CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001383 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCB, L/ACV, IO/S SECDEF FOR OSD/ISP JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC COMMERCE FOR BIS (GOLDMAN) NSC FOR DICASAGRANDE WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR WEEK ENDING JUNE 16 This is CWC-51-06. -------------- U.S. EXTENSION REQUEST DRAFT DECISION -------------- ¶1. (U) Del reps met with French, German and UK delegations on June 15 to deliver talking points, proposed draft decision text, and suggested site visit parameters. Del reps met initially with UK rep to express concern over the UK insistence upon visits to capitals (in the context of site visit parameters),and inclusion of specific parameters in decision language. UK rep indicated concerns would be passed to capital, and that he was unsure as to how flexible London would be. (Del comment: As in past interactions with the UK on the subject of CW destruction, it seems likely the local UK position may be more hard-line than London's; this will be critical to assess prior to EC-46, given the role the UK may play in proposing final terms for site visits.) ¶2. (U) All three delegations were generally supportive of the proposed text, and appreciative of the U.S. approach in favorably considering site visits. Although official feedback has not been received from capitals, several initial concerns were expressed. First, France and Germany expressed concern that any reference to the detailed plan, even if based on analogous text from other previously approved decisions, could be problematic, as it might give delegations grounds to continue questioning the "legality" of the U.S. extension request. Germany then joined the UK in insisting that visits to capitals would be a critical element of any site visits, in order to interact with senior officials in the chemical demilitarization program, adding that now that the U.S. had opted for full transparency, "the burden of proof was on us." ¶3. (U) U.S. del noted that Washington regularly sends senior level representatives to Executive Council sessions, and reminded other delegations that the general purpose of the visits would be to familiarize delegations with, and give them an appreciation for, the vast scope and complexity of CW destruction. U.S. rep also pointed out that a political message could be more appropriately and effectively delivered in the form of a bilateral demarche in Washington. Delegations agreed that a compromise might be to include a program overview briefing at one of the sites, but insisted this be clearly articulated in the visit parameters. ¶4. (U) Several other delegations have inquired about the status of the U.S. draft decision. At a lunch with the Austrian and Finnish delegations (in their roles as outgoing and incoming EU presidents),del rep explained the U.S. intent to table a draft decision prior to EC-46, and spoke to some of the basic elements delegations might expect to see in the draft text. Del rep also assured delegations that the U.S. was favorably considering site visits, and asked for their understanding and support in accepting U.S. proposed parameters. Austria and Finland seemed reassured and encouraged by the U.S. approach. Switzerland, Canada and the Netherlands have also inquired; del rep has also briefly covered basic elements of the decision text with them, and expressed the U.S. desire to share draft text with WEOG colleagues as soon as possible. -------------- RUSSIAN EXTENSION REQUEST DRAFT DECISION -------------- ¶5. (U) U.S. reps met with the Russian delegation on June 15 to discuss general plans for submission of draft decision texts, and consideration of the UK site visit proposal. Russian del said their decision text is quite basic, and is currently under review in Moscow, but that they do intend to table the decision for EC-46. U.S. reps explained that while the text was still under review in Washington, the U.S. also planned to submit draft decision language prior to EC-46 and, as with other delegations, provided a general overview of the decision elements and expressed the hope that a draft text could be shared prior to the EC. ¶6. (U) U.S. rep inquired as to whether Moscow had given any further thought to site visits, and how their del saw this concept being addressed during the upcoming EC. Russian del rep Smirnovsky replied that it might be best addressed in report language, but nothing more formal. U.S. noted that this might not be possible, given the precedent set by previous decision documents, and recommended Russia be prepared to consider specific parameters for site visits during EC-46; Russian del did not seem to believe Moscow would be favorably inclined to incorporate site visits in a decision text. Smirnovsky also spoke at length about the effects of including "superfluous" language in decision texts that simply restates Convention provisions, and implied Moscow's legal opinion is that this can actually weaken a decision. Finally, Russian del noted that if Moscow receives the U.S. draft decision too late, it will not have adequate time for translation and review, and may not be in a position to approve the document. --- VIR --- ¶7. (U) U.S. del contacted Policy Review Branch head Per Runn for an update on the status of the 2005 VIR, consultations on which are long overdue. Runn noted with some exasperation that the document has been with the editors for over five weeks now, the end effect of which will be that the VIR will not be available for consideration prior to EC-46. Although consultations can still be held in the inter-sessional period, this also means that the VIR will first be discussed as an agenda item during the November EC, shortly before the data for the 2006 VIR is compiled. Del intends to raise the unusually late distribution of this document during the EC Chair's preparatory meeting for EC-46. -------------- MEETING WITH INDIAN AMBASSADOR AND DELEGATION -------------- ¶8. (U) On June 9 Ambassador Javits and delegation members met with Indian Ambassador Ponappa, and Riva Das and Arya Sandeep of the Indian delegation to discuss a number of issues. The following is a summary of the outcome: ¶9. (U) Financial rules: Del informed the Indian delegation that Iran had agreed to removal of the word "all" (i.e., "all States Parties") from the procurement language. (Iran and India were the last opponents to this change.) Das noted that they were favorably inclined toward this idea but were waiting for formal instructions from New Delhi. (Note: Das has subsequently indicated that India could accept this proposal.) ¶10. (U) Confidentiality: Del reminded the Indian delegation of the challenges this facilitation has experienced in getting resolution on the idea of outreach efforts to National Authorities (during regional/subregional meetings, for example). This type of training is valuable, particularly for new States Parties. Some SPs have instructions to have a decision, while others prefer report language. The facilitator (Sanders, U.S.) intends to meet with a small group (India, others) to try to resolve this. ¶11. (U) Das indicated that they have more of a concern with declassification of documents. The U.S. indicated that the current, weaker language allows those SPs who choose to mark individual parts of submitted data. This is also the preference of the TS, as it allows them to use unclassified data elements in other reports, documents, etc. Given the flexibility, it is not clear that this will fully resolve the issue for the TS. Das again indicated that they are awaiting formal instructions from New Delhi. Sanders also indicated that the report language on this issue will reflect India's latest comments. ¶12. (U) Staff regulations: Del reminded the Indian delegation that this issue revolves around item #2 - whether the DG should be given limited reclassification authority. This would not be carte blanche authority. The U.S. supports this limited authority, as is done at most other international organizations. ¶13. (U) When asked about their concerns, the Indian delegation felt that the Executive Council should have a say in these matters. Although they agree in principle to this action, they feel that the classifications of positions are what the SPs thought they should be and, as such, the EC should be involved in the decision for transparency sake. Amb. Javits agreed that the related information should be provided to the EC in a timely manner, but too much detail could become too political. The DG should be given flexibility, as long as it does not directly affect a budget line. ¶14. (U) There was discussion about options for EC involvement: maybe upgraded positions should go to the EC, but not downgraded; maybe more than one step raises transparency concerns. The Indian delegation stated that even downgraded positions could be a concern. They then mentioned that they knew of some particular cases where positions were upgraded or downgraded more than one level, and in some cases a person was in the position when the downgrade (for example) occurred. ¶15. (U) The Indian delegation asked why the U.S. thought this authority, which the DG originally had, was taken away. The thought was that this was done during the tenure of the previous DG and, perhaps, because of abuse. The U.S. noted that, if there is any concern about the DG overstepping his limits, there are plenty of checks and balances to take care of this. ¶16. (U) Antiterrorism: The U.S. asked the Indian delegation their thoughts on how this should proceed. The stated their concern is that giving too much to the facilitation would bog down their work. They also have a particular concern about the TS contacts with NATO. They want to see the work continue in line with the CSP-8 decision. They also see that the OPCW's capability to truly respond to chemical terrorist attack does not yet exist. ¶17. (U) When asked whether they would like to see approval granted before contacts are made or if there was a more general concern, the Indian delegation was concerned about where the TS goes and why. This would not be to micromanage the process. However, the TS needs to give more information about the outcome of their visits, trips, contacts, etc. As an example, in the Ukrainian exercise, the fact that the host was a NATO-related organization came out much later, which raised questions of transparency. They would like to see the TS get past generalities, reporting what happened, how it SIPDIS contributed to national competencies, and the next steps. ¶18. (U) When asked our thoughts, the U.S. delegation said our first concern was who would take Sophie Moal-Makame's (France) place as facilitator. The U.S. also said we should focus on practicalities - what we want the TS to do. We could ask the TS to give us more information on their activities and what they need to develop their capabilities. The U.S. still feels that the biggest contribution to this issue is having everyone fully implement the treaty. ¶19. (U) Biomedical sampling: There was general agreement that the problems on this issue at the last EC were purely procedural. India pointed out that the content of the February 2006 report were better than (and, thus, superceded) that of the March 2005 report. That was their rationale for just wanting to "receive" the DG's Note. The Indian delegation has no concerns with the OPCW developing biomedical capabilities. In fact, Indian laboratories are interested in being part of this capability. Again, these issues were procedural, not substantive. ¶20. (U) Article VII: Amb. Javits stated that it is not our intent to force the TS, the EC, or SPs to do something (i.e., outreach) they are not willing to do. When asked for their thoughts, the Indian delegation said they felt that the TS is the best option for future progress. The EC, including its chair, may need to be more spontaneous, based on their level of comfort, their capability, etc. ¶21. (U) When asked their thoughts on encouragement and suggestions, the Indian delegation said they did not have thoughts yet. Das felt that a critical data point is whether the SP in need of assistance actually wants the help. The group agreed that it would be helpful to ask the facilitation to dive more into the details of these SPs situations to ensure that efforts are correctly focused. ¶22. (U) Indian CW destruction facility: The Indian delegation indicated that there was light at the end of the tunnel for the facility agreement. Their experts from capital met with the TS during EC-45, and they are now awaiting a revised draft from the TS. Their last round activity destroyed more than they expected. They will resume activities on July 15. They also mentioned that there does not seem to be an across-the-board consistency with the standards laid out in facility agreements. ¶23. (U) Review Conference (raised by the Indian delegation): When asked about the U.S. perception of the activity in this area, the U.S. delegation said that procedural aspects are being put into place. Details may be laid out as late as summer 2007. One exception is the SAB. The SAB needs time to do its preparatory work, and perhaps the fall of 2006 would be a good time to meet to give clear direction to the SAB. ¶24. (U) Amb. Ponappa expressed concern with the last RevCon, stating that too much of the preparation was done too late. Amb. Javits's opinion was that too many SPs came into the process too late and could not catch up, and the process was allowed to be sidetracked. The "mini-Bureau" should be able to deal with that sort of problem, although their focus will management issues (managing the process) rather than substantive ones. ¶25. (U) Amb. Ponappa also expressed concern about some "consensus decisions" from the last EC being allowed to be reopened. Amb. Javits suggested that a balance was needed to avoid discouraging dissenters. Ponappa emphasized the need to respect issues that have been gaveled in, so they not be reopened. ¶26. (U) U.S. extension request (raised by the Indian delegation): When asked about where things stand, the U.S. delegation said that work was ongoing in Washington on draft decision language. Ponappa asked whether this would be available by the next EC, and the U.S. noted that Washington is now engaged on all aspects of the decision document text. The U.S. emphasized that if there is a feeling amongst delegations that if it is warranted, we could return to technical discussions and make our technical experts available again. When Ponappa asked about the legality and procedural way forward, Amb. Javits suggested that these discussions wait until the status of the U.S. destruction program as 2012 approaches becomes much clearer. He asked for patience, not for us, but for the situation. ¶27. (U) Africa office (raised by the Indian delegation): There was general expression of support for the new facilitator (Rugeles, Colombia). There was also consensus that there is a need for clarity on what the Africans really need, which they have had a hard time expressing. ¶28. (U) DG Note on agreements (raised by the Indian delegation): Amb. Javits said he felt that the DG has been transparent, while acknowledging that significant issues need to come back to the EC. Ponappa gave the example of the agreement with the African Union and the exchange of confidential information that resulted. SIPDIS -------------- UNIVERSALITY POC MEETING -------------- ¶29. (U) The new facilitator for universality (Said Moussi, Algeria) convened his first Points of Contact meeting on June ¶13. Most of the External Relations Division (ERD) attended as well as the delegations from the U.S., Russia, Mexico, China, Iran, and Japan. The meeting was largely a briefing by the TS on its recent activities in the sphere of universality and its initial planning for the Middle East regional meeting scheduled to take place in Rome from October 25-27. ¶30. (U) Since the last POC meeting on March 9, the TS has visited the DRC, CAR, and Bahamas as part of its universality efforts. Liu Zhixian, the Director of ERD attended a workshop for Portugese-speaking countries in Lisbon on June 8 and met with representatives from Angola and Guinea Bissau. Liu reported that Angola expressed interest in a Technical Assistance Visit. Liu also said that a representative from ERD would be going to London very shortly to meet with representatives from Barbados to discuss its progress. ¶31. (U) Liu said that the DG had drafted letters to the non-SPs in the Middle East asking them to send high-level representation from their capital to the Rome conference and that letters to other SP's in the region and other countries would go out in the next few days. Liu said the formal announcement of the meeting in Rome would be released before the next Universality consultation scheduled for June 21. ¶32. (U) Liu urged all SPs to engage with non-SPs in the region and encourage them to send high-level government representatives. Liu pledged that the TS would organize a meeting with the Italians and other interested delegations to plan the meeting and make it a success. He said the agenda would be similar to previous agendas for this region, but that the TS was very open to ideas from SPs. Del rep suggested that ERD should keep interested delegates apprised of planning for the conference and share the notional agenda as soon as it is prepared. Del rep has also raised the issue privately with the DG's office. ¶33. (U) In other universality related developments: Algeria has offered to host a conference from November 20-22 for African SPs but presumably non-SPs will be invited as well. The DG wrote a letter to the PM and FM of Barbados urging them to ratify and sign the CWC. This was transmitted through the Deputy Perm Rep of the Barbados mission in NY who suggested the letter be sent. The DG also wrote a letter to the FM of Burma urging Burma to attend an upcoming workshop in Nepal. In the Comoros, the legislation necessary to ratify the CWC is on the agenda for the June parliamentary session. Liu said he believed that it was likely that the Bahamas, the Comoros, the DRC, and the CAR would ratify this year. ¶34. (U) Japan asked if international and regional organizations would be invited to Rome. Japan also suggested that perhaps some of the non-SPs invited to the meeting in Rome should be invited to a national authority meeting scheduled for the fall in Jakarta. Japan thought this was good idea as "Indonesia is a Muslim country too." Malik Ellahi of ERD said that no decision on IOs or regional organizations had been made yet for Rome. He pushed back on inviting non-SPs from the Middle East to the NA meeting in Rome saying it was better to focus our universality efforts on Rome and pointing out that it could be insulting to Arab countries to be invited to Indonesia simply because they were all Muslim countries. ¶35. (U) China said it was checking with Beijing to see if high-level officials would be able to attend the meeting in Rome. -------------- EXTERNAL AUDITOR'S REPORT -------------- ¶36. (U) Chiho Komuro (Japan) chaired her last consultation on the Report of the External Auditor for the Year Ending 31 December 2005 (EC-45/DG.9, C-11/DG.3, dated May 10, 2006). The Head of the Budget and Finance Branch, Rick Martin, represented the TS at the meeting. Much of the consultation focused on the Smartstream system. ¶37. (U) Del rep asked if the information presented in Statement IV on page 48 of the report was also available for the years from 2001-2004. Martin said that the information could be found in all of the previous External Auditor reports in Statement IV. Germany asked why there was an increase in unliquidated obligations as indicated in paragraph 25 of the report and what steps the TS has taken to address the problem of late payments by SPs. Martin said the primary reason for the increase in unliquidated obligations was that beginning in 2005 the TS counted any obligation that had not been paid by December 31 as an unliquidated obligation. In previous years the TS had kept its books open for a month or two beyond the end of the year which lead to lower figures for unliquidated obligations. In order to encourage SPs to pay on time or at least as soon as possible, the DG makes constant references to the problems created by late payments in all of his speeches to EC's and the CSP, according to Martin. In addition, BFB sends out at least three reminder letters a year to SPs that have not paid. The TS is also working with SPs to create a repayment mechanism SIPDIS for SPs that are in arrears. ¶38. (U) Iran said it could not understand how it was possible to have such large surpluses and unliquidated obligations at the same time. Martin explained that there was not really a link between the two, and that it was more of a bookkeeping issue. Italy suggested that the TS keep its books open until March in order to reduce the number of unliquidated obligations (sic). Martin explained that it made much more sense to have it coincide with the budgetary year that was a calendar year. ¶39. (U) Del rep noted the importance of creating an effective mechanism to monitor the TSs performance in meeting its RBB objectives as outlined in paragraph 33 of the report and in refining RBB performance indicators. Germany, Italy, and Japan supported the U.S. Martin said the TS hoped to have such a mechanism in place in 2006 and promised to work with delegations to continue to refine RBB indicators in the budget. ¶40. (U) Del rep asked about the status of the TS plan to seek a new travel agent as outlined in paragraph 53. Martin said the procurement process has begun to seek a new travel service provider and that Administration was also looking at purchasing an automated travel system to track travel requests, payments, etc. ¶41. (U) Iran asked about the two incidences of computers having been procured with waivers of bids as outlined in paragraphs 38-41. Ron Nelson, the Director of Administration, and Bento Da Silva, the Head of the Information Services Branch (ISB),joined the consultation and explained that there was no competitive bidding for the two major computer purchases outlined because a majority of the TS workstations were Dell computers and the TS believed that it was important to try and standardize its computer inventory. ¶42. (U) Several delegations asked for an update on the Smartstream system. Da Silva replied that all of the modules of Smartstream that were originally planned to be implemented have been implemented. He said the TS would review the procurement module to see if it should be implemented. He said that ISB had conducted a customer survey for Smartstream that revealed that most users believed the system needed to be more user-friendly and that users should receive additional training. Da Silva said that the current version is installed on each workstation and then linked together. Smartstream would soon be releasing a web-based update of the software that should low-cost and more user friendly. Da Silva said there was also a need to change the IT culture in the TS; many users continue to use Excel and other programs that are not linked together and this defeats the purpose of Smartstream. ¶43. (U) Germany asked if there was a single project manager for Smartstream and if Da Silva had any thoughts on the OIO investigation of Smartstream. Da Silva confirmed that there was a project manager for Smartstream. On the OIO report, Da Silva said that the only OIO recommendation he was familiar with since he became the Head of ISB was the recommendation to formalize and tighten up the procedures for changing data in the Smartstream database. This has been completed. ¶44. (U) France asked if it would be possible to receive quarterly briefings, as is done with VIS, on the progress being made on Smartstream implementation. France noted that delegations were concerned about the large amounts of money that have already been spent on Smartstream. Germany supported France's request. Rather skillfully, Da Silva said that Smartstream really belonged to the users now and much as the users had taken charge of VIS, the users should take charge of Smartstream. What he really seemed to be saying was that somebody else could brief delegates every three months on Smartstream. Germany and France both asked that their concerns be reflected in report language. ¶45. (U) Italy asked that language critical of the External Auditor's recommendations on tenure as outlined on page 65 and 66 be included in report language. France and Germany suggested that this issue could better be dealt with in the Facilitators oral report particularly as this could muddy the waters with the DG's upcoming report on tenure. ¶46. (U) Javits sends. ARNALL