Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06THEHAGUE1431
2006-06-27 12:53:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

Tags:  PARM PREL CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0001
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1431/01 1781253
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 271253Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6153
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 001431 

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 23


This is CWC-55-06.

-------------------------------------
U.S. EXTENSION REQUEST DRAFT DECISION
-------------------------------------

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001431

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 23


This is CWC-55-06.

--------------
U.S. EXTENSION REQUEST DRAFT DECISION
--------------


1. (U) In preparation for Executive Council 46 and beyond,
del continued to work with other delegations to build support
for the U.S. extension request draft decision. After initial
discussions with allies, del offered general points on the
elements of the extension request, and the fact that the U.S.
is favorably considering site visits, at WEOG on June 21.
Del was surprised by Germany's immediate (and public)
insistence that visits in capitals are an essential element
of the site visit concept. A robust discussion ensued,
during which del reps made clear that Washington believes it
provides senior political and technical representation at EC
sessions, and ample opportunity to ask questions between, and
would question the value and intent of visits beyond those to
CW destruction sites.


2. (U) Throughout the week, the UK and German dels
(supported, in large part, by capitals) continued to press
for visits to capitals, and the inclusion of more specific
details on site visits in the draft decision text. U.S. del
reps offered Washington's concerns, and shared communications
between capitals to provide additional insight. Of the
allies, France was by far the most supportive, expressing
gratitude for the U.S. approach during WEOG, and offering
balanced, insightful comments later. (French view, at least
locally, is that most concerns can be addressed through
slight modifications of decision and site visit parameter
language.)


3. (U) Del is beginning to sense an effort on the part of UK
and Germany to raise support for capital visits in other
regional groups as well. Del members have been approached by
delegations inquiring as to the U.S. position on, or simply
the underlying reason behind, visits in capitals as well as
to destruction facilities. Although the German del in
particular has predicted a hard-line approach on this from
the NAM, del read is that this is being driven by an
uncompromising position in Berlin and London.

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

--------------


4. (U) Facilitator Maarten Lak (Netherlands) held a June 15
informal session to discuss the advance copy of the Progress
Report and to begin debate on EC-46 report language.
Delegations thanked the Technical Secretariat for the latest
report, but noted that the last date for inclusion of
information was May 31 and requested that the TS update the
tables just prior to EC-46. New Zealand noted that Keith
Wilson would be attending a meeting of the Pacific Island
Forum in Fiji the week of June 19 to assist implementing
states with their legislation. New Zealand expected that
progress would be made and requested that this information be
included in the report.


5. (U) The United States also reported on the outcome of its
recent African Technical Assistance Visits and requested that
the report also include this information. It also noted the
Conference decision required states to have drafted
legislation by EC-47. However the Progress Report only
indicates where legislation has been implemented and
requested (with support from India, Iran, Mexico, Germany,
and Tunisia) that the TS provide delegations information on
the critical drafting progress. (The TS agreed to post this
information on the external server).


6. (U) Tunisia reported on its progress, noting that its
legislative process was slow and cumbersome. Although it has
had draft legislation for some time, the Ministries of
Justice, Finance, Scientific Research, Trade and Defense all
needed to complete their reviews and reach consensus. The
process is well on the way, although the Progress Report
indicated that there had been no communications between Tunis

and the TS since the Conference. This is not the case, and
the report should be accurate.


7. (U) The facilitator then called for guidance on the
approach to take on EC-46 report language: would it be better
to return to the EC-45 draft or his draft that more closely
followed the CSP-10 text. All the delegations that took the
floor noted that they had no instructions from capital, but
were willing to express their personal views. Only Mexico
supported a return to EC-45 language (Germany remained
silent). The UK, Japan, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, and the
U.S. favored the second option. The U.S. also requested that
the facilitator arrange a second consultation the week of
June 26, to allow delegations ample time to communicate with
capitals and begin to reach consensus in order to prevent a
repeat of the EC-45 problems. The facilitator agreed to hold
two consultations that week, one on the 26th and one on the
29th.

-------------- --
ARTICLE VII - SUPPORTING IMPLEMENTATION EFFORTS
-------------- --


8. (U) Work supporting outreach and assistance to
implementing states is being undertaken by a number of States
Party. SPs that have hosted U.S.-sponsored TAVs have by and
large made great strides in their implementation efforts: all
have interim or permanent National Authorities and draft
legislation, enabling them to meet the requirements of the
follow-on plan. Although not always noted explicitly, the
tremendous U.S. outreach effort is appreciated by other
delegations. Dividends are being paid through support on
other issues critical to U.S. interests. SPs that have
received U.S.-sponsored TAVs do not always agree with U.S.
positions on how best to advance Article VII implementation,
but many have become active in OPCW affairs for the first
time. Some also have supported U.S. initiatives on other
subjects. Algeria informed delrep that it successfully
argued for moderate NAM and Africa group EC-46 statements
regarding the U.S. request to extend its CW destruction
deadline to 2012.


9. (U) Other SPs have assisted implementing states. Japan
sent a legal expert (and former OPCW delegate) on a
TS-sponsored TAV to Papua New Guinea (PNG) and Cambodia.

SIPDIS
Australia also sent a NA expert to PNG and Cambodia, and it
may make a voluntary contribution to support former OPCW
lawyer Keith Wilson's Article VII implementation support
efforts of a number of Pacific Island Forum (PIF) states.
New Zealand has made a substantial voluntary contribution to
support Wilson's support efforts for TAVs to a number of PIF
states in the eastern PIF region. New Zealand also hosted a
PIF meeting in Auckland and held Art VII-related bilateral
meetings on its margins.


10. (U) Algeria privately informed delrep that its former
OPCW PermRep participated in several TAVs. In one instance,
the state (Mauritania) drafted implementing legislation and
established its National Authority, although Mauritania has
yet to advise the TS of these advances. Algeria also
participated in several Article VII subregional meetings of
National Authorities. Iran privately informed delrep that it
has offered assistance to Afghanistan, and is keeping in
touch with officials in Kabul, encouraging them to enact
legislation as soon as possible.


11. (U) A number of other states have assisted implementing
states through the venue of local outreach groups or hosting
training courses for members of NAs. Mexico established a
regional outreach center, to support/assist GRULAC SP
implementation efforts. Spain also is supporting
implementation efforts of GRULAC states. South Africa
participated in meetings of southern African states to
support and assist implementation efforts. Romania, in
tandem with the U.S. Department of Commerce, helped develop
the Implementation Assistance Program (IAP) used in support
of TAVs to implementing states.


12. (U) The UK hosted a NA training course in early 2006,

and France has hosted three NA training courses and will host
another in fall 2006. Portugal hosted two training courses
for Portuguese-speaking states, the first contacts some of
these states have had with the OPCW. These meetings
ultimately resulted in establishment of NAs and drafting
legislation. Portugal will host another more advanced course
later in 2006. Nigeria, one of the recipients of U.S.
assistance, hosted a regional meeting of African NAs that
focused on Art VII implementation. Qatar offered to host an
Art VII-related subregional meeting, and St. Lucia hosted an
Article VII-related workshop for members of the Organization
of Eastern Caribbean States. Finally, numerous SPs
(Australia, Finland, Germany, and the Netherlands, to name a
few) have shared their implementing regulations with
implementing states.

--------------
UNIVERSALITY
--------------


13. (U) Said Moussi (Algeria) chaired his first meeting as
the new facilitator for universality on June 21. The meeting
was well attended with over 25 delegations and the Director
General and Deputy DG in attendance. The substance of the
meeting was largely the same as the universality POC meeting
a week earlier - a summary of TS universality-related
activities. All of the delegations that spoke, including
Iran and Pakistan, were supportive of the TS efforts to
achieve Universality.


14. (U) The DG made a strong pitch for the Rome universality
meeting to be held October 25-27 and urged delegations to
encourage non-SPs in the Middle East to send high-level
representation to the meeting. Privately the TS shared with
the Del the invitation letter (faxed to ISN/CB on 6/21/06)
sent to the Israeli FM that is essentially the same in
substance as the letters sent to the other non-SPs in the
region. The DG also encouraged delegations to provide any
suggestions they may have regarding the program for the
meeting. Finland said that as the incoming EU President it
would demarche all non-SPs on behalf of the EU to encourage
high-level attendance at the meeting. Italy said that the
venue for the meeting would be the Aldrovandi Palace Hotel
and that Italy would work closely to ensure that the meeting
will be productive and well represented.


15. (U) The DG said that he and the TS have actively been
pushing the universality agenda, noting that he had recently
been in Jerusalem and also met with the Syrian, Lebanese, and
Egyptian Ambassadors in The Hague.


16. (U) The U.S. and France urged the TS to consider
combining the African Meeting for non-SPs scheduled to take
place in Algiers on November 20-22 and the African NA meeting
that will take place at some point in the fourth quarter of
2006, in order to reduce costs and ensure significant
attendance. The DG said that he agreed in principle and
would work in that direction.


17. (U) The rest of the meeting was largely the same update
provided by Liu Zhixian, the Director of the External
Relations Division, at the earlir POC meeting and generic
statements from delegaions supporting universality.

--------------
CHALLENGE INSPECTION CONSULTATINS
--------------


18. (U) Facilitator Kang Yong (PRC) convened his last
consultation on challenge inspections on June 20. Kang
opened the session by recalling the suggestion of several
delegations in recent consultations that the EC be involved
in (or develop their own) challenge inspection exercise.
Kang said he had raised this possibility with the Vice Chair
of the cluster for this topic (Amb. Gevorgian of the Russian
Federation),who did not believe that "the time was ripe."


19. (U) Kang then turned to the focus of the consultations,
yet another of the "unresolved issues," the issue of specific

lists of equipment for challenge inspections. TS
representatives Per Runn and Faiza Patel King introduced the
topic by giving what they believed to be the background --
concern that analytical equipment would compromise
information unrelated to the CWC. Patel King noted that this
issue has already been addressed by the use of blinding
software, and that the TS position is that all equipment
available for a routine inspection should be available for
challenge inspections as well.


20. (U) Iran then noted that the overall list of approved
equipment is still actually under discussion, and that if we
assume that all approved equipment can be brought on site, it
would naturally mean that we should have resolution on the
overall list of equipment. Iranian del also referred to
"reservations some SPs have voiced on certain items within
the approved equipment list" and, citing Part II, para 27-28
of the Verification Annex, stated that the TS should not be
able to select among equipment.


21. (U) Several delegations requested clarification on the
statement that SPs still had reservations on certain pieces
of equipment, and more details on equipment that might cause
specific concerns. Discussions then ranged from POE
procedures used to inspect equipment to the need (or lack
thereof) to differentiate between equipment used for a
challenge inspection and that used for a routine inspection,
with most delegations expressing support for giving the TS as
much flexibility as possible to carry out their mission.
Iran insisted that para 29, Part II of the Verification Annex
does provide for reservations on types of equipment. U.S.
del rep expressed strong support for allowing maximum TS
flexibility, and offered a different interpretation of the
intent of para 29.


22. (U) Consultations concluded with no clear "way forward"
expressed by the facilitator, likely to the delight of many
delegations, who see the consultations as a waste of time, if
not actually detrimental to TS efforts to maintain a state of
readiness to conduct a challenge inspection. Del rep was
later approached by Russian del rep, who, on behalf of Amb.
Gevorgian, is obviously considering what action, if any, to
take following Kang's departure this summer. Russia del does
not seem opposed to continuing consultations, but stated
frankly that they do not believe challenge inspections are a

tool that should ever actually be used.

--------------
CHALLENGE INSPECTION PRESENTATION
--------------


23. (U) On June 20, the German delegation gave a
presentation on the challenge inspection exercise conducted
March 26-31, 2006, at the Lechfeld Air Base. Representatives
from the German National Authority gave an overview of the
various ministries/offices involved in such an exercise,
focusing in particular on the role of the Bundeswehr
Verification Center and the Escort Team, and then explained
the scenario and results (lessons learned) of the exercise.
(Hard copy of all relevant briefings will be provided to
Washington.)


24. (U) The TS then shared their impressions from the
exercise, from both Inspector and Headquarters perspectives.
TS objectives for the exercise included exercising the

SIPDIS
command and control element (inspection planning),using
interviews as an inspection tool, and report writing. The
Inspection Team also focused on Non-Destructive Evaluation
methods and on-site Sampling and Analysis. An IT member who
had participated gave a well-focused briefing, in which he
explained the actions of the IT from receipt of the Challenge
Inspection Request (CIR),through POE activities and
perimeter negotiations, up to IT findings (related back to
the CIR) and operational lessons learned.


25. (U) Policy Review Branch head Per Runn summarized the TS
perspective, stating that the main lesson learned was that
report writing would be extremely time consuming, even if
started early. He also noted a need for the TS to balance a

desire to "hit the ground as soon as possible" with the
benefits derived from more meticulous inspection planning.
Finally, he noted that an exercise requires tremendous
advance planning, and that in a real challenge inspection
scenario, some routine inspections would almost certainly
need to be foregone to free inspector resources.


26. (U) Reactions from delegations were mixed. France asked
how Germany was able to maintain a balance between
transparency and respecting the rights of the Inspected State
Party (ISP). Other WEOG questions focused on on-site
sampling, use of equipment, and managed access. India stated
that the exercise was too dependent upon artificialities,
questioned the "value added" of such exercises for the TS,
and suggested that it would be more useful in future to have
an uncooperative ISP. (Rep from the German NA noted that
cooperation is fully consistent with German policy on
challenge inspections.) Iran expressed concern over the use
of interviews, and requested that the TS provide the report
from the exercise to member states, citing reports issued
from earlier exercises. TS rep acknowledged that while this
would be useful, the TS is still developing a reporting
format for challenge inspections, and is concerned that any
initial, informal report provided might be construed as a
proposed format.

--------------
OEWG ON TERRORISM
--------------


27. (U) Facilitator Sophie Moal-Makame (France) chaired her
final meeting of the Open Ended Working Group on Terrorism on
June 23. Most of the meeting was a presentation by
Ambassador Les Luck, the Australian Ambassador for
Counter-Terrorism, on Countering Terrorism in Southeast Asia:
Australia's Strategy and Approach. After the presentation
and questions and answers, John Makhubalo, Director of
International Cooperation and Assistance, gave a brief update
on recent TS activities related to terrorism. The meeting
was general and there was little of substance or new to come
out of the discussions.


28. (U) The DG introduced Amb. Luck who outlined his role in
the Australian government. Luck said that he was primarily
involved in Australia's external CT efforts with a special
focus on regional cooperation with other Southeast Asian
countries. He listed several recent terrorist attacks in
Southeast Asia including the Bali bombings, the bombings
adjacent to the U.S. and Australian Embassies in Jakarta and
said that Australia was working very closely with the
Indonesian government to prevent further attacks. He said
that Australia was working on building its capacity and
helping others in border security, transportation security,
bomb site analysis, victim identification, and tracking
terrorist financial transactions. The Australian police also
now have a presence in all countries in the region.


29. (U) In terms of the OPCW, Luck said that it was clear
that international terrorist organizations would like to
develop a WMD capability and that the OPCW and IAEA therefore
had a role to play. He said, for example, that while past
non-proliferation efforts were focused on state actors, now
they would also have to be oriented to deal with non-state
actors. Luck said that other organizations such as the
Australia Group, Wassenaar, and initiatives such as PSI also
had a role to play.


30. (U) Italy asked what specific role Luck envisioned for
the OPCW. Luck said that the two most obvious things the
OPCW could do in the struggle against terrorism would be to
push for the universality of the CWC and full and effective
implementation by SPs. The Austrian delegate highlighted the
role that Assistance and Protection could play in the
struggle against terrorism.


31. (U) Makhubalo told delegates that he and the Director of
the Office of Special Projects had visited the African Center
for the Study of Terrorism in Algiers on June 18 and 19.
Makhubalo said the Center, which was established in 2004, was

working on strengthening anti-terrorism cooperation amongst
all African countries by encouraging them to join relevant
international organizations and by acting as a clearing house
for anti-terrorism related information. The Center is under
the African Union and its director reports to the AU
Commissioner for Peace and Security. The Center's
representatives told Makhubalo that they were very interested
in working more closely with the OPCW particularly in the
area of Assistance and Cooperation. While the two day
meeting was an exploratory session, according to Makhubalo,
he believed that there are potential synergies between the
two organizations such as sharing information from the TS
Assistance and Protection database with the African Center.


32. (U) Moal-Makame said in closing that she believes there
is more to be done in the OEWG and she urged delegates to
think of creative ways that Assistance and Protection
activities could be used as part of the OPCW's contribution
to global anti-terrorism efforts.


33. (U) On the question of Moal-Makame's successor, she told
del rep privately that Paris has recommended that the new
French delegate to the OPCW assume her responsibilities as
the OEWG facilitator. The Spanish delegate Tomas Lopez
Vilarino had earlier expressed an interest in the position
but is unlikely to push for the position should the French
want to keep it.

--------------
2005 DRAFT REPORT OF THE OPCW
--------------


34. (U) The Chairman of the Executive Council, Ambassador
Mkhize (South Africa),chaired a June 22 meeting to review
the 2005 Draft Report of the OPCW. The report, which is
largely a straight forward account of what the TS did in 2005
and what happened, should have taken about thirty minutes to
approve. Iran, however, intervened repeatedly in an attempt
to politicize what should have been a simple historical
document. The U.S., Germany, France, and the UK pushed back
on most of the Iranian proposed edits. Most of the Iranian
suggestions were not accepted and on a few the TS agreed to
study the language and try to make it clearer for delegates.
Exactly how the document will emerge from the TS editors for
EC-46 to consider is not clear and the del will have to
closely examine the document to ensure that any problematic
Iranian changes were not included by the TS.


35. (U) On page 1 of the document, Iran requested that all
references to non-proliferation be deleted as
non-proliferation is not mentioned in the CWC. Del rep
pushed back noting that many items mentioned in the report
are not explicitly mentioned in the CWC, training and
development for example, yet there are no calls for these
items to be excised from the report. Del rep also noted that
non-proliferation is listed as a core objective in the
program and budget. The change was rejected.


36. (U) Iran also requested that paragraph 4 on page one be
split so that Article VII would have a separate header and
that "further progress" on line 3 be changed to "significant
progress." There were no objections. In paragraph 6, line 1
Iran asked that "universal adherence" be replaced with
"universality". There was some weak opposition to this from
the TS but eventually the change was accepted.


37. (U) Austria requested that special mention be made to
the EU voluntary contribution in paragraph 7 on page 2. The
U.S. and Iran suggested that it was important to be
consistent in the report and either mention everybody's
contribution or nobody's contribution. Austria withdrew its
request.


38. (U) Russia and the UK proposed listing the
non-submitting SPs in paragraph 1.1. The TS responded that
the information was available in the Verification
Implementation Report. India said it would like to submit
unspecified editorial suggestions for paragraph 1.12 to the
TS. Russia asked that the last sentence in paragraph 1.21 be

SIPDIS

deleted. There were no objections.


39. (U) Iran asked that the entire reference in paragraph
1.31 and 1.32f be deleted. India supported. The U.S., UK,
and Germany pushed back. The TS said it may seek to refine
the language. Austria requested that "inter alias" be added
in front of "the ability" in paragraph 1.34. There were no
objections.


40. (U) India asked that the language in paragraphs 2.9 and
2.17 be refined by the TS to make it clearer. Iran asked
that the word "effective national Authorities" be changed to
"National Authorities" in paragraph 2.17. Iran also asked
that the introductory paragraph on Article VII that it had
earlier called for be deleted and all references to Article
VII be moved to paragraph 2.18. Del rep objected strongly to
both changes and they were dropped.


41. (U) The TS said it would correct the number of TAVs
listed in 2.19, as it was incorrect. Russia said that 3.3a
needed to be corrected as the decision referenced was made in
2004 and not in 2005. Iran said it was unaware of any host
country issues having been resolved as stated in 4.8 and
asked that the TS check and correct the mistake.

--------------
REPAYMENT PLANS
--------------


42. (U) Consultations were held on establishing a repayment
mechanism for SPs in arrears. The facilitators circulated a
facilitators' paper (e-mailed to ISN-CB on 6/23) that was to
serve as a basis for drafting decision language.
Unfortunately, rather than offering general comments on the
substance of the document Germany and Iran suggested
reviewing the document paragraph by paragraph. The whole
exercise quickly devolved into a drafting exercise that will
undoubtedly be repeated when delegates are presented with the
actual draft decision language at the next consultation after
EC-46.


43. (U) Japan said Tokyo would insist on a maximum five year
repayment period in any repayment plant, as this was closer
to the UN standard. Japan also would prefer that an
exception to financial regulation 5.6a be incorporated into
repayment plans as opposed to amending the financial
regulations. The U.S., France, Ireland, and Germany
supported Japan's position. Iran said it would it reserve
its positions and suggested that a ten year limit might be
more appropriate, suggesting that the facilitators contact
SPs in arrears and get their view. (Note: No SPs that have
lost their voting rights attended the consultation. End
Note.)


44. (U) Iran said it had problems with the first sentence in
paragraph A, as it implied that all SPs in arrears had to
submit a payment plan even if they did not want to enter into
a repayment plan with the TS. Other delegations tried to
explain that this only applied to SPs that wanted to enter
into a repayment plan, but Iran said the language would have
to be refined for a draft decision. Germany reminded Iran
that the document was not decision text.


45. (U) Iran suggested that SPs who enter into a repayment
plan with the TS and regain their voting rights and
subsequently fail to adhere to the terms of the agreement
should not lose their voting rights again until the
subsequent CSP makes a decision. All other delegations
expressed the view that SPs that fail to abide by the terms
of their repayment plans should automatically lose their
voting rights again. There was no consensus as to whether
this should be stipulated in each individual repayment plan
as approved by the CSP or in the CSP decision restoring
voting rights. The facilitators said they would study the
issue and develop language for delegations to consider at the
next consultation.


46. (U) Javits sends.
BLAKEMAN