CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY WRAP-UP

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 04 THE HAGUE 001144

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 7 MAY 2004

This is CWC-54-04.

--------------
DATA AUTOMATION
--------------


1. (U) The DDG held a May 3 meeting with the Delegation on
the status of the VIS Enhancement. Attendees were the VIS
project management board: DDG, Chief/Admin Herb Schultz,
Chief/Information Support Branch Greg Linden,
Chief/Verification Horst Reeps, and Acting Chief/Inspectorate
Carlos Trentadue. The DDG provided Del Reps a draft TS Note
announcing the project and requested general Washington
comments before the draft is sent to the DG for sign off and
distribution to SPs. Linden noted that the draft is the
first in a series of probably two or three papers. (Note:
When read in conjunction with the timetable briefed to WEOG
on April 20 (faxed back to AC/CB),it provides a general
overview of the project timeline.)


2. (U) Linden reviewed the status of the project. The TS
received bids from three companies (U.S., Netherlands, U.K.)
on its proposal to design, develop, and test the Relational
Database Management System (RDBMS),all of which exceeded the
$500,000 provided by the U.S. voluntary contribution. The
contract was given to the US company on August 7, 2003, with
the understanding that the contract would be renegotiated
once certain ambiguities were clarified. This final contract
negotiation will be a fixed price contract with a no
renegotiation clause, giving the contractor incentives to
finish the job expeditiously. The DDG also noted that an
additional $70,000 from the management piece of the U.S.
voluntary contribution was used to fund certain pieces of the
VIS project.


3. (U) The final timetable will be finalized and the
contract will need to be renegotiated by the end of May 2004.
The TS estimates that the project will require up to an
additional $350,000 (worst case scenario) to complete the
project by the March/April 2005 completion date. Schulz
noted that the additional funds necessary could be obtained
from the verification piece of the U.S. voluntary
contribution, and both Reeps and Trentadue noted that the VIS
would enhance their ability to verify treaty-related
obligations, justifying the use of the verification funds.
Schultz also noted that the TS would need Washington's
permission to use up to $350,000 of the $700,000 in the
verification piece before the contract is renegotiated.


4. (U) Linden believes that it is unlikely that there will
be significant slippage from the timetable provided to WEOG
delegations. The major effort was the redesign of the
relational database to include user requirements, and this
effort is done. What remains to be done is the programming
and testing, which Linden predicts will go smoothly. Linden
said that all the contractor's deliverables have so far met
TS specifications. Linden noted that the TS has contributed

SIPDIS
nearly 1,000 man hours to the project, making it the most
significant of a number of TS IT projects (which include
Results-Based Budgeting and SmartStream accounting projects).

--------------
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
--------------


5. (U) The Sampling and Analysis meeting on May 3 went as
anticipated. States Parties remain divided on the
participation of the inspected State Party (iSP) in off-site
analysis. In support of returning to the June text with a
modification which would require the participation of an iSP
representative were France, Russia, China, Iran. In support
of continuing deliberations based on the March proposal were
the U.K., Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark and Brazil. In
line with Del's pre-consultation suggestion to the
facilitator (Wills, Netherlands) that if no movement is
foreseen towards either the June or March text, the
facilitator suggested that the best possible way forward is
to discontinue the technical-level discussions, split the
procedures document into two-parts (e.g., those procedures
agreed and those dealing with the iSP representative) and
request the Executive Council (EC) to approve the "agreed"
procedures. This path would render resolution of the
participation of an iSP representative to a case-by-case
issue and would grant EC approval to codify the Technical
Secretariat (TS) procedures.

SIPDIS


6. (U) This "third" option was supported by the U.S.,
followed by Switzerland, Germany, Finland, Austria, China,
France, and the U.K. Only the Iranian delegation indicated
pause regarding this approach, noting that the EC is charged
with coming up with a "comprehensive" solution and this falls
short of that mandate. However, the Iranian representative
indicated Iran would provide the option to capital for
further consideration. The facilitator indicated it would
take a month or two to issue the paper and would proceed on a
basis of acceptance of this proposal. At the May 4 WEOG
meeting, Germany offered that the facilitator consider
issuing the Sampling and Analysis procedures document as a
single version with bracketed text to identify non-agreed
text.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER VICE-CHAIRPERSON
--------------


7. (U) During the May 4 WEOG, the issue of the Industry
Cluster Vice-Chair was discussed. The incoming chair of the
Industry Cluster is Amb. Vogelaar (Netherlands). However,
during the WEOG, the Spanish representative indicated that
the Asian group (Pakistan) has approached Vogelaar and the
new Bureau with a request that one of two things happen: 1)
either that Amb. Vogelaar be assigned now to the Legal,
Organizational and Other Issues Cluster and that Industry be
assigned to the Asia Group (Pakistan),or that 2) when the
WEOG takes over as the EC Chair, the Industry Cluster
Vice-Chair position fall to the Asian Group (Pakistan).


8. (U) WEOG discussion centered upon how to handle each
scenario and surmised that 1) WEOG's preference is for Amb.
Vogelaar to lead industry for the year until handover to the
Asia Group upon assumption of WEOG EC Chair, 2) If Amb.
Vogelaar were to handle another cluster, he must be
considered only for the Legal, Organizational and Other
Issues Cluster and 3) that WEOG would mandate, in any event,
that any future Vice-Chair of the Industry Issues cluster
agree to maintain the same frequency and intensity of
meetings as have been conducted under the leadership of Amb.
Olbrich (Germany).

--------------
ARTICLE VII
--------------


9. (U) Facilitator Mark Matthews/UK discussed progress
implementing the Action Plan for Article VII in WEOG and held
a May 6 consultation. Matthews noted the TS progress report,
the links with the recently approved UNSC Resolution
1540, and the intentions of London and others to lobby States
Parties who have yet to establish a National Authority. In
WEOG, France reported efforts reaching out to the Francophone
community, providing them with legal copies of the Convention
and other documents in French, and has named a POC in Paris.
Switzerland reported efforts including demarches, and is
targeting SPs with bad records with which it has active
contacts (e.g., those aided under Article X and those who
are trading partners in its chemical industry).


10. (U) Matthews called for comments on the progress
report, but India and Iran asked for more time, as they were
not prepared to discuss it. Slovakia, South Africa, Norway,
Canada, India, and France noted that the report did not give
SPs enough information on current status to assist in
tailoring approaches to individual SPs and asked the TS to
provide detailed information. Pakistan wondered whether the
TS had sufficient resources to assist all those requesting

SIPDIS
it. Ralf Trapp/TS informed delegations that although only a
few SPs requested assistance after approving the Action Plan,
many had requested assistance prior to it, and noted that the
TS does not have the resources to help everyone. Trapp

SIPDIS
called on SPs to assist the TS in its efforts to supplement
full implementation of Article VII. TS intern Scott Spence
demonstrated the National Legislation Implementation Tool Kit
now available in all six languages in hardcopy and posted in
the Legal section of the OPCW website. Spence reported that
the TS is providing it in hardcopy to participants in the
regional workshops, and that TS has received many requests
from implementing States Party for multiple copies.

11. (U) Trapp discussed a number of TS initiatives. First,
the TS is in the process of disseminating Notes Verbale
tailored to each country's situation, noting that the annex
to the progress report included information over a year old
and acknowledging that the tables needed to be updated.
Trapp also distributed an informal paper on measures to
enhance coordination between TS and SPs (FAXed back to
AC/CB). Trapp noted that the TS plans to update progress
prior to each EC to supplement the semiannual reports
required by the Action Plan, and proposed to have an informal
meeting prior to each EC similar to the destruction informals.

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


12. (U) Peter van Brakel (Canada) chaired May 6
consultations on proposed amendments to the Financial
Regulations. The primary issue of concern to the U.S. is
Regulation 5.4, which now has proposed language stipulating a
"due date" for Article IV/V payments. This has become a key
political issue that delegations have now tied to U.S.
efforts to expand the Working Capital Fund. The results on
5.4 and other items under discussion were as follows.

-- Regulation 5.4: Prior to the consultations, the Del
informed the Russian delegation that the U.S., per
Washington's instructions, would float the idea of a 90-day
window for repayment. The Russians said this was fine, but
informed us that Moscow could not accept the current
formulation that allowed for "partial payment" of invoices.
That would be an administrative nightmare that Moscow could
not accept. In the consultations, the Delegation, per
Washington's instructions, stipulated a timeline for payment
of Article IV/V invoices and put the 90-day period on the
table. Russia then stated that it could only accept language
on a system regarding payment once there is agreement on the
entire invoice, noting the bureaucratic headaches.

-- The FRG then proposed going back to the April 23 proposed
wording on 5.4, which is:

"Contributions subject to the provisions of Articles IV and V
of the Convention shall be due and payable in full to the
OPCW by the State Party concerned within 30 days of the
receipt of the invoice or within 30 days after resolution of
any differences regarding the invoice, whichever occurs
later."

-- France then noted that the rules require the TS to
reimburse SPs within 30 days. Without pressing the point,
there was an implied argument that this should be applicable
in reverse as well. Van Brakel stated that there was a good
chance a number of SPs not present at the facilitation would
not accept 90 days. He added that this would be particularly
difficult for some to accept as we are now back to the idea
that possessor states will only have to pay once the entire
invoice is agreed upon. In a follow-on discussion after the
facilitation, the Del impressed upon van Brakel the
importance of the 90-day period, and he agreed to reissue the
proposed language for 5.4 for the May 13 facilitation with
the 90-day period in brackets.

-- Regulation 2.2: The U.S. noted that Washington is still
looking at other places where the new definition of
"contributions" might generate unexpected consequences. Van
Brakel agreed to put this particular item on hold, but noted
that this had all developed from initial discussion of
changing Regulations 6.2 and 6.3. The proposal to change the
definition in 2.2 had stemmed from a desire to ensure
consistency. Van Brakel said he would move the proposed
language changes regarding "arrears" and "object of
expenditures" into Part A (amendments which appear to have
consensus support).

-- Regulation 4.13: In line with Washington's points, there
was agreement among delegations that this proposed amendment
should be excluded, but that there would be reconsideration
of whether it might be needed as a result of decisions
regarding other regulations.
-- Regulation 5.12: On the language "assessed contributions
of States Parties shall be assessed ...," Del made the case
for the alternate language proposed by Washington. Van
Brakel replied that reference to Article VIII, paragraph 7
could/could be read to also deal with Article IV/V. While
the existing language is repetitive, the goal is to deal only
with "assessed" contributions, so it would be best to simply
use that word. As Washington's guidance was that this fix is
nonessential, there was agreement to stick with the "assessed
contributions" language.

-- On 5.2 subpara (d),there was agreement to drop the word
"assessed."

-- Regulation 5.3: The proposed change was accepted by all
delegations.

-- Regulation 5.5: Delegations agreed with the U.S. that the
proposed change is not needed. The existing text will remain
unchanged.

-- Regulation 5.7: The proposed changes were accepted by all
delegations present.

-- Regulation 13.3: There were no objections to the proposed
language, so it will be moved to Part A of the facilitator's
document.

--------------
CONFIDENTIALITY

SIPDIS
--------------


13. (U) Facilitator Betsy Sanders/U.S. convened a May 7
meeting to debate the draft decision Amendments to the OPCW
Policy on Confidentiality (EC-36/DEC/CRP2). Rob Simpson,
Head of the Office of Confidentiality and Security (OCS),
briefed delegations on the reasons underlying the TS proposal
to change the Confidentiality System (C-I/DEC.13). Basically
there are two proposals. One would change the phrase
"designated security unit" to Office of Confidentiality and
Security to reflect the DG's decision to make OCS the
responsible unit. The second is to eliminate the protected
classification level and handle all classified material at
the Highly Protected level, reflecting in the rules the
current TS practice. Delegations expressed serious
reservations with the second proposal. Germany questioned
whether the Confidentiality Commission had the mandate and
expertise to make these recommendations. Simpson reminded
Germany that, although not within its mandate, the EC had
tasked the Commission to review and recommend changes to the
policy.


14. (U) Germany, Canada, Iran, India, The Netherlands, and
France questioned whether the TS had sufficiently justified
the rationale for the proposed changes and called for TS
papers to provide background papers in support of the
proposed changes, on the issue of over-classification, and an
assessment of whether the proposed changes would result in
increased over-classification of information. Simpson noted
that the RevCon asked the TS for a number of papers that will
touch on these issues and will be issued in the next month or
so which will include an assessment of document handling
procedures at other international organizations, the issue of
over-classification, and the issue of long-term handling of
classified material. Delegations agreed to delay their
debate of the draft decision until these papers have been
disseminated.


15. (U) Ito sends.
SOBEL