerns and questions about 
various aspects of chemical analysis during Schedule 
2 inspections -- e.g., false positives, ramifications 
of gaps in the OCAD, merits of the use of the 
analytical software in both the open and closed 
modes.  It is expected that more general discussions 
with the TS on various sampling and analysis policy 
matters will happen in the near future. 
 
¶16. (U) Javits sends. 
 
Gallagher