US embassy cable - 03THEHAGUE1731

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 001731 
 
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 FOLEY 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PARM, PREL, CWC 
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR 16 
- 30 JUNE 
 
This is CWC-74-03. 
 
-------- 
Summary 
-------- 
 
1.  (U)  No other delegations showed enthusiasm for 
committing, as of Friday, June 20, to a serious, sustained 
effort at a systemic fix for Article IV/V financing. 
 
2.  (U)  There were no immediate results from this round of 
industry intersessional consultations, but it is possible 
that the September Executive Council could take decisions on 
Boundaries of Production and Requests for Clarification of 
Declarations. 
 
3.  (U)  Facilitator Eric Wills (Netherlands) tried to get 
consensus on what he considered the technical issues in the 
draft decision on sampling and analysis.  He appears to have 
succeeded, with the exception of the French, who insist that 
analysis results be hand-carried from the designated lab that 
performed the analysis to The Hague. 
 
4.  (U)  Ambassador Javits will participate in site visits at 
Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and Tooele, Utah the week of 14 July 
and will return to Washington for consultations 18-19 July. 
 
Topics: 
 
-- Article IV/V Consultations 
-- June Industry Intersessionals 
-- Sampling and Analysis Procedures 
-- Ambassador Javits Upcoming Travel 
 
-------------------------- 
Article IV/V Consultations 
-------------------------- 
 
5.  (U)  US Del led off the comments, expressing regret that 
the proposed facilitator's report for EC-33 language was so 
anodyne and arguing that the reference only to "efforts to 
achieve prompt issue and payment of invoices" was reductive 
and did not cover many other elements of the Article IV/V 
problem. Deloff made the point that U.S. inability as of yet 
to reimburse for Article IV/V in 2003 did not in any way 
speak to problems with the system of budgeting for and 
assessing Article IV/V.  Del urged the need for serious 
discussion of a real solution to this problem, underlining 
that the USG was willing to discuss the three main 
approaches, as outlined in draft EC-33 guidance.  Facilitator 
Geoff Cole (UK) welcomed this, but then pointed out in detail 
the problems with each of the three, e.g. difficulties that 
might arise with assessment based on previous year's 
activities if there were significant year-to-year 
fluctuations in the amount of work carried out. 
 
6.  (U)  No other delegations showed enthusiasm for 
committing, as of Friday, June 20, to a serious, sustained 
effort at a systemic fix for Article IV/V. (Ruth Flint 
(Switzerland) indicated a preference for the system of 
assessing based on previous year's activity.)  Overall 
preference was to suggest modest edits to the facilitator's 
text and he recalled that a statement at an EC in mid-2002 
had referred to the possibility of possessor states making 
voluntary advance payments on Article IV/V, should they so 
wish.  There was broad support for resurrecting this 
previously agreed language. 
 
7.  (U)  The Spanish thought the reference to payment of 
invoices "as far as possible within the same year as the work 
carried out" in the facilitator's draft was too vague, and 
suggested replacing "the work" with "the inspections". 
Nobody had problems with that. 
 
8.  (U)  A number of dels specified that they had no 
instructions with respect to allowing reimbursements for 
withdrawals from the Working Capital Fund to cover 2004 needs 
to be made as late as the end of 2005.  This group of 
countries included Germany, France, and Russia. 
 
------------------------------ 
June Industry Intersessionals 
------------------------------ 
 
9.  (U)  There were no immediate results from this round of 
industry intersessional consultations, but it is possible 
that the September Executive Council could take decisions on 
Boundaries of Production and Requests for Clarification of 
Declarations. 
 
10.  (U)  Facilitators held meetings on Captive Use, Requests 
for Clarification of Declarations, Low Concentrations 
Schedule 2A/2Aasterisk, the draft Handbook on Chemicals (part 
of the draft Declarations Handbook), and the draft 
Declarations Handbook.  The session on OCPF (Other Chemical 
Production Facility or UDOC) plant site selection was 
cancelled because the new U.S. paper had not been coordinated 
with Switzerland. 
 
-- The two sessions on the draft Declarations Handbook and 
its Handbook on Chemicals raised issues too technical for 
delegations to respond to adequately on the spot.  There 
might easily be consensus, however, if some of the proposals 
could be translated into simple language.  Especially useful 
are the suggestions to highlight the most used chemicals in 
the Handbook on Chemicals, and to make forms A-1 and A-2 of 
the draft Declarations Handbook an annual submission from all 
States Parties, reconfirming their National Authority 
information and certifying that they have nothing else to 
declare (if that is the case).  The facilitator (Manfred 
Ruck, Germany) also proposes a simple new system to assign 
unique identifier numbers to all Scheduled chemicals that do 
not have Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) numbers.  He intends 
next to sort out mixtures declarations. 
 
-- A decision on Requests for Clarification of Declarations 
should be possible now that Del has been able to respond to 
the Iranian legal objections.  There is broad support for a 
political commitment to providing some kind of answer to such 
requests within 60 days, especially since 45 percent of such 
requests in 2002 involved inspectability of plant sites, and 
60 percent involved compliance concerns.  Iran and others are 
swayed by the argument that if a declaration is not complete, 
the timeline for submitting declarations under the Convention 
has not been met. 
 
-- The British facilitator for Low Concentrations suggested 
that Amiton be moved to Schedule 1 because it is no longer 
used, but neither he nor the Scientific Advisory Board had 
done their homework in this respect.  When Del asked if the 
Technical Secretariat had any information, Industry 
Verification Branch confirmed that declarations of transfers 
of Amiton are still coming in. 
 
-- Captive Use is still being blocked by Russia because 
Russia does not declare any Schedule 3 production that does 
not leave the plant site.  (The Russian delegation would sign 
up to the captive use language with respect to Schedule 2 
only.)  Germany also spoke out for the first time, reserving 
on the draft decision text because there is no agreement in 
Berlin.  The German del clarified later that Germany does 
not/not interpret the Boundaries of Production decision to 
require any declarations based only on calculations.  Unless 
a measurement has been made, Germany maintains there is 
nothing for inspectors to verify, since re-doing calculations 
does not constitute Verification. 
 
----------------------- 
Sampling and Analysis 
Procedures 19 June 2003 
----------------------- 
 
11.  (U)  Facilitator Eric Wills (Netherlands) tried to get 
consensus on what he considered the technical issues in the 
24 April draft decision.  He appears to have succeeded, with 
the exception of the French insistence that analysis results 
be hand-carried from the designated lab that performed the 
analysis to The Hague (para. 11.8 (e)). 
 
12.  (U)  The French del has had a bad experience with the 
Technical Secretariat's approach to confidentiality, and does 
not want to allow any additional hands/eyes on the analysis 
results.  The Rijswijk lab (Stefan Mogl) wants to insist on 
hand-carrying because the results were not readable when sent 
by secure fax during the recent exercise.  Mogl has not 
approached Technical Secretariat support staff (IT, 
Confidentiality) who might be able to offer him a better 
 
SIPDIS 
technical option.  Del has since done so. 
 
13.  (U)  Iran continues to raise political objections to 
para. 9.1, insisting that "geographic distribution" of chosen 
designated labs be mandated.  Wills continues to point out 
that only European labs were available in 2000.  India listed 
numerous labs currently suspended in support of Iran.  There 
is a factual misunderstanding here by supporters of Iran, if 
not by Iran itself.  This might be straightened out by a 
forceful and clear spokesperson for the Technical Secretariat. 
14.  (U)  In paras. 9.3 and 11.6, Iran demands the right for 
the ISP to observe off-site analysis, because it is part and 
parcel of inspection activity. 
 
15.  (U)  Agreed changes: 
 
--    OP 2, request the Technical Secretariat to "further" 
test and validate . . . Rationale:  to reflect the successful 
sampling and analysis exercise. 
 
--    Para. 6.1, the UK requested the Technical Secretariat's 
custody "is deemed to be" maintained by "the integrity of" 
the fiber-optical seals.  However, the language will stay 
unchanged due to objections from France, Japan and Del. 
 
--    Para. 6.3, France reserves until it studies the IATA 
A-106 document used to apply the special exemption granted to 
the Director General by IATA in 1993. 
 
--    Para. 6.4, Germany objected that the Convention says 
the Director General shall be responsible for transport of a 
sample, so the responsibility cannot be the National 
Authority's.  Agreed fix:  "The National Authority of a 
designated lab shall facilitate in-country transport of the 
sample." 
 
--    Para. 6.5, delete "as necessary" because it is 
grammatically part of the previously deleted verbiage. 
 
--    Para. 11.9, the ROK tried to insist on a third lab if 
there is any inconsistency.  It should be possible to explain 
to the South Korean delegation why this might not be 
necessary.  The ROK del indicated they would accept "or, if 
the issue is not clarified, select additional ones." 
 
---------------------------------- 
Ambassador Javits' Upcoming Travel 
---------------------------------- 
 
16.  (U)  Ambassador Javits will participate in site visits 
at Pine Bluff, Arkansas, and Tooele, Utah the week of 14 July 
and will return to Washington for consultations 18-19 July. 
Ambassador Javits is willing to stay in Washington an extra 
day or two if additional meetings are necessary. 
 
17.  (U)  Javits sends. 
 
BAILY