CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY WRAP-UP

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 THE HAGUE 001487

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 11, 2004

This is CWC-72-04.

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


1. (U) At the June 10 consultation chaired by facilitator
Peter van Brakel (Canada),agreement was reached on all of
the outstanding issues. Most important for the U.S., there
were no objections to the language concerning payment of
Article IV/V invoices, as approved by Washington. South
Korea noted it would need instructions; Japan said the
language is under consideration in Tokyo; India said it had
no instructions, but would recommend to New Delhi adoption of
the text.


2. (U) This particular provision cites financial rules, and
none of the rules have been adopted by the OPCW due to an
inability to reach agreement on a small number of proposed
rules. In addition, van Brakel noted that while financial
regulations become effective when adopted by the CSP,
financial rules become effective when adopted by the EC.
Russia therefore requested, and all delegations agreed, that
the language in the draft decision should note that the
specific financial rule involved (5.4.01) should come into
effect when financial regulation 5.4 is amended by the CSP.


3. (U) The following additional financial regulations and
rules were amended, all in accordance with Washington
instructions. The draft decision document will note that
only the financial rules specified will be adopted:
-- Rule 7.1.01
-- Rule 10.1.12
-- Rule 12.2.01
-- Regulation 2.2
-- Regulation 5.1
-- Regulation 5.4
-- Regulation 5.6
-- Regulation 6.2
-- Regulation 6.3

--------------
OPCW ANNUAL REPORT
--------------


4. (U) The June 10 informal consultations on the 2003 draft
report generated a substantial number of requested editorial
changes. All of the changes sought by Washington were
accepted. Most of the proposed edits were non-substantive,
and the document will be re-issued with changes. The only
substantive request came from Russia, which sought deletion
of a sentence in the introduction and paragraph 1.20 of the
Verification section, arguing that the conversion of ten
Russian CW production facilities had been completed.


5. (SBU) Verification Director Reeps stated that this would
be discussed at the consultations on the Verification
Implementation Report, adding that conversion of these ten
facilities had to be certified and any outstanding questions
resolved. During the subsequent VIR consultations on June
11, the Technical Secretariat produced a Corrigendum to the
2003 VIR in which the text in paragraph 5.4, line 3, page 30,
was changed from "the others had yet to be converted." to
"the others had yet to be certified as converted or to
complete conversion". This Corrigendum is OPCW Highly
Protected and has been DHLd to AC/CB.

--------------
OIO REPORT
--------------


6. (U) Facilitator Chiho Komuro (Japan) held her second
consultation on the OIO Report on June 8. Much of the
commentary from delegations did not focus on the report
itself, but on the status of TS implementation of OIO
recommendations. The German delegation led the questioning
on the OIO comment that staff costs had not been correctly
calculated. Budget advisor Ali Asghar said the problem had
been corrected and tried to explain how the calculations are
made. However, the general consensus was that the
explanation was not fully satisfactory. India noted the item
in the report indicating there had been "personality clashes"
within the budget section and asked if OIO had resolved the
problem. OIO Director Louati replied that it was not the
OIO's job to resolve such conflicts, but simply to bring them
to light. He added that action to resolve the problem had
been taken by the Director General.


7. (U) India noted that the report indicated there was no
link between budget planning and the Medium Term Plan.
Canada replied that the MTP should not be linked too closely
to the budget. Switzerland then made the general point that
it was important for the TS to have "serious" numbers for
future budgets. There was also general commentary from
Brazil, India and South Africa on the need for the TS to
provide timely information on the status of implementation of
OIO recommendations. Louati replied that the DG has asked
OIO to report every month on the status of implementation.
He then cautioned delegates by emphasizing that to the extent
OIO staff are tasked with providing reports to SPs, that
staff time is diverted from performing the actual assessments
and evaluations.


8. (U) The U.S. praised OIO for highlighting last year the
possible problems with certification of the Rijswijk
laboratory. We noted that this is the type of proactive work
that is valuable to the organization and the goal should be
to identify and resolve looming problems, rather than find
solutions after the fact. Louati commented that the OIO had
simply highlighted the fact that implementation of the tenure
policy might generate staffing problems which could affect
lab accreditation, adding that the Dutch accreditation body
will conduct an in-depth assessment on accreditation in
November. He stressed that the Director General is working
vigorously to address the issue of lab certification. Italy
made a suggestion about possible use of temporary staff to
ensure accreditation, but Louati and the French delegation
said that they did not believe this was a good solution.

--------------
ARTICLE X CONSULTATIONS
--------------


9. (U) During the June 7 consultations on the format for
Article X, para 4, delegations finally made it all the way
through the document. There were no surprising proposals and
delegations were well behaved. The facilitator (Gaby Kruger
- UK) plans to rework the draft and provide delegations with
a revised format by the beginning of July. She then plans to
hold another round of consultations on the new draft in the
fall. There will be an anodyne report made at the upcoming
EC letting delegations know the status. Comments on the
specific questions are below:

-- Questions 18/19: France, Iran, Russia, India all favor a
more general approach. There was much consternation because
the questions pertain to the military. Switzerland and
Canada in an effort to no limit information provided,
suggested adding a third box with a "do not want to answer
for national security reasons" connotation. This idea was
killed by Tunisia and Italy.

-- Questions 20/21: Iran finds the questions confusing and
wants them deleted. Kruger and the UK delegate (Clive
Rowland) both took stabs at explaining the questions without
much avail.

-- Question 22: Italy and Russia both called for its deletion.

-- Question 23: France and Italy are concerned about the
confidentiality of such information and believe the paragraph

SIPDIS
should be rephrased (no alternative was provided). South
Africa chimed in and proposed deleting all of Part C and
replacing it with the proposal from their draft. The
agreement was that the facilitator would re-look at the
language.

-- Questions 24-27: No comments by delegations,


10. (U) Javits sends.
SOBEL