VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0107/01 0501543
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 191543Z FEB 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2536
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 000107 
 
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 AND DENYER) 
NSC FOR FLY 
WINPAC FOR WALTER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CWC:  GOVERNMENT EXPERTS MEETING TO  CONSIDER THE 
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BOARD (SAB) REPORT  TO THE SECOND 
REVIEW CONFERENCE 
 
REF: A. STATE 12311 
     ¶B. NOTE BY THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL RC-2/DG.1 DATED 28 
        FEBRUARY 2008 
 
This is CWC-08-09. 
 
¶1. (U) This cable reports on subject meeting held 
in The Hague 11-13 February 2009, and is organized 
along the lines of the meeting agenda.  Ref A is 
U.S. guidance for the meeting.  US officials 
attending the meeting were Richard D'Andrea 
(Department of State ISN/CB) and Larry Denyer 
(Department of Commerce BIS). 
 
¶2. (U) Agenda Items 1 and 2 were Opening of the 
Session and Adoption of the agenda respectively, 
and both were conducted by the Executive Council 
Chairman without comment. 
 
¶3. (U) Agenda Item 3, Welcome address by the 
Director-General.  The DG welcomed the delegations, 
stressed the importance of the SAB work and the 
review by Government Experts, and said that he 
looked forward to a meaningful report to the 
Executive Council on future SAB work. 
 
¶4. (U) Agenda Item 4, Introduction to the Note by 
the Director-General.  The DG gave a cursory review 
of his Note on the SAB Report (ref B), and ended 
with a request for continued support for the SAB. 
The DG's review was comprehensive and did not add 
any new topics or issues.  Next, Philip Coleman, 
SAB Chairman, reviewed the SAB report and like the 
DG was comprehensive and did not add any new topics 
or issues. 
 
¶5. (U) Agenda Item 5, Advances in science and 
technology was deferred in favor of Agenda Item 6, 
Schedules of chemicals, which was handled by Ralf 
Trapp, the meeting moderator.  Working from the SAB 
report text (contained in ref B), Dr. Trapp covered 
paragraphs 3.1 ) 3.14 to determine if any States 
Parties had any changes to the content and 
recommendations for further SAB work.  Dr. Trapp 
skillfully moved through the paragraphs deftly 
dealing with interventions predominantly from Iran, 
India, Canada, and Italy, and concluded that there 
were no changes. 
 
¶6. (U) Agenda Item 6, Issues related to 
Verification, specifically On- and off-site 
sampling and analysis, and Analysis of biomedical 
samples.  Again Dr. Trapp, working with the SAB 
report text, covered paragraphs 4.1-4.13 
successfully addressing all interventions from 
Italy, France, Iran, and India; and concluded that 
there were no changes needed to the SAB report. 
 
¶7. (U) Agenda Item 7, Destruction of chemical 
weapons.  When Dr. Trapp opened discussion of 
paragraphs 5.1 and 5.2 of the SAB report, Iran 
intervened to ask for an interpretation of the 
meaning of the word, "technologies" as addressed in 
paragraph 5.1.  Dr. Trapp agreed to put an 
explanation in the report.  Ukraine then intervened 
to propose that the SAB look into increases in the 
size of temporary storage areas for chemical 
weapons pending destruction and the impact on 
destruction schedules.  The U.S. intervened to 
explain that for the United States at least the 
sizes of temporary storage areas were fixed and had 
no impact on the destruction schedule. 
Additionally the U.S. pointed out that paragraph 
5.1 specifically addressed chemical weapons 
destruction technologies, and for the United 
States, those included CW destruction by 
incineration or by neutralization followed by 
destruction of the neutralization products.  Dr. 
Trapp promptly moved on to paragraph 5.2 dealing 
with technologies associated with the recovery of 
old and abandoned chemical weapons (OACW).  China 
intervened to underscore the importance of further 
SAB work in this area.  Japan also intervened to 
express their support for the report of the 11th 
meeting of the SAB as adopted at EC-54.  There were 
no further interventions and the meeting adjourned 
for the day. 
 
¶8. (U) Agenda Item 8 Assistance and protection 
against the effects of chemical weapons, and 
international cooperation.  Dr. Trapp opened this 
topic with a brief overview of SAB report 
paragraphs 6.1 ) 6.4 and then invited comments. 
Iran launched a protracted intervention in which 
Iran reminded everyone that Iran was victimized by 
chemical weapons, that discussion of detection and 
other protection technologies was insufficient 
without also addressing equal availability of 
detection instruments to all States Parties.  The 
intervention continued by stating that the SAB 
should propose cooperative efforts among States 
Parties (read: including Iran) in the development 
of antidotes, medical treatments for victims, 
decontamination, and the like.  The intervention 
went on to state what was becoming a recurring 
Iranian theme concerning the sharing of technical 
information among all States Parties; and concluded 
with an assertion that the Director-General has a 
mandate under Article X to help States Parties, and 
that the Technical Secretariat should be doing more 
in this regard.  Dr. Trapp responded that the 
information in the literature is available to 
everyone and was fully discussed in the Zagreb 
workshop.  The Czech Republic intervened pointing 
out that SAB considerations of protection against 
the effects of chemical weapons should include 
response to CW attack and industrial chemical 
accidents, intelligence gathering, chemical safety, 
protection of civilians and infrastructure, 
emergency medical response, forensic science, 
response to alleged use, and called for the 
establishment of a Temporary Working Group to study 
these issues.  Dr. Trapp responded that the SAB's 
focus is on the underlying science as opposed what 
amounts to policy-driven responses to these issues, 
and while he agreed in principle with both 
interventions he reminded everyone that the SAB is 
not resourced to undertake these issues.  He then 
deftly moved the discussion on to the next agenda 
item. 
 
¶9. (U) Agenda Item 9 Advances in science and 
technology.  Because of the size and complexity of 
this item (paragraphs 2.1-2.14 of the SAB Report) 
Dr. Trapp divided the discussion into sections. 
 
¶A. Convergence of chemistry and biology.  Dr. Trapp 
opened this topic with a brief introduction and 
Iran intervened stating that Iran was unclear as to 
what the SAB was trying to accomplish.  The Russian 
Federation intervened to ask that the SAB identify 
practical consequences of this convergence.  Iran 
again intervened with a request for information on 
again intervened with a request for information on 
this convergence.  Dr. Trapp made the point that 
ever more biological molecules are being 
synthesized in laboratories and that there is 
increasing overlap between the CWC and BWC.  Dr. 
Trapp recounted the IUPAC study on this topic that 
preceded the First Review Conference and concluded 
that the convergence is well documented.  He then 
moved on to the next section. 
 
 
¶B. Accelerated discovery of chemicals.  Having made 
the point previously about more biologically active 
molecules being synthesized in laboratories, Dr. 
Trapp opened the topic for discussion.  Italy 
intervened to make the point that this is something 
that National Authorities should track and that the 
SAB should recommend best channels and topics 
within the voluminous amounts of data.  Iran 
intervened to ask what the SAB meant by new 
chemicals for law enforcement pointing out that the 
CWC allows use of riot control agents (RCA).  A 
back and forth exchange ensued between Iran and the 
moderator in which each tried to get the other to 
introduce the term, incapacitating agent, and 
neither side did.  Finally Dr. Trapp called for a 
break and the discussion was terminated. 
 
¶C. Nanotechnology and other matters. Dr. Trapp 
introduced this topic and Iran intervened to 
request information.  The Czech Republic intervened 
with an example of how they use nanotechnology to 
get oxidation states of iron from zero to plus 
seven and then derive water purification 
applications using these unusual ions.  Dr. Trapp 
maneuvered the discussion into technology for 
delivery systems and then added production 
technology thereby covering all the remaining SAB 
report paragraphs (2.5 ) 2.14) to the discussion. 
Paragraph 2.13 on other chemical production 
facilities (OCPF) drew the most attention with 
interventions by China, France, Iran, India, and 
Italy, but in the end there were no changes to the 
SAB recommendations.  India had called for the 
deletion of paragraphs 2.12 and 2.13 as not 
reflecting the current state of play of OCPF 
discussions.  Dr. Trapp refused and pointed out 
that the SAB report was written prior to the Review 
Conference and reflected the thinking at the time. 
He then adjourned the session to prepare the draft 
report which he proposed to let delegations review. 
While he said he would welcome comments he pointed 
out that this would be his report as opposed to a 
consensus report. 
 
¶10. (U) Agenda Item 10, Education and outreach in 
the context of the Convention.  This agenda item 
involved a cursory discussion of SAB report 
paragraphs 7.1 and 7.2.  Dr. Trapp highlighted 
IUPAC efforts and Iran intervened to point out that 
outreach efforts go beyond the scientific issues 
and touch on ethical and moral issues better left 
to policy making organs.  Experts concluded that 
policy making organs and National Authorities need 
to be involved in outreach efforts to raise 
awareness of the Convention. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Agenda Item 11, Adoption of the report. 
Dr. Trapp produced and distributed a draft for 
experts review and comment making it clear that 
this would be his report rather than a consensus 
report.  While he welcomed comments he reserved the 
right to take them or not at his discretion.  The 
U.S. intervened to request that a summary list of 
topics that the SAB should further assess and 
topics the SAB should continue to monitor be added 
to the report, and Dr. Trapp agreed.  The draft 
report was a factual account of the proceedings 
free of objectionable content.  U.S. experts agreed 
on several minor edits, discussed these with Dr. 
Trapp privately the following morning before the 
meeting, and Dr. Trapp accepted them. 
Additionally, Dr. Trapp handed out the list of 
topics that had been previously requested.  The 
meeting convened and a paragraph by paragraph 
review ensued.  Dr. Trapp tried to accommodate any 
reasonable edits and was surprisingly flexible.  At 
the end of the review process Iran proposed adding 
a paragraph about the importance of the meeting 
implying that further such meetings should occur. 
Dr. Trapp declined to add such a paragraph or any 
other "judgmental" characterizations.  The U.S., 
France, Sweden, Germany, Ireland, UK, Canada, and 
Japan intervened in support of Dr. Trapp.  The 
report is yet to be finalized to incorporate 
comments from experts. 
 
¶12. (U) Closure of the meeting.  The Chairman of 
the Executive Council resumed control of the 
meeting from the moderator intending to close the 
meeting.  Iran intervened to object that the report 
was not finished and therefore could not be agreed. 
Dr. Trapp intervened to explain that the report 
would be a moderator's report as opposed to an 
approved report.  Iran continued to argue for a 
consensus report.  The U.S. intervened pointing out 
that this was a meeting of experts from capitals 
simply exchanging views without any official 
standing and that reference to consensus was 
inappropriate.  Japan, France, Sweden, and Ireland 
intervened in support of this view.  Iran continued 
to argue to the bitter end and finally requested 
that the report reflect that there were divergent 
views.  The meeting was closed at 1408 hours local 
time on 13 February 2009. 
 
¶13. (SBU) Comment: There was a sense of relief that 
the meeting had actually gone better than many 
experts had expected.  The moderator's report will 
go to the Executive Council for its consideration. 
Ultimately the Director-General will decide what 
work the Scientific Advisory Board will take on in 
the future. 
 
¶14. (U) This cable was drafted and cleared by 
Richard D'Andrea and Larry Denyer. 
 
¶15. (U) Beik sends 
GALLAGHER