Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06THEHAGUE1386
2006-06-21 15:34:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): SCENESETTER FOR

Tags:  PARM PREL CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0023
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1386/01 1721534
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
O 211534Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6079
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
C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 001386 

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: DECL: 06/21/2016
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): SCENESETTER FOR
46TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION, JULY 4-7


Classified By: Ambassador Eric M. Javits, U.S. Permanent Representative
to the OPCW. Reasons 1.5 (B) and (D).

This is CWC-52-06.

-------
SUMMARY
-------

C O N F I D E N T I A L THE HAGUE 001386

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: DECL: 06/21/2016
TAGS: PARM PREL CWC
SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): SCENESETTER FOR
46TH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL SESSION, JULY 4-7


Classified By: Ambassador Eric M. Javits, U.S. Permanent Representative
to the OPCW. Reasons 1.5 (B) and (D).

This is CWC-52-06.

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (C) There are two key objectives for the U.S. at EC-46.
First, distribute the draft decision document on the U.S.
100% extension request and initiate discussion on that
document. With careful management of expectations and timely
circulation of documents, this can likely be steered in a
positive direction. Support from the allies, however, may be
critical, and does not seem at this point to be guaranteed.
Second, continue the process of re-building a collegial,
consensus-based approach on Article VII. U.S. presentation
of positions that could be interpreted as going beyond the
CSP-10 decision on Article VII could damage efforts on the
entire range of issues under discussion, including the
extension request.


2. (U) The expectation is that the Director General will
distribute his proposed 2007 budget by EC-46, and this will
be a zero nominal growth budget. While some minor issues may
be ready for a decision, there are few agenda items ready for
action. What will be more important than specific adoption
of decisions will be continued work on re-generating an
atmosphere in which U.S. positions on all issues (Article VII
in particular) have the best possible chance of success. End
Summary.

--------------
ARTICLE VII
--------------


3. (C) The sharp, universal criticism of the U.S. at the end
of EC-45 due to the dispute over Article VII report language
currently is dormant. However, the U.S. faces a distinctly
unhealthy atmosphere at the OPCW, particularly on Article
VII. Simply put, there will be an instinctive negative
reaction to any U.S. proposal which carries any "negative" or
"punitive" connotation or which goes beyond the CSP-10
decision. Amb. Javits has met individually with the
Ambassadors of a number of key delegations (India, Mexico,

etc.) to work to re-build a positive environment, and there
has been progress. Indeed, on some issues, such as financial
rules, the discussions have led to agreement from India and
Iran on acceptable compromise language.


4. (C) Article VII, however, is in a league of its own.
General opposition to the U.S. approach was energized at
EC-45 and remains strong. In their view, the approach should
be primarily "carrots," although Iran and India have begun
alluding to the "stick" in paragraph 14 of the decision. The
acceptable basis for negotiation is reiteration of the points
in the CSP-10 decision, despite the fact that (as the
delegation has repeatedly pointed out) many details remain to
be filled in on this bare bones document. The WEOG
delegations have different views, but they all converge on
criticism of the U.S. approach. Most WEOG delegations are
loath to accept anything that could be viewed as a "remedial"
measure.


5. (SBU) Most constructively, the Canadians have argued that
it is time to shift tactics to the next Article VII
challenge. There has been great success on national
authorities. The next task is getting draft legislation
prepared, submitted to legislatures, and enacted. If a State
Party has yet to draft implementing legislation, Technical
Assistance Visits remain the most effective approach. If a
State Party has drafted legislation, a different approach is
needed. Here, it would be far more effective if States Party
with strong political ties to the implementing state demarche
in capital, focusing on a more "political" approach.


6. (C) Fortunately, the major battle over Article VII will
take place at EC-47 in November. That allows for repair work

under a less stressful environment at EC-46. Under pressure
from the U.S. and others, facilitator Maarten Lak
(Netherlands) has already started the process of considering
EC-46 report language. From the delegation's perspective, it
would be important to ensure that the report language
emphasizes the following points:

-- Restatement of the need to establish national authorities.
-- Restatement of the requirement of preparing, submitting,
and enacting national implementing legislation. If the
implementing state has yet to complete the process, it will
need to explain its status to EC-47 and provide its plans for
finalizing its efforts. Del notes that one way of
effectively monitoring the status of this issue (while
avoiding a contentious discussion with other delegations in a
consultation) is simply to ensure that the Legal Advisor's
office provides updated information on this requirement on
its external server. This would let the facilitator, the
Technical Secretariat, or individual States Parties know on
which states to focus attention, and to consider who would be
best placed to press them on the importance of enacting
legislation.


7. (C) Delegation is well aware of the fact that there is an
intense interagency discussion under way on Article VII. We
share Washington's view that we must press for more progress
on Article VII. We strongly recommend a policy of "first, do
no harm" in order to set the stage for the difficult
negotiations to come in November.


8. (C) Should the U.S. be viewed as preventing consensus on
Article VII at yet another EC, there could be repercussions
on the other issue of primary significance to the U.S.: the
request for an extension of the 100% destruction deadline.
Many delegations believe that the heading of "non-compliance"
covers missing destruction deadlines as well as not meeting
Article VII requirements. The extent to which they are
willing to accept that these are two distinct categories
depends largely on whether they are inclined to support the
U.S. Which brings the discussion back to the key point: the
U.S. lost a substantial amount of goodwill at EC-45 on
Article VII. That loss has an impact on the willingness of
delegations to accept our argumentation on all other issues,
including the extension request.

--------------
EXTENSION REQUEST
--------------


9. (U) The U.S. could not have asked for a better outcome to
the introduction of its extension request than it received at
EC-45. Much of that is attributed to the extensive outreach
that was conducted by Amb. Javits, the delegation and
Washington. The result was a feeling of disappointment among
other delegations, and a number of serious questions, but no
major criticism. The next step is the tabling of the text of
a proposed decision document, which is continuously raised
with the delegation.


10. (C) Delegation appreciates the thorough coordination
that has been initiated by Washington on decision document
language, and will continue to report substantive comments
from other delegations. Particularly with regard to the UK
proposal for site visits to possessor states that have
requested an extension to 2012, there will continue to be
extensive discussion with the UK, Russia and others.


11. (C) To be clear: other delegations expect to see the
U.S. draft text prior to, or at the latest at, the start of
EC-46. However, with less than two weeks to go before the
EC, there is no expectation that delegations will be asked to
approve the document. Indeed, pressing for a quick decision
would generate resentment. Instead, it would be best if Amb.
Javits could simply emphasize that the U.S. is tabling the
text for consideration.

--------------
AGENDA ITEMS
--------------



12. (U) Following remarks are keyed to the annotated
provisional agenda for EC-46 that was circulated on June 20.

(U) Item 3: Statement by the DG. Delegation will provide the
text of the DG's statement when it becomes available.

(U) Item 4: General debate. Delegation has provided ISN/CB a
draft statement by Amb. Javits.

(U) Item 5: Status of implementation of the Convention:

(C) 5.1: Having been continually deferred from previous
sessions, the Indian Verification Plan is on the EC-46
agenda, still unaccompanied by a Facility Agreement. Del
understands from the Indian delegation that significant
progress has been made since the last EC, and that the TS
recently provided a new draft for Indian review. Del will
follow up with TS to confirm, and if progress does not seem
satisfactory, will take further action.

(U) 5.2: The Albanian Verification Plan and Facility
Agreement are also back on the EC agenda. Although documents
were blocked last session by Russia for purely procedural
reasons, it is not unlikely that delegations consideration of
the documents at this session may be colored by recent news
of problems with the destruction system that will result in a
significant delay in operations, and require further
extension of Albania's first two intermediate deadlines. Del
has already scheduled meetings for U.S. technical experts
with the TS on the margins of the EC, but requests more
specific guidance from Washington concerning questions that
will almost certainly arise about Albanian plans to submit an
extension request.

(U) 5.8: Del will work with Washington to provide specific
talking points for use by the Albanian del on this agenda
item, given the concerns recent problems in system testing
will likely generate.

(C) 5.10: Discussed above, but del will work closely with
the allies in the coming week to build support and foster
more reasonable expectations for the U.S. draft decision and
proposal for site visit parameters. Del recommends making a
final determination on the tactics/timing of the specific
site visit proposal once allied reaction to initial U.S.
feedback is clear. Del will also work with the Russian del
to set a positive precedent on decision language and site
visits, but believes this will be more effectively
accomplished with agreement from the allies, which has yet to
be achieved. Del also recommends considering sharing an
"advance" (read: just before official submission) with a few
other key delegations.

(C) 5.11: See discussion on 5.10. Del recommends our
strategy be clear for EC-46 in terms of what we will and will
not accept in a Russian decision document, and how we intend
to approach the idea of site visits. Del also recommends
that we communicate as clearly as possible with the allies
regarding our intended interactions with the Russian del,
given lingering sensitivities from the 45% destruction
deadline decision process in 2003 that left the impression of
U.S./Russia collusion.

(U) 5.12: Having received verbal confirmation from the
Russian del, who blocked the document during EC-45 for
procedural reasons, that they should be in a position to
approve it now, del does not anticipate problems with
approval of the Libyan draft decisions (revised to
incorporate language suggested during EC-45 by the German
delegation).

(C) 5.13: This is the request by China/Japan for an
extension of the deadline for completing destruction of
abandoned CW. The request is fairly light on detail, not
surprising given the numerous modalities that remain to be
worked out bilaterally. In general, it contains the basic
elements set out in paragraph 17, Part IVB of the
Verification Annex. A draft decision has finally been

circulated. The Japanese delegation has, on several
occasions, impressed upon the del how highly Japan values
U.S. approval of the document. While the U.S. has no
critical equities at stake in this matter, past experience
indicates it will be a "lively" discussion.

(U) 5.16: This is the sub-item under which Article VII will
be discussed.

(U) Item 6: Draft report of the OPCW for 2005. The EC Chair
(South Africa) has called for consultations on this document
on June 22. At present, delegation anticipates little
substantive debate.

(U) Item 7: Lists of new validated data. The three items
under consideration are 1) noting a TS note assessing the
implications of data in the lists of validated data set out
in EC-42/DEC/CRP.5, dated 9 Sep. 2005, 2) approving the list
of new validated data contained in the previously referenced
document, and 3) approving a newer list of new validated
data, EC-46/DEC/CRP.1, dated 16 June 2006.

(SBU) Item 8: Office in Africa. The new facilitator (Andres
Jose Rugeles Pineda, Colombia) has informed delegation that
he has had his initial discussions with the TS and the
African Group. He has yet to schedule a consultation on this
topic, and may decide that the time is not yet ripe for him
to do so. (Note: South African delegate Peter Makwarela, who
was the driving force behind this issue, will depart The
Hague on June 30.)

(SBU) Rugeles Pineda has informed del that he does not view
his role as that of a proponent of an Africa office, and,
indeed, has privately expressed his skepticism about an
office. However, he recognizes that as facilitator, he must
ensure that all aspects of the issue are thoroughly
evaluated. In a very positive sign, he informed us that he
made clear to the African Group that they must take more
responsibility for providing information regarding a possible
office, and cannot simply rely on the TS to do all of the
work.

(U) Item 9: Administrative and financial matters.

(U) 9.1: This will be the opportunity for the DG to formally
present the 2007 proposed budget as well as the medium-term
plan for 2007-2009. The expectation is a zero nominal growth
budget for 2007, which will include some important U.S.
objectives (such as a 10% increase in OCPF inspections).

(U) 9.2: There is no agreement with regard to a mechanism for
SPs to regularize payment of dues to the OPCW.

(U) 9.4: On financial rules, the facilitator (Rick Snelsire,
U.S.) continues to work to achieve consensus.

(U) 9.5: WEOG was informed that the TS has requested a
deferral to the next EC of the item on an agreement regarding
transfers between the OPCW Provident Fund and the UN Joint
Staff Pension Fund.

(U) Item 10: Report of the Advisory Body on Administrative
and Financial Matters. Delegation is not aware of any
contentious issues regarding the ABAF report at this time.
The DG's note on the ABAF report has not yet been issued.
Del will keep Washington apprised of issues which begin to
generate attention.

(U) Item 11: DG's note on instruments signed by the TS with
governments or other international organizations. Amb.
Javits has worked with the DG to provide sufficient
transparency to assuage the concerns of several delegations
that believe the DG has exceeded his authority. Delegation
is aware that the goal is to ensure a proper balance: there
are certain political agreements that require EC approval,
but the DG has to have the authority to conclude
"administrative" agreements. Delegation also recognizes that
the U.S. has a particular interest due to the tax
reimbursement agreement.


(U) Item 12: Credentials of representatives to the EC. This
will be purely procedural.

(U) Item 13: Provisional agenda for the 11th CSP. Should
Washington have objections or concerns regarding the
provisional agenda, del would appreciate an opportunity to
informally vet them with the TS and other key delegations.

(U) Item 14: Dates for EC sessions in 2007. The proposed
dates in 2007 are

EC-48: March 13-16
EC-49: June 26-29
EC-50: September 25-28
EC-51: November 27-30

(U) 2006 is first year in which Washington's goal of a CSP
that caps four EC sessions has been achieved. The TS has
informed us that it is not/not possible to have this schedule
again in 2007. The TS has reserved the Congress Center for
Nov. 5-9 and the ICC and others already have exercised their
options up to mid-December 2007. This may not be viewed as
tragic by other delegations, which have yet to warmly adopt
the 2006 schedule of meetings. However, del recommends
pushing for a December 2008 CSP so that the TS can lock in
the Congress center.
(U) Item 15: Any other business. At this time, delegation
knows of no other items to be raised under this agenda item.


13. (U) Javits sends.
ARNALL