CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WEEKLY WRAP-UP

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 002409

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 SEPTEMBER 17, 2004

This is CWC-110-04.

--------------
DATA AUTOMATION (VIS)
--------------


1. (U) At the request of DG Pfirter, Glen Johnson, Office
Director of VC/VO, assessed the Technical Secretariat
accomplishments on the Verification Information System (VIS)
Enhancement project over the past year and recommended how
best to move the project forward. Johnson determined that
significant progress has been made, but much remains to be
done. A Relational Data Base Management System prototype is
in-house and will be ready to test after the completion of
some interface programming work. Johnson recommended that
the best way to move the project forward would be to hire two
database programmers for in-house work and not renew the
contract with Sitar, Inc. He also recommended that the DG
establish a full-time project leader from the Verification
Division, who would be supported by two full-time programmers
from Information Services Branch (ISB),one officer from the
Office of Security and Confidentiality (OCS),and two
officers from Verification Division. The DG, upon receipt of
the recommendations, immediately named Ruth Mohlenkamp
(Germany) as project leader.

--------------
REQUEST FOR A COST-FREE IT EXPERT
--------------


2. (U) Del reps and visiting expert Glen Johnson met with
Magda Bauta and Anand Dhavle (Implementation Support Branch
(ISP)),Peter Kaiser (Public Affairs),and Greg Linden (ISB)
to review Bauta's requests for a cost-free U.S. expert. Del
reps noted that such as expert is not cost-free to U.S., and
that the U.S. needed specific project details in order to
match expertise with the job requirements.


3. (U) All participants reviewed the expert's proposed job
elements.

-- First, the individual would mount the updated training
materials from the Infopack1 CD-ROM onto the OPCW website.
Kaiser noted that these materials were already available and
that an IT expert was not needed to merely do an update.

-- Second, the expert would mount the materials on the
Infopack2 CD-ROM onto OPCW Website. Kaiser noted that a
better way to proceed at far less expense would be to hire a
vendor that specializes in development of IT-based training;
this was not a computer programming effort. Johnson strongly
seconded this suggestion, estimating that it would cost about
$50,000 to do web-based training using both infopacks in a
matter of weeks.

-- Third, Bauta proposed that the IT expert complete the
programming of and then populate the National Implementation
Profile System (NIPS) Database. Linden responded that the
NIPS programming is completed and only minor tweaking remains
to be done; database population is not a job for an IT
expert. Bauta replied that the latter could be done by two
interns working in her section.

-- Fourth, Bauta wants the joint U.S./Romanian training under
development mounted on the OPCW website (again, this could be
done from Washington).


4. (U) Finally, del reps discussed Bauta's request for a
National Authority Chat Room. Kaiser noted that a chat room
is already up and running on a trial basis. The issue is not
the technology; it is the critical necessity to have a
moderator who will be available to check content for
questionable material or inaccuracies. Bauta noted that she
did not have the resources to support this. Linden
recommended sending prospective users a survey to determine
topics that would be of most interest, to restricting the
task to just one or two threads.


5. (U) Participants agreed that the proposed effort would
be better supported by using the remaining 25,000 euros
remaining in the FY04 ISP budget to hire a vendor to develop
an interactive web-based training materials. Del reps agreed
to explore possible funding streams for the remaining circa
$25,000 probably needed to fund the effort.

--------------
REPORTS OF SYRIAN USE OF CW
--------------


6. (U) There was extensive discussion among delegations of
the September 15 article in the German periodical "Die Welt"
alleging that western intelligence services have determined
that Syria tested CW on civilians in the Darfur region of
Sudan in June. DG Pfirter subsequently wrote to the
Ambassadors of Sudan and Syria, highlighting the press items
and requesting a response.

--------------
COUNTERTERRORISM WORKING GROUP
--------------


7. (U) Counterterrorism Working Group (CTWG) facilitator
Sophie Moal-Makame (France) held a consultation 20 September
to review TS outreach efforts and to consider how the OPCW
can best support global CT efforts. The facilitator briefly
reviewed OPCW and UN CT initiatives before asking the DG for
opening remarks and Special Advisor Khodakov to review TS
outreach efforts. Khodakov has initiated discussions with
Europol, NATO's WMD center, OSCE, Interpol,
InterParliamentary Union, South and SE European cooperation
units, and the CIS CT center. Possible areas for cooperation
were identified as information exchanges, relevant workshops,
training, exercises, and various assistance programs. Future
TS outreach efforts will include the African Union, the EU,

SIPDIS
international customs agencies, etc. (Note: Iran warned the
TS against reaching out to the Australia Group). The

SIPDIS
facilitator gave the floor to the UK, which gave a brief
presentation on two of its CW terrorist exercises.


8. (U) Finally the facilitator asked for delegations'
suggestions on their views of possible areas for future
CT-related efforts. South Africa sees no reason for further
meetings. Other delegations were unanimous: the mandate of
the OPCW cannot be extended, universality and full effective
implementation are the most significant contributions SPs can
make to the CT campaign; the OPCW must adhere to its core
objective and purpose. The Netherlands suggested that SPs
could work with chemical industry to alert them to the threat
and advise it on ways to secure dangerous chemicals. The
Netherlands also recommended that the CTWG might begin
discussions of export controls and importance of transparency
in transfers of dangerous chemicals.

--------------
2005 BUDGET
--------------


9. (U) The third day of budget discussions took place on
September 15. The topic was objectives of the organization
for 2005. At the outset of the meeting, the Australian
co-facilitator, Gordon Eckersley, highlighted the fact that
the core objectives should not be viewed as a document
"carved in stone" and that it may change and evolve in the
future. In a subsequent conversation, the Canadian
co-facilitator, Ian Mundell, said that he and Eckersley
planned to propose language to delegations in early October
that would be incorporated in the decision document and
reflect the fact that the budget objectives are not
permanent, and may be changed in the future. (Note: we
subsequently recommended to the facilitators that they should
circulate some draft language on that point soon. They agreed
to consider our suggestion but said that they also felt that
it would be better to finish the next two weeks of
discussions before floating the language.)


10. (U) Most of the discussion involved suggestions by
certain delegations (Iran and to a lesser degree Brazil) to
make minor changes in the language of the Core, Supporting,
and Operational Objectives. Several delegations, including
Switzerland, Canada and the UK, pushed back and opposed the
changes. In the end, it did not appear that any of the
proposed changes got any traction amongst other delegations
and at this point it appears unlikely that there will be any
changes to the objectives this year.


11. (U) Iran first proposed that "capacities" be replaced
with "facilities" in Core Objective #1 and that the word
"including" should be deleted from Core Objective #2. The
Iranians noted that the word "facilities" is used throughout
the convention and so for consistencies sake should be used
in the Core Objectives as well. Brazil endorsed Iran's
suggestion that the word "including" should be deleted from
Core Objective #2 and also suggested that new and better
indicators should be found for Core Objective #4.


12. (U) Canada and the UK argued for the retention of
"including" in Core Objective #2 but noted that they would be
willing to consider expanding the language in Core Objectives
#3 and 4, provided that the discussions not become a
"drafting exercise."


13. (U) Italy suggested that the distinction between Core
Objective and Supporting Objective should be eliminated. At
that point, the Iranians suggested that perhaps the word
"objective" itself was not appropriate. The Swiss opined that
the use of the word "objective" was essential to the RBB
process.


14. (U) Iran then proposed that the word "national" be
deleted from Supporting Objective #6. The Swiss and Canadians
replied that the word "national" provided the necessary
amount of specificity to the objective.


15. (U) In the end, little was accomplished during the
discussion, although it did provide certain delegations with
the requisite amount of venting before moving on to
discussions on consultancy services and GTA needs on the
21st; request for new staff positions on the 22nd; and
Article VI discussions on the 23rd. On September 28th budget
discussions on Article IV and V inspections are scheduled
followed by additional budget discussions on the 28th and
29th for any remaining budget items to be discussed before
moving onto a final consultation on September 30th on the
overall budget request.


16. (U) The co-facilitators are also attempting to schedule
a Geneva Group meeting on September 24 to discuss:
verification related planning assumptions impacting on the
2005 budget; overall budget appropriation for 2005; and any
other business. This meeting will hopefully give us a sense
of where the Japanese and Germans are on the requested budget
increase. Informally the Germans have told us that they
believe that Berlin may be willing to accept a 4.2 percent
increase. The Germans believe that the Japanese are also
looking at a 4.0 to 4.2 percent increase but that neither
have received firm instructions from capitals. The Germans
also mentioned on September 20 that they would like to seek
further clarifications from the TS on the authorized number
of fixed-term positions (the Germans believe that it should
remain at 507 even if twenty security guards are made
fixed-term employees) and on the methodology for computing
salary increases.


17. (U) Ito sends.
SOBEL