CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY WRAP-UP

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 THE HAGUE 001431

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 JOECK
WINPAC FOR LIEPMAN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY WRAP-UP
FOR JUNE 4, 2004


This is CWC-69-04.

--------------
OPTIMIZATION OF VERIFICATION
--------------


1. (SBU) In a June 1 meeting, Sophie Moal (France) and
Peter Beerwerth (FRG) informed the U.S. Del that they believe
anything which the U.S. does on optimization, including the
trial run in the fall, will require Executive Council
approval. They want some kind of paper to be proffered by
the Technical Secretariat (TS) setting out what will happen
during the trial and afterward, and for the EC to consider it
at EC-37 or EC-38, before going ahead with the trial. France
and Germany stated that they want the TS document presented
to the EC and approved, perhaps by silence procedures, before
going ahead with the trial run of optimization at Anniston.
They are not, apparently, going to be satisfied with an
explanatory paper as they had asked for previously.


2. (SBU) We emphasized that what the French and Germans
were proposing was far beyond what had been required of any
other possessor. As reflected on p. 24 - 25 of the
Verification Implementation Report, optimization already has
been implemented in Korea, India, and Russia. Beerwerth
tried to assert that France and Germany are totally sanguine
about the U.S. demil program, but have to watch the Russians
very closely. It is worth noting that in the view of the UK
delegation, Germany's assertion that it is only the Russians
they are concerned about is misleading; they (Germany) also
harbor misgivings about the U.S. program. We pointed out
that Russia had already implemented optimization. Reduction
of inspectors at Gorniy was a fait accompli, and the event
came and went without so much as a whimper from Germany,
France, or anyone other than the U.S.


3. (SBU) It was hard to accept statements of concern about
the Russians, we argued, if the French and Germans are trying
to hold the U.S. to a standard that was not required of
Russia or any other possessor. This was not what the U.S.
expected as a response to transparency, which was in direct
response to calls from, most vociferously, France and
Germany. We will continue discussing this with the French
and Germans, and coordinate with the TS.


4. (SBU) In subsequent conversations, both France and
Germany appeared to soften their positions and backed away
from an outright call for EC approval. Indeed, France
repeated that they simply were looking for information and a
better understanding of the optimization effort at Anniston,
and in particular the material changes optimization would
bring about in the verification regime. At delegation's
request, the TS has produced a lengthy non-paper setting out
the information France asked for, on a strictly informal
basis. The French and German response to this paper, when it
is circulated, will provide a more positive indication of
whether they will be satisfied with this approach, or press
for EC action. Delegation is not convinced that the
provision of this paper will not be followed by a request
from France and Germany that it be assigned an "EC number"
and put before the Council, if only for its information.

--------------
ABERDEEN - END POINT OF DESTRUCTION
--------------


5. (SBU) Mark Matthews (U.K.) asked whether the U.S. was
changing its view on the issue of Aberdeen, and specifically
on the end point of destruction issue. He requested that the
Del convey to Washington the message that everyone, including
the U.K., would strenuously oppose any change in policy on
that matter. He observed, without any further elaboration,
that for France it would be "the last straw." We suspect
that Matthews was being somewhat over-dramatic in order to
make his point. However, we provide the U.K. view simply to
note the need for a substantial amount of spade-work with
other delegations should Washington wish to put forth a new
policy regarding EPOD. It would be critical to emphasize
that key provisions of the Convention (regarding verification
in particular) would not be weakened and that the U.S. has no
intention of undermining the Convention.

--------------
SITE VISITS
--------------


6. (U) At the June 1 WEOG, Dutch Amb. Mark Vogelaar raised
the question of conducting site visits to Russian facilities,
and stated his belief that the report from the last such
visit to Gorniy and Kambarka pointed to the possibility of
future such visits. The Del noted that the provision in the
Russian deadline extension that had called for such visits
had been excised during our negotiations with Russia. We
further reminded everyone that this had been the subject of a
fairly big row between the U.S., Russia, and others,
particularly Germany, who were incensed that we agreed to
omit the visit text from the Russian document.


7. (U) We also emphasized that the U.S. position was at
that time, and remains, that we were not then and are not now
going to accept site visits as a quid pro quo for Russian
visits. Finally, we observed that, to the extent the "hook"
that had hitherto obliged Russia to accept visits had been
deliberately done away with, Russia was very unlikely to
accept them without a specific commitment that the U.S. would
do likewise. The issue had been for them, at the time we
debated it, "equal treatment". That had not changed, and a
sentence in a visit report was not likely to persuade Russia
it was still under an obligation to accept visits.


8. (U) During the debate, France stated, supported by
Germany and apparently the Netherlands, that site visits must
be an element of extension requests. The publication of the
Libyan and Albanian extension request documents was the event
that gave rise to this line of discussion, and it was
explicitly stated that these documents would need to be
changed to include visits. All of which indicates a renewed
debate over the issue of site visits, including in the U.S.
Vogelaar spoke to us after the meeting to say that perhaps
the idea could be made more palatable by not making visits
contingent upon making or not making deadlines, but could be
cast as a transparency measure for all possessors, including
the Indians who have met all treaty deadlines for
destruction. We were non-committal and said we would pass
the idea back to Washington. We will need guidance for the
upcoming EC on how to deal with the question of site visits
generally, and vis a vis Albania and Libya in particular.


9. (SBU) Delegation notes also that Germany, supported
apparently by France, has expressed disaffection with the
idea of extensions "in principle". Though it is obviously a
tool that has been used by the U.S. and Russia for past
deadline extensions, they remain uncomfortable with the idea.
Though no specific reason was given, delegation surmises
that the basis of their misgivings is that, once an "in
principle" extension is in place, the possessor in question
is, in their view at least, relieved of the pressure to
expedite destruction. Delegation recalls that during our
last round of discussion with the Russians regarding their 20
and 45 percent deadline extension requests, the Russian
delegation did in fact state that they were relatively
unconcerned about setting a date for the 20 percent deadline
because it had been extended in principle already, and they
were therefore legally in compliance with the Convention.


10. (SBU) Delegation received and is in the process of
acting on guidance for this subject and anticipates that in
the course of that process we will gain a clearer
understanding of the depth of Germany and France's misgivings.

--------------
DELEGATION SPACES
--------------


11. (U) The Del was informed by Rob Simpson, head of the
Office of Confidentiality and Security, that the physical
area in which the Del office is located is in the process of
being incorporated into a grand vision by the Dutch for a
"World Forum". The concept is apparently already approved
and planning well under way to combine OPCW, ICTY, and to
move in other organizations (Europol was mentioned) into a
single compound not accessible to traffic, but linked by open
areas and walkways. It will occupy basically all the real
estate now occupied by OPCW, Congress Centrum, the building
in which the Del is located, the ICTY building, and perhaps
more. They apparently are planning to start moving dirt
around sometime in 2006. Simpson said he thought there was
actually a model of this new forum on display in city hall.
Simpson provided some information that has been sent back to
AC/CB.

--------------
FINANCIAL REGULATIONS - ARTICLE IV/V PAYMENTS
--------------


12. (U) On June 3, facilitator Peter van Brakel (Canada)
held the latest consultation on amendments to Financial
Regulations. The focus of discussion was on FR 5.4 and
payment of Article IV/V invoices, and delegations had the
following three concerns:

-- agreement for partial payment of invoices (despite the
fact that the Russian delegation had indicated Moscow could
not accept partial payment);
-- a designated period to bring to an end discussion over
disputed parts of an invoice;
-- some mechanism so that possessor states could not use a
question about an invoice to delay payment for an unlimited
period of time.


13. (U) The FRG delegation tabled the following proposal on
which participants suggested modifications. The text has
been distributed electronically by van Brakel, and has been
sent electronically to AC/CB. The broad outlines are:

-- creation of financial rule 5A which will contain all of
the following items;
-- contributions subject to Article IV/V shall be due and
payable within 90 days after receipt of the invoice;
-- payment of the undisputed amounts of an invoice will be
within 90 days;
-- if there is a dispute over the invoice, the possessor
state must notify the TS within 30 days of receipt of the
invoice specifying the basis for the dispute;
-- the TS must respond to the possessor state within 60 days
of receipt of the invoice by the possessor state;
-- the TS and possessor state should settle the dispute
within 90 days after the invoice is received by the possessor
state;
-- the possessor state should pay the resolved amount within
120 days after receipt of the invoice;
-- should there be no resolution between the TS and possessor
state after this total period of 90 days following receipt of
invoice, the DG will note the dispute in the next monthly
report on expenditures.


14. (SBU) The U.K., FRG and other delegations indicated to
the U.S. Del in side-bar conversations that their concern was
not with the U.S., but in not giving the Russians an
opportunity to abuse flexible dispute resolution provisions.
The resulting "penalty" noted above would be the notation in
the DG's report, which ostensibly makes it more difficult for
Moscow to simply notify the TS about a dispute and
perpetually avoid paying the invoice. Finally, it was
noteworthy that the lengthy discussion about the text cited
above ensued after Director of Administration Schulz reported
that, depending on the possessor state involved, only some
8-13% of the total amount of Article IV/V invoices are
disputed.

--------------
ICA REQUESTS
--------------


15. (U) At the request of the Technical Secretariat (TS),
Del met with International Cooperation and Assistance (ICA)
representatives (Bauta, Dahvahle, Kisslev) on May 28. The
meeting was requested to discuss the U.S.-Romanian
Implementation Assistance Program (IAP) introduced at the
Romanian Regional Seminar for Eastern European Group National
Authorities. However, it became clear the TS motivation for
the meeting was to ask for U.S. support for ICA in four
specific areas:

1) ICA asked for U.S. assistance in pressing States Parties
(SP) who have requested implementation-related TS training to
commit to dates. The TS noted four African SP (Uganda,
Nigeria, Gambia and Zimbabwe) have informed the TS of their
need for assistance and interest in hosting a bilateral
workshop or training activity to assist in implementation.
However, none of these SP has committed to specific dates and
the requests have been outstanding for some time. The TS
noted difficulties in contacting anyone within these
governments to move forward on establishing a suitable date.
The TS indicated it would be very helpful to have the U.S.
weigh-in in capitals to urge these SP to finalize and host
assistance visits.

2) ICA requested the U.S. offer surplus computer equipment
that the TS could distribute to SP lacking resources to
assist them in meeting their Art. VII obligations. Del
indicated we would consider any information the TS provided
to us regarding specific requests for assistance, but that
without details, it could not make any decisions. Del
further noted that, to date, the TS has not made any specific
request to the U.S. The TS indicated it would work to
"discretely" provide requests and also survey SP regarding
implementation obstacles, including shortages of equipment.
Del noted that we look forward to any information the TS
might have regarding implementation-related requests for aid,
and that the U.S. continues to evaluate the best ways to
provide assistance.

3) ICA requested the U.S. support an increase for ICA in
upcoming budget negotiations, specifically, that the U.S.
support the allocation of an additional P-2 position to
handle internet-related program activities within ICA. The
TS reps commented that many of the agenda items designed to

SIPDIS
inform/assist SP in implementation are held up because ICA
lacks the time, personnel and expertise needed to put such
information online via a secure national authority
coordination website. Del noted the request and inquired
whether, if the P-2 position did not materialize, the TS
would consider allowing outsourcing of this work to a SP
(like the U.S.) to accomplish the task? The TS indicated it
welcomed any programming or other web-based assistance SP
could offer.

4) ICA requested that the U.S. sponsor/support moves to
expand ICA's reach and presence in Africa. Specifically, ICA
wants an OPCW official to reside in Africa and work with the
African Union to support universality and implementation.
Bauta indicated she had raised this with AC/CB once before
but did not get a response.

--------------
TS REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO VIETNAM

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


16. (U) Del met with Leo Espinoza (TS/DEB) on June 4
regarding a recap of activities during the recent Regional
Seminar in Romania. During the discussion, Espinoza raised a
problem with TS assistance to Vietnam. The TS has received a
request from Vietnam to provide comments and input on a
questionnaire they are assembling to identify, contact and
request submissions from Art. VI facilities. Espinoza
indicated the TS simply lacks available manpower to provide
such input. However, he noted that the TS senses a political
reluctance of the Vietnamese to directly contact the U.S. (or
other SP) for assistance. Del suggested that the TS consider
alternatives to the U.S. playing a direct supporting role, if
that was a problem for States Parties.


17. (U) Del suggested the TS propose to the Vietnamese that
the TS engage a third party (U.S.) to assist in review of the
document. In doing so, the TS would not need to reveal the
origin of the document to the third party reviewer if that
was sensitive, but would only note that it would solicit
comments. Of course, in this case the U.S. would
unofficially know. Espinoza said it sounded like a workable
pretext for getting this and, maybe other, U.S. assistance to
SP in reviewing documentation and other requests.


18. (U) Javits sends.
SOBEL