VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0721/01 2381529
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 251529Z AUG 08
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 1900
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000721 
 
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 FLY 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR JULY 28 TO AUGUST 22, 2008 
 
REF: A. THE HAGUE 644 
     ¶B. GROMOLL/BEIK/WUCHTE E-MAIL 28 JULY 2008 AND 
        FOLLOWING 
 
This is CWC-037-08 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
 
¶1. (U) August, the traditional European vacation 
month, has been slow, but meetings at the 
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons 
(OPCW) will begin again September 1-5 for the 
Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial Matters 
(ABAF), on September 2 for the Western European and 
Others Group (WEOG), and September 3 for Article VII 
consultations. 
 
¶2. (U) Preparations are ongoing for the Executive 
Council representatives' visit to the Russian 
destruction facility at Shchuchye September 8 -11. 
Delrep Granger, new co-chair of the Geneva Group at 
OPCW, helped plan the first meeting of the Group on 
September 5 to take advantage of a briefing from ABAF 
representatives.  Delreps continued a series of 
discussions with OPCW and other delegations on a 
possible workshop on Security Council Resolution 
1540, and the re-activation of Article VII and 
Article XI consultations.  Details of these meetings 
follow. 
 
--------------------- 
EC VISIT to SHCHUCHYE 
--------------------- 
 
¶3. (U) On July 31, Delrep attended a coordination 
meeting for the Executive Council (EC) visit to the 
Russian Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility at 
Shchuchye.  The Russian delegation distributed a more 
detailed itinerary than previously had been provided 
with the circulation of the original proposal in May 
(copy forwarded to Washington).  The participants in 
the visit have been confirmed as EC Chair Amb. Tomova 
(Slovakia) and representatives of Germany, Costa 
Rica, Algeria, and Pakistan.  From the Secretariat, 
the Director-General (DG), Gabriela Coman-Enescu 
(Senior Chemical Demilitarization Officer), and an 
interpreter will participate. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Delreps later met with WEOG coordinator Ruth 
Surkau, and raised the idea of WEOG visit 
participants briefing the group before and after the 
visit.  Surkau seemed to agree that this would be 
useful, but noted that the final decision would be 
WEOG's to take and that this could be discussed at 
the first WEOG meeting on September 2. 
 
¶5. (U) On August 22, Delrep attended a follow-up 
coordination meeting to address outstanding 
logistical issues for the visit to Shchuchye. 
Russian Deputy Perm Rep Konstantin Gavrilov announced 
that he will accompany the participants from The 
Hague to Shchuchye.  He also noted that letters 
authorizing participants' travel had been sent for 
visa issuance. 
 
¶6. (U) Gavrilov confirmed that Victor Kholstov, the 
head of Russia's chemical weapons destruction program 
in the Ministry of Industry (formerly the Federal 
Agency for Industry) will travel to The Hague on 
September 4 and will present a briefing to 
participants on September 5.  The DG and Coman-Enescu 
announced that the Technical Secretariat will also 
present a briefing, following Kholstov's. 
 
------------ 
GENEVA GROUP 
------------ 
 
¶7. (U) On August 1, Delrep Granger met with Diana 
Gosens (Netherlands) and Angela Peart (Canada) to 
discuss plans for the Geneva Group.  Gosens and 
Granger are the new co-chairs for the group, Peart 
the outgoing chair.  They agreed to hold a meeting 
the morning of September 5 in advance of the start of 
budget negotiations on September 8.  Delrep suggested 
including a briefing from some ABAF members to get an 
overview of the ABAF meeting (September 1-5) and to 
highlight areas of interest or concern in the draft 
budget. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE VII 
----------- 
 
¶8. (U) On August 21, Delreps met with Said Moussi 
(Algeria), the new facilitator for Article VII. 
Moussi said the he plans to hold a number of 
consultations during the first half of September, 
with the first meeting scheduled for September 3. 
Moussi indicated his desire to have a decision on 
Article VII adopted by the Conference of States 
Parties (CSP) in December.  He noted that he has been 
working on a bare-bones draft decision and might 
circulate it during the September 3 meeting to 
stimulate discussion. 
 
----------- 
ARTICLE XI 
----------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) Also on August 21, Delreps met for lunch 
with Li Hong, the facilitator for Article XI, and Gao 
Huijin of the Chinese delegation.  Li is planning to 
begin consultations early in September, but has not 
yet scheduled a meeting.  He said he has new papers 
from the Dutch and Japanese delegations, but he has 
not yet received for distribution the Indian paper 
presented verbally at the last session.  In response 
to Delrep's questions, he said that the Iranian 
opposition to the Cuban proposal for a workshop 
remains firm, but he had not been able to extract 
specific objections from the Iranians.  Li noted 
privately that the Iranian delegates remaining in The 
Hague after the departure of Ambassador Ziaran and 
Shahrokh Shakerian are the more difficult ones to 
work with, seeming unable to compromise from hard- 
line positions.  Li, who is due to transfer at the 
end of the year, said that his goal is to keep the 
facilitation going; he did not expect much progress 
or a major decision by the Conference of States 
Parties in December. 
 
------------------- 
UNSCR 1540 WORKSHOP 
------------------- 
 
¶10. (SBU) On July 30, Delreps met with French 
delegate Annie Mari and three of her staff, German 
Ambassador Werner Burkart, and UK delegate Karen 
Wolstenholme to discuss possibilities for a workshop 
on UNSCR 1540 at the OPCW in conjunction with the 
annual National Authorities meeting in late November 
(ref B).  The French delegation informed the group 
that they were working on a proposal (as current EU 
president) for an EU-sponsored workshop on national 
implementation looking at the same timeframe and 
National Authorities audience.  They had met with 
OPCW Chief of Cabinet Ekwall that morning, and 
described his reaction to the proposal as skeptical, 
both concerning timing and use of the EU Joint Action 
funding.  The OPCW was about to send out invitations 
to the National Authorities meeting and was not very 
receptive to late additions to the program. 
¶11. (SBU) Delrep described for the European allies 
the USG interest in a workshop on 1540 at OPCW, 
preliminary discussions that U.S. 1540 Coordinator 
Wuchte had had with OPCW officials at international 
organizations' meetings, and why we thought the 
National Authorities meeting a prime audience for 
such a workshop.  The European delegates all agreed 
that following the political battles with Iran and 
the NAM during the recent Review Conference over UN 
Security Council resolutions on terrorism, and 1540 
in particular, the time is not right to highlight a 
session on 1540 at the OPCW, especially its counter- 
terrorism angle.  A lower profile segment of a 
national implementation seminar, they thought, would 
be more productive. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Mari, the chair of the Open Ended Working 
Group on Terrorism, stated that she did not want to 
sponsor a 1540 workshop under the OEWG; she said the 
group had already "done 1540" in a meeting in 2007 
featuring Amb. Peter Burian, Chairman of the UN's 
1540 committee.  Wolstenholme noted that to attract 
active participation by the developing countries in 
an event on national implementation and 1540 (which 
they see as training lectures), adding a "carrot" 
segment on Article XI assistance programs (in which 
they are more interested) would be helpful. 
 
¶13. (SBU) As the European delegates were about to 
leave on August holiday, Mari asked Amb. Burkart to 
try to meet with OPCW Deputy Director General Freeman 
to formally register the EU's interest in expanding 
the National Authorities meeting with an 
implementation workshop that could include portions 
on UNSCR 1540 and Article XI.  Burkart scheduled a 
meeting with Freeman on August 1 and invited U.S. 
Delreps to join him.  The DDG's Special Advisor 
Richards also sat in.  Freeman stated that the 
Director General has been quite open to ideas for 
expanding the National Authorities meeting, and that 
they had already added a full day with a focus on 
industry issues.  He did not want to delay sending 
invitations out, but he suggested that the EU and 
U.S. consider proposing a program for the Monday 
(December 1) between the National Authorities meeting 
and the Conference of States Parties.  There is 
currently nothing on the schedule that day that could 
not be moved, he said.  If the EU and U.S. developed 
a specific proposal for the bridge Monday between the 
meetings, the Director General would certainly 
consider it. 
 
¶14. (SBU) On 1540, Freeman asked whether the U.S. 
would need to have a "1540 banner" on the event.  He 
and Richards both felt that a workshop focused 
specifically on 1540 would not attract developing 
countries' representatives, and they were concerned 
about the political reaction from certain countries, 
notably Iran, after the Review Conference.  Delrep 
replied that she would send his inquiry to 
Washington, but that it seemed more important to have 
a productive session with a real outcome than what it 
was labeled. 
 
¶15. (SBU) On August 5, Delreps met with Malik Ellahi, 
head of Government Relations and Political Affairs, 
and Valeria Santori of his staff to discuss prospects 
for a 1540 segment to be included in a workshop 
focused on national implementation of the CWC. 
Ellahi advised that his earlier draft proposal on 
1540 that he had shared with 1540 Coordinator Wuchte 
had been transferred to Director of Special Projects 
Paturej.  Ellahi agreed with Delreps that Paturej's 
emphasis on the counter-terrorism aspects of 1540 
would not be politically productive at this time.  He 
believed a 1540 segment included in an EU-sponsored 
implementation workshop could be useful and would 
draw less criticism than a workshop with a 1540 
focus.  He said he and his staff would be happy to 
help with the project if the OCPW hierarchy approved 
their participation. 
 
¶16. (SBU) Delreps met with OPCW Special Projects 
Director Krzysztof Paturej on August 8, when he 
returned from leave, to go over Washington's comments 
on his draft 1540 proposal (ref B).  Paturej said he 
had taken to heart his discussions with U.S. 1540 
Coordinator Wuchte and ISN/CB Director Mikulak and 
agreed that a counter-terrorism focus on 1540 would 
not be wise.  He had also discussed the matter with 
the Director General who had stipulated that a 1540 
workshop not be at the OPCW, not be funded with OPCW 
money, and not be chaired by OPCW staff.  Paturej had 
already, like the U.S. and EU, looked to the November 
National Authorities meeting as the best audience to 
reach and had approached Dutch Ambassador Lak and the 
Clingendael Institute to discuss a proposal for a 
seminar there during the week of the National 
Authorities meeting.  He shared a copy of his most 
recent proposal and asked Delreps to pass it to 1540 
Coordinator Wuchte and ISN/CB Director Mikulak for 
comment (copy sent by e-mail August 8). 
 
¶17. (SBU) On August 20, 2008, Delreps called on Dutch 
Amb. Maarten Lak to discuss the Clingendael proposal. 
Lak will be completing his assignment to OPCW at the 
end of the month but will be working at Clingendael 
one day a week for the next few months.  He expects 
that one of his projects there will be the 1540 
workshop.  The proposal has had several revisions 
since the draft that Paturej passed to Delreps (new 
draft faxed to ISN).  Lak said the Dutch government 
is prepared to fund the workshop and turn over 
planning and management to Clingendael, as they 
normally do for these projects.  The workshop would 
open Wednesday evening, November 26, with a dinner 
and keynote speeches, and then begin work in earnest 
the next morning for one full day.  Lak described the 
event as an experts meeting, with participants 
invited (by name) for their work on 1540, including 
academic, NGO, government officials and 
representatives of international organizations.  He 
himself would like to broaden it from a Chemical 
Weapons-centered focus to a 1540 focus that would 
include biological and nuclear aspects; he said that 
the approach to the workshop had not yet been 
decided.  Clingendael plans to publish the results of 
the workshop, but the form of that publication is 
also to be determined.  Delrep asked about Paturej's 
ideas for a series of workshops -- chemical to be 
followed by biological and nuclear.  Lak said that 
would be a possibility, but that Clingendael and the 
Dutch government would need to have this first 
workshop be successful before committing time and 
resources to a longer 1540 series. 
 
¶18. (SBU) Lak had also been in contact with Annie 
Mari, now returned from vacation, about a day's 
seminar (December 1) on national implementation 
sponsored by EU Joint Action funding.  He thought the 
two events would not conflict and could perhaps 
employ some of the same experts on 1540 if they were 
willing to stay the weekend between.  Delrep asked if 
that might not be overload on the National 
Authorities audience to try to do additional programs 
on both ends of the OPCW meeting.  Lak disagreed, 
saying that the purposes and audiences were 
different--a small group of experts at Clingendael 
with a more strategic focus, and the EU session more 
of a training program for governmental practitioners 
and delegates.  He felt both could be done and would 
be useful contributions to the same goal of more 
effective implementation of the CWC and UNSCR 1540. 
 
¶19. (SBU) Lak inquired whether Delreps had heard 
anything about the Slovakian government's offer of 
hosting a 1540 workshop in Bratislava.  Delrep said 
that Amb. Tomova had mentioned it before the Review 
Conference and before she became EC chairperson, but 
that she had not raised it with us recently.  Lak 
suggested that if Slovakia sponsored travel for their 
UN Permanent Representative Burian, former chair of 
the 1540 committee, to attend the Clingendael 
workshop, that would be a great contribution.  If 
they wished to host another 1540-centered event at 
another time, that would also be fine. 
 
¶20. (SBU) Lak welcomed the possibility of 
collaboration with U.S. 1540 Coordinator Wuchte as 
planning for the Clingendael workshop moves forward. 
Clingendael will be finalizing a program and 
invitation list within the next few weeks to allow 
participants time to plan their travel in November. 
He and the Clingendael organizers would particularly 
welcome suggestions or U.S.-funded sponsorship for 
expert participants. 
 
¶21. (SBU) DEL COMMENT.  Delreps discussed this series 
of meetings with Ambassador Javits on his return to 
post August 25.  Del believes that the Clingendael 
workshop is the best opportunity for a 1540-focused 
event with OPCW input at this time, given the 
political landmines surrounding UNSCR 1540 during the 
Review Conference.  Clingendael will coordinate 
closely with OPCW and Ambassador Maarten Lak, who 
knows the issues well, and provide a neutral forum 
for full discussion.  If the EU follows through with 
planning and funding for a broader implementation 
workshop on Monday, December 1, such an event could 
also be useful.  Del does not see a direct role for 
the United States or this delegation in sponsoring 
either of these events, although recommendations for 
expert presenters and participants would be welcomed. 
 
¶22. (U) Javits sends. 
Culbertson