US embassy cable - 03THEHAGUE2994

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 002994 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR AC/CB, NP/CBM, VC/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S 
SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP 
JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC 
COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) 
NSC FOR CHUPA 
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM, PREL, CWC 
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC):  WEEKLY WRAP-UP 
FOR 28 NOV 2003 
 
This is CWC-131 -03. 
 
------------------- 
Protection Workshop 
------------------- 
 
1.  (U)  This November 19-20 workshop provided a valuable 
exchange of ideas and information.  Mainly structured to put 
experts in the area of CW assistance and protection in touch 
with various companies who provide equipment, it also gave 
experts (and local delegations) the chance to hear how a 
number of States Parties view assistance and protection as 
well as what measures States Parties are taking in terms of 
emergency planning. 
 
2.  (U)  South Africa, Czech Republic, The Netherlands, 
Sweden, UK, Japan, Switzerland, Australia and even NATO all 
gave presentations on the various steps they are taking to 
prepare for a possible chemical attack.  The common theme in 
all presentations was that first response is a local 
responsibility.  By the time the national level is called in 
it is often too late.  The focus instead was how best the 
national government can assist the local level in preparing 
for such an incident.  In addition, an American from the 
Colorado Emergency Planning Commission gave a presentation on 
the public role in preparing and responding to a chemical 
incident.  This presentation was very well received by 
participants. 
 
3.  (U)  A number of U.S. companies were also present at the 
exhibition.  Del officer spoke at length with representatives 
from both Batelle and Constellation Technology Corporation 
who were very eager to talk to a member of the U.S. 
Delegation.  Both primarily wanted to hear about the role the 
U.S. delegation plays at the OPCW. 
 
4.  (U)  Wednesday evening deloffs participated in a no-host 
dinner with three Amcits invited to participate in the course 
by the TS: Tim Gablehouse, Colorado Emergency Planning 
Commission; Melanie Granberg, Attorney with Colorado law firm 
of Gablehouse, Calkins and Granberg, LLC; and Michael 
Penders, President of Environmental Security International- a 
private DC based consulting firm (former Chairman of the G8 
Nations Project on International Environment Crime and 
Eco-Terrorism).  The evening provided a useful exchange of 
ideas and views related to the CWC.  Specifically they were 
interested in learning more about the Organization as a 
whole, issues related to commercial/industrial security and 
the transfer of chemicals, as well as issues related to 
informing the public of their safety from possible CW related 
incidents both at industrial commercial sites and military 
sites. 
 
----------------------- 
Article X Consultations 
----------------------- 
 
5.  (U)  While the consultations on 21 November were convened 
to discuss the proposal for a new format for States Parties 
to make declarations on provisions of assistance (Article X, 
para 7(c)), most time was actually spent looking at ICA/APB's 
plan of events for 2004.  When discussion did turn to the new 
format, the facilitator (Hans Schramml - Austria) explained 
that his reason for proposing such a format was to make 
offers of assistance easier for the Technical Secretariat to 
process and provide structure to the offers.  Currently the 
TS has many incomplete and/or vague offers of assistance from 
 
SIPDIS 
a very small number of SPs and the hope is that this format 
will help provide cohesion among the offers.  Del stated that 
this would be best if it were a voluntary format as opposed 
to a requirement for a SP to offer assistance.  Del offered 
that many SP's have different constraints and processes for 
making offers of assistance and requiring SPs to use such a 
form may be difficult.  There were a couple of calls by SPs 
(Iran, UK) that a plan of action on Article X may be worth 
exploring. 
 
---------------------- 
Article X Consultation 
---------------------- 
 
----- Discussion with the UK in advance of consultations on 
Declaration Format for National Protective Programs ----- 
 
6.  (U)  The UK (Gabby Krueger and Clive Rowland) were very 
appreciative of U.S. comments on their proposed format.  They 
took all our comments on board and look forward to discussing 
the format in more detail in the future.  In response to U.S. 
concerns on items 4 and 7 (efforts at the local and regional 
level) they explained that the goal here was to capture the 
differences in the way SPs structure their efforts.  Many SPs 
have a regional or local mechanism to respond to CW incidents 
that are supported by, but not run by their national 
government.  The UK believes rewording may help solve the 
U.S. problem with this item (though no alternate wording was 
proposed).  In regard to the U.S. concern on items 6 and 23 
(references to publicly available information) the UK 
understands our concern and again believes the items can be 
reworded.  They did not intend for these two items to be 
all-inclusive of every possible publicly available bit of 
information, but rather as a jumping point or reference point 
for SPs t 
o gather more information.  On our last point regarding R&D 
facilities, the UK is looking at possibilities.  The U.S. is 
not the only country to voice concerns over providing this 
information. 
 
----- Article X Consultation ----- 
 
7.    (U)  The consultation on 24 November focused on the UK 
proposed format for Declaration of National Protective 
Programs.  Most SPs did not have comments back yet from 
capital.  Krueger went through the document paragraph by 
paragraph in order to pass along comments from the Protection 
Network to delegations.  Beyond these comments (see below) 
SPs grabbed onto our statement that "it is important that our 
efforts strike a balance between the desire for transparency 
and concerns related to the sensitivity and practical 
difficulties in gathering and releasing selected information. 
 India, Iran, The Netherlands, Japan, France, China all 
echoed this sentiment.  South Africa was very vocal and laid 
down a marker regarding the length and detail of information 
in the proposed format.  On a number of different occasions 
during the consultations the delegate from South Africa made 
it very clear that Pretoria believes that information outside 
of national programs was not relevant and should not be the 
bulk of the declaration (they believe it currently is the 
bulk of the declaration).  They do not see the value added in 
having questions outside of national protective programs and 
believe the format should be much shorter.  Krueger's plan is 
a have a revised draft ready for circulation in mid-January 
and follow up with another round of consultations the end of 
January. 
 
8.  (U)  Proposed Changes by the Protection Network: 
 
-- Question 3: include at end of last sentence after 
terrorists "all other non-State actors". 
 
-- Question 5: add sub item (e) - Would X SP like to receive 
assistance/expert advice? 
 
-- Question 6: Suggest opening to broader than just 
governmental. 
 
-- Question 7: Suggest breaking into "implementing" and 
"developing" - for example Implementing (a), (b), (c), 
Developing (a), (b), (c). 
 
-- Question 8: Subitem (a) delete "designs that were". 
Include in (a) and (c) - commercial. 
 
-- Question 9: Add "Hazard modeling".  In "Decontamination 
measure for personnel or equipment" change "measure" to 
"technologies". 
 
9.  (U)  Javits sends. 
SOBEL