Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
04THEHAGUE1105
2004-05-03 13:36:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

Tags:  PARM PREL CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 THE HAGUE 001105 

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): WRAP-UP FOR
9-23 APRIL 2004

This is CWC-52-04.

------------
Article IV/V
------------

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 THE HAGUE 001105

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): WRAP-UP FOR
9-23 APRIL 2004

This is CWC-52-04.

--------------
Article IV/V
--------------


1. (U) Facilitator Johan Verboom/Netherlands held a 22
April consultation on his draft decision on the Late Receipt
of Article IV and V Income and the Working Capital Fund.
Regarding the preambular paragraphs, Russia and Korea
expressed concern that the language regarding possessor
states' responsibility for the cost of destruction is
misleading, and requested that CWC language from Article IV
paragraph 16 should be used instead. Delegations agreed to
put the language calling for the financing of the Working
Capital Fund (WCF) using the cash surpluses at the end of the
second operative paragraph. Delegations were confused by use
of the terms ceiling and level and requested that the term
level be eliminated.


2. (U) The TS presented a paper justifying its request to
raise the WCF to ten million euros and allowing for three
years after the financial period to replenish the WCF (faxed
to AC/CB). The TS request to raise the WCF to ten million
euros was supported by Germany, France, Austria, Switzerland,
Canada, and China; Japan requested a more thorough
justification; and Italy stated that it could not support the
requested ten million euros. No delegation supported the TS
request for an additional three years to replenish the WCF.
Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Switzerland, Iran and Canada
all supported one additional year. India requested
clarification on how the increase would be funded, asking
whether the cash surpluses would be refunded to SPs and then
returned after a special assessment. The TS replied that no,
the money would stay in the TS accounts.

--------------
Financial Regulations
--------------


3. (U) April 15 Consultation: Facilitator Peter Van
Brakel/Canada held a consultation on 15 April to invite final
comments on two papers: the Proposed Amendment to Financial
Rule 12.2.01 and the EC decision document and Annex of
proposed amendments to the Financial Regulations. No
discussion ensued, so the facilitator presumed consensus.
Next the facilitator asked for discussion of the draft U.S.
paper suggesting other amendments to the financial

regulations. Delegations were confused by the definition of
contingency margin that mixed the concepts of income
currently received with a future determination of funding
adequacy. Germany noted the relation to regulation 4.7.01
which directs the DG to calculate the contingency margin as
related to assessed contributions, but does not account for
Article IV/V contributions and interest. Finally,
delegations agreed to live with the contradiction as it
accurately reflects current practice. The facilitator
suggested that the term "income received and anticipated"
might eliminate the confusion and noted that this would be
discussed in the next session (22 April).


4. (U) Next delegations focused on the definition of
"object of expenditure." TS official Herb Schulz remarked
that the TS had already streamlined these after ABAF
suggested that this would clarify expenditure records. India
asked for a definition of uniform classification, along with
several concrete examples. Further discussion was deferred
to the next session. Discussion moved to Article 13.3, where
delegates were concerned about the concept of "value for
money" audits and asked whether the TS had ever authorized
one. Schulz explained that there are two types of audits,
one strictly financial, the other that looks at efficiency
and effectiveness. India asked how the TS sets guidelines
for external audits and whether this was consistent with the
practices of other UN organizations. Schulz responded that
there are internationally accepted audit standards, which
direct audit processes. Schulz also noted that the auditors
have discussed why there has not yet been a TS "value for
money" audit in the past and have recommended that the TS
have them done in the future. One may be done on the
recruitment process, according to Schulz.


5. (U) Final tidbits: Other proposals suggested in the U.S.
paper were amendments to Regulations 2.2, 3.5, 3.7, 4.7, and
4.12. At the next session, the issue of waiving the
eight-week advance submission to the next EC for a
supplementary budget (Regulation 3.5) will be discussed.
Discussion will also include changing the Regulation 3.7
period to a year, and whether Regulation 4.12 should be
discussed in this consultation of transferred to the Article
IV/V consultation. Germany proposed holding joint sessions
where the two topics overlap. The facilitator noted that he
would make changes and redistribute the paper (forwarded to
AC/CB 19 April).


6. (U) April 22 Consultation: At the April 22
consultation, Van Brakel reported that discussion of all
proposed changes to the regulations would fall in his
facilitation. Those relevant to the Article IV/V discussions
would be carefully coordinated with the facilitator. Debate
focused on the 20 April facilitator's paper (e-mailed to
AC/CB). With regard to Regulation 2.2, contributions were
defined as those amounts payable by States Parties (SPs)
subject to the provisions of Articles IV, V, and VII of the
Convention. With regard to Regulations 6.2, 6.3, the
delegations overwhelmingly supported using the term
provisional cash balance because at the end of the financial
year, there is always a deficit, due to the invoicing process
(no invoices are issued during the first and last six weeks
of the year),late receipts of interest, etc. All
delegations preferred the bracketed language Article V of
these regulations. For Regulation 6.3 (c) tick 3, Russia,
China, Germany, Italy, and France argued that the
hierarchical structure needed to be maintained, and the
U.S.-proposed change to the word other is too general. What
needs to be deducted is payment for any arrears of Article
IV/V payments, and Germany proposed revising tick 3 as
follows: any arrears of assessed contributions subject to the
provisions of Articles IV and V of the Convention.


7. (U) The U.S., supported by Russia and Germany, noted
that more time was needed to consideration the Regulation 5.4
proposal. Russia suggested that one way forward might be to
mirror 4.12.01 ticks d and e, where 60 days is allowed for
the SP and TS to settle any disputes regarding the invoiced
amounts and then the SP has 30 days to pay the agreed amount.
Austria noted that Russia got it wrong: the TS has 60 days
to present the invoice and then the SP has 30 days to pay it.
Germany suggested revising via something such as: invoices
with sufficient detail, will be forwarded by the TS to the SP
within (tbd) days. After being checked for accuracy, the
invoice shall be paid by the SP within 30 days. All
delegations agreed that more time was needed to consider the
proposed language for Regulation 4.13. The facilitator noted
that he had tried to mirror Regulation 4.12 in reflecting the
Article IV/V situation, but recognized that more work was
needed.

--------------
Universality
--------------


8. (U) Delegation worked with WEOG Chair Ruth Flint
(Switzerland) to elicit views on wither the 5-7 May Malta
Workshop should be postponed. Most delegations agree that TS
preparations have been inadequate, and would support
postponement, but believe that it may be too late. The sole
hold out was Spain, which believes that a regional workshop
in the Mediterranean region focused solely on National
Implementation will advance OPCW goals. On the margins of
the financial regulations consultation, External Relations
Director Huang Yu told delegations that the TS is pressuring
Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Cyprus and Turkey to
ensure their participation (note: but as of 19 May, only
Greece has formally indicated its attendance). Egypt
informed the TS that it will not have official representation
in Malta, but Huang told delegations that his Egyptian
friend, an academic, might be willing to attend. The two
NSPs who have confirmed are Israel and Comoros; the TS has
not heard from Djibouti or Somalia.


9. (U) Flint alerted delegation that during her
conversation with Rafael Grossi, he indicated that the DG
wants the workshop to go ahead, that attending delegations
will be able to pressure Israel to ratify the Convention,
that copies of the documentation will be distributed to
Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon, and that the workshop has been in
preparation for over a year. Grossi said that Egypt and
Syria should not be allowed to "veto" a workshop, and that it
is important for the TS to reach out to the region. The DG
has announced that he will chair a consultation on the Malta
Workshop on 23 April.


10. (U) As of 19 April, the following SPs have registered
for the workshop: Albania, Bosnia, Greece, Japan, Libya,
Moldova, Pakistan, Portugal, Russia, Spain, UAE, and the UK.
The EU and the Arab League also have confirmed their
attendance. The TS assured delegations that Algeria, Cyprus,
Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey had verbally indicated that they
would send representatives but had yet to confirm.


11. (U) On April 23, the DG chaired a meeting to discuss
the status of the Malta workshop. He noted that a
Universality-related exercise had been requested by the
Mediterranean SPs some time ago and has been under TS
preparation for about a year. Originally it was to have been
held in Algeria, but the venue was changed to Malta after the
Algerians were unable to host it due to a conflict with the
timing of their national elections. As of Thursday 22 April,
the following Mediterranean SPs have indicated their
participation: Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Comoros (nonSP),
Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Israel (nonSP),Italy, Libya,
Moldavia, Morocco, Portugal, Sudan, Tunisia, Turkey, and the
UAE. Other registered participants are China, Japan, Russian
Federation, the UK, and the U.S. The DG reported that the TS
would continue to press Algeria and France to attend.


12. (U) The DG summarized TS efforts to encourage non-SPs
to attend. He met locally with the Ambassadors of Israel and
Egypt, but was unable to arrange similar meetings with the
Ambassadors of Lebanon and Syria. He also met with Abu Musa,
the DG of the Arab League of States. These meetings resulted
in the attendance of two Israeli participants and a
representative from the Arab League. The Tunisian delegate
reported that she contacted the Lebanese Charge who advised
that Beirut had yet to provide instructions but expected
something by 28 April. She also reported that she contacted
the Jordanian embassy that had reported Amman is willing to
participate, but because the National Authority was being
reorganized, it had yet to respond.


13. (U) Responses from the attendees ranged from support
for the conference to requests for postponement. All present
supported the concept of the Mediterranean regional workshop
on Universality and regretted that some of the regional
nonSPs would not be attending. China, Japan, the Russian
Federation, and Spain all supported the 5-7 May conference
dates even without the presence of all the regional nonSPs,
but stressed the importance of follow-up with these states.
Japan noted that it would be sending its former Ambassador to
Egypt to report on the conference and to lobby the nonSPs for
accession after the workshop. Spain emphasized that the
workshop would allow attendees to make progress on National
Implementation.


14. (U) France appealed for postponement, noting that it
would not attend the conference if held 5-7 May. France
noted that the situation in the Mideast is delicate at best,
and requires careful treatment and approaches that have not
been met by TS preparations. France stressed that the Action
Plan called for the TS to provide SPs a comprehensive and
structured plan of activities for the coming year, but so far
the list of activities have lacked structure, detail, and
strategy, noting that the usual approach of seminars and
workshops which have worked well in some regions may not work
in others. France called for more in depth thinking on new
ways interactively among the TS and SPs. Iran and The
Netherlands supported the French intervention and called for
postponement. Algeria, Canada, and Germany expressed their
preference for postponement but noted that time was too short
and called for the TS to better coordinate with SPs in the
future.


15. (U) Algeria, supported by the other attendees, stressed
to the TS that it needed to carefully consider which
participants it sponsored, limiting sponsorship to those
truly in need, noting that some requesting sponsorship could
swim to Malta. Algeria noted that in spite of the pride the
TS is taking in its efforts to involve the Arab League, the

SIPDIS
Arab League has no official statues and cannot speak for its
member states. Algeria also noted that not all of the nonSPs
were members.

--------------
Information Technology
--------------


16. (U) During the 20 April WEOG, Information Systems
Branch chief Greg Linden presented the status of and plans
for the Verification Information System (VIS) Enhancement
project (faxed back to AC/CB). Delegates welcomed and
actively supported this effort. Linden emphasized that the
VIS project is a "people project" vice an information
technology (IT) development project -- it includes elements
targeted at training users (TS and SPs) as well as ensuring
that the system meets the needs of the primary TS users.
There is a project board is headed by the DDG, and there are
a number of project managers (Linden is one). There also is
a function team (comprised of individuals from security/OCS,
Declarations Branch, Verification Branch, and others) and a
quality assurance team that is evaluating the deliverables
received from the contractor Sitar, Inc.


17. (U) By late summer 2004, the TS plans to ask SPs to
help test the VIS prototype and by March/April 2005, the TS
expects that SPs will be able to send to and receive
electronic data from the TS. The TS intends to use the
October 2004 industry declarations to permit the Verification
and Declarations Branches to test the system. Linden noted
that several SPs have approached the TS and volunteered to
participate. Sitar, Inc, is putting together a final
detailed schedule, which is being vetted by the TS and is
expected to be finalized in May 2004.


18. (U) New Zealand and Canada noted the different
reporting requirements among SPs with large industries which
can require thousands of pages of information using many of
the 48 forms in the Declaration Handbook while SPs with small
industries only require a few pages using a minimal number of
forms. They noted their concern that a read/write tool
developed by a SP with a large industry that includes all 48
forms might not be user-friendly for SPs with small
industries. Linden noted that the U.S.-developed CFTS will
be provided to SPs on a trial basis and welcomed their
assessment. The TS is first developing the VIS for its own
use, but it then plans to engage SPs to determine what works
best for all necessary. He noted that whatever read/write
tool eventually is given to SPs will adhere to the CFTS
protocol.


19. (U) Germany noted the need to balance the security of
the VIS with the security audit function. It noted the past
irregularity of audits as well as the lack of standard
mandates and asked whether the TS would establish annual
security audits once the VIS is in place. Germany also asked
if an outside institution or company accredited for security
reviews might be hired for an independent assessment. Linden
agreed that the security audit process needs to be
regularized, but that this falls under the purview of OCS.
He reported that the TS considered hiring a company to do an
independent audit, but while it could certify that the TS met
IT ISO standards, the estimated cost was $250,000.
Furthermore there is no international standard, so that one
country might not recognize another country's security
assurance certification. Linden noted that the TS will meet
the ISO standard for information security and discussed one,
less expensive possibility that would involving hiring a
company to come in and "break" the system, leading to
identification of IT security flaws.


20. (U) Netherlands first asked about the cost of the
project (answer: ten contractor, ten in-house, all funded by
a voluntary contribution) and secondly about VIS
implementation: if SPs don't have the skills to implement
Article VII, how does TS plan to help them acquire the IT
skills needed to participate? Linden replied that SPs will
still be able to submit paper copies; he also is meeting with
Magda Bauta to plan how to provide expertise and/or train
eventual users. Linden also noted that if a SP turns in a
hard copy declaration, the TS intends to provide it with an
electronic copy of its declaration, allowing it to easily
update declarations as well as permit future electronic
submissions of its industry data. The TS recognizes that
this will be a slow transition but if the TS can get the
10-12 SPs with the largest industries to participate, the TS
will receive 80% of industrial data declarations
electronically.

--------------
Scientific Advisory Board
--------------


21. (U) On April 16, we met with TS representative Ralf
Trapp to discuss TS efforts to coordinate with the Scientific
Advisory Board (SAB) temporary working group on Biomedical
Samples. The first meeting of this working group is
tentatively scheduled, pending funding and attendee
availability, for 16-17 June at the OPCW headquarters. Trapp
provided Del with a proposed list of attendees, containing
the names of two Americans (J.R. Smith from US AMRICD and Dr.
J.R. Barr, CDC),whom the TS has been in contact with
regarding participation in the working group. Trapp
requested the U.S. support American participation in the
working group and indicated attendees may have to pay their
own way to the meeting.


22. (U) Javits sends.
RUSSEL