Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
04THEHAGUE1106
2004-05-03 13:46:00
UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY

Tags:  PARM PREL IT 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.

031346Z May 04
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 001106 

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

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 IT CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY
WRAP-UP FOR 30 APRIL 2004


This is CWC-53-04.

--------------
SPECIAL MAY EC
--------------

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 001106

SIPDIS

SENSITIVE

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 IT CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY
WRAP-UP FOR 30 APRIL 2004


This is CWC-53-04.

--------------
SPECIAL MAY EC
--------------


1. (SBU) Prior to the April 28 Bureau meeting, Ambassador
Javits spoke with DG Pfirter, EC Chairman Kubernat (Czech)
and incoming EC Chairman Arrospide (Peru) to emphasize the
need for a substantive special EC session in May. The
Ambassador highlighted the fact that this is especially
important so that we can move ahead on Article IV/V and
amendments to the Working Capital Fund, a point on which the
DG and Arrospide agreed. The Ambassador was subsequently
informed that due to consideration of costs (translators, in
particular) the decision was reached to have a procedural EC
session. We would note that such a session will still allow
us to make the case on the need for action at the June EC on
the WCF and also preview the importance of the Libyan and
Albanian extension requests for consideration in June.

--------------
ARTICLE IV/V
--------------


2. (SBU) Johan Verboom (Netherlands) held an April 29
consultation on Article IV/V and the Working Capital Fund
(WCF). Only a few issues in the draft decision remain under
serious debate, although they are critical issues. First and
foremost, Italy continues to stand alone opposing the
proposed WCF increase to 9.9 million Euros, which would
require the cash surpluses from 2001 and from 2002 but
nothing more. The Italian delegate had no recommendation on
another number, and simply reiterated once again Italy's view
that they are not convinced on the need for a change to the
existing WCF. Ambassador Javits intends to raise this with
the Italian MFA during his May 10 consultations in Rome.


3. (U) OPCW Chief of Administration Schulz recommended
repaying funds taken from the WCF within 24 months rather
than the current proposal that specified that they be repaid
by the end of the financial year following the year in which
the borrowing occurred. The U.S. and Canada supported having
that proposal considered in capitals. Verboom said he would
include the alternative proposals in the next draft decision
document. The U.S., pursuant to a recommendation from

Washington, suggested that the document should stipulate the
amount by which the WCF is being increased (difference
between new total and current level) and exactly the amounts
coming from the 2001 and 2002 cash surpluses, in the
interests of clarity. There was no objection on substantive
grounds, and the discussion was purely on the correct
formulation of the 2002 surplus, which has not yet been
certified. The facilitator said he would circulate proposed
language on that point.


4. (U) Peter Beerwerth (Germany) proposed adding language
specifying the beginning of 2005 as the effective date of the
decision, but eventually agreed to the phrase "as of the date
the decision is taken by the Conference." It was not
entirely clear why the FRG proposed that insertion in this
particular draft decision document, since there is usually no
such language specifying the specific point at which a
decision becomes operative. In any event, we highlight the
FRG proposal for Washington's careful consideration as it
will certainly have an immediate operational impact.


5. (U) France, supported by Italy, stressed that States
Parties need to pay their Article IV/V invoices within 30
days and asked that this language be included in the text.
The facilitator noted that this topic was being discussed
under the financial regulations consultation and requested
that debate of this topic be done there. (Note: It is
increasingly clear that the work on the WCF is becoming
inextricably linked to the work on financial regulations. In
particular, the linkage is with the proposed requirement for
repayment of Article IV/V invoices within 30 days of
invoicing. For many delegations, some type of prompt
re-payment arrangement or commitment is a necessary
supplement to agreeing on changes in the WCF. Washington may
wish to give prompt and serious consideration to what type of
time-period or arrangement would be acceptable for payment of
Article IV/V invoices in order to get the quickest possible
adoption of the changes to the WCF.)

--------------
FINANCIAL REGULATIONS
--------------


6. (U) On April 29, facilitator Peter van Brakel (Canada)
chaired the latest round of consultations on amendments to
the financial regulations.


7. (U) On Regulation 6.2, the Delegation made a strong case
for the use of the term "provisional cash surplus or deficit"
to replace "provisional cash balance," stressing that the
former term is more precise. Van Brakel replied that

1) the ABAF had used the term "cash balance,"
2) delegations wanted to avoid use of the word "surplus" as
that could lead delegations to try to make a grab for any
"surplus," and
3) all other delegations were agreed on the exiting text, and
U.S. insistence on the language change could lead to a
re-opening of agreement on this regulation.

In view of the points made by the facilitator, we said that
the existing language was acceptable.


8. (U) On Regulation 6.3, we made the point that we could
not accept the word "arrears" in subparas (a) and (c) and
suggested use of the word "receipts." The facilitator and
Beerwerth said that in this particular sub-regulation, the
intention is indeed to discuss "arrears" and this is the
accurate term. This led to a general discussion of the
proposed change to Regulation 5.4 (payment of Article IV/V
invoices),and it was quite clear that the proposal for 6.3
is linked to 5.4.


9. (U) On Regulation 5.4, the Delegation stated that it does
not accept the proposed language that Article IV/V payments
will be made within 30 days and that the entire issue is
under consideration in Washington. The Russian delegation
made the point that due to the restructuring that affected
the Russian Munitions Agency, there was still consideration
in Moscow of whether payment could be made within 30 days or
whether 60 days would be required. Russia therefore asked
for more time to get an official response from Moscow.
(Note: the Russian delegation subsequently asked about
Washington's preferred time-period, and we replied that we
would seek a response.) Responding to the U.S. reluctance to
commit to a 30-day requirement for payment of these invoices,
other delegations highlighted Financial Rule 4.12.01 (e) and
(f).

(e) states:

"The invoice together with the original list of services
received and signed by the Team Leader shall be forwarded by
the State Party to the Technical Secretariat for
reimbursement within 60 days from the completion date of the
inspection."

(f) states:

"The invoice, after being checked and certified for
correctness, shall be paid by the Technical Secretariat not
later than 30 days after receipt from the State Party."


10. (U) Schulz made the pitch for payment by possessor
states for everything that is not in dispute. Items which
are under dispute should be separated and clarified, but
should not prevent payment of items for which there is no
disagreement. The FRG noted that the U.S. had made its
position clear on this issue, but recommended that the
facilitator make an effort to craft language that might be
able to address U.S. concerns as well as delegations that
wanted this particular change. Van Brakel said he would
endeavor to do so.


11. (U) On Regulation 2.2, Delegation noted that the U.S.
could not accept the proposed definition of "provisional cash
balance" and the facilitator ultimately decided to remove the
proposed definition. However, on the proposed new language
on "contributions," the Delegation noted the U.S. objection
and emphasized that the change in the definition could have
an impact on other financial regulations which are not under
consideration. The facilitator said he appreciated the point
of avoiding unintended consequences from a new definition,
and asked the U.S. to cite areas where such a change in
definition has had such an impact, or cite areas where the
new definition of "contribution" will have such an impact.
Brazil stated that it wanted to avoid definitions applicable
only to specific regulations or parts of regulations. Johan
Verboom (Netherlands) raised the point that 2.2 was connected
to the efforts under way regarding 5.1, 6.2 and 6.3.


12. (U) On Regulation 3.7, there was no objection to the
proposed amendment.


13. (U) On Regulation 4.7, there was no objection to the
proposed amendment.


14. (U) Javits sends.
RUSSEL