Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06THEHAGUE1383
2006-06-20 15:13:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:
CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR
VZCZCXYZ0000 OO RUEHWEB DE RUEHTC #1383/01 1711513 ZNR UUUUU ZZH O 201513Z JUN 06 FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6070 INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
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
-------------------------------------
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
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