Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06THEHAGUE1486
2006-07-04 16:16:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR THE

Tags:  PARM PREL CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0000
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #1486/01 1851616
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 041616Z JUL 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6235
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 001486 

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 THE
WEEK ENDING JUNE 30

This is CWC-60-06.

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

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001486

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 THE
WEEK ENDING JUNE 30

This is CWC-60-06.

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


1. (U) Facilitator Maarten Lak (Netherlands) held two
informal consultations on 23 and 26 June to discuss Executive
Council 46 report language. On Monday, delegations were
asked to choose between two texts, the draft EC-45 text and a
new facilitator's proposal. Mexico intervened to relay its
instructions: Mexico City is seeking a short text for report
language; even the EC-45 draft would be too long. The
facilitator's draft included CSP-10 decision language; there
is no need to reiterate it yet again in report language. The
CSP-10 decision was very balanced, a result of hard-fought
negotiations. Mexico City cannot accept language that
"cherry-picks" some elements of the decision but does not
include other elements. Reiteration of a ten-page decision
in report language is unacceptable; the decision could be
attached to a Note Verbale from the Director General to
implementing states. Finally, Mexico noted that language
encouraging some EC members to reach out to states without a
National Authority would
set a dangerous precedent: it would encourage some states to
exhort others on specific issues. India, in a terse
intervention, noted that it could support only a very short
text.


2. (U) Italy, supported by New Zealand, U.S., UK, Australia,
noted it wanted to see another approach. The facilitator's
draft has more concrete elements; EC-46 report language must
balance encouragement for implementing states with pressure:
only six months remain before EC-47. Italy also supports
concise report language, but if the language needs to
reiterate certain EC-47-related elements, so be it. The U.S.
added that the report language must address four key
elements: calls for establishment of NAs in the 16 SPs that
missed the EC-45 deadline, reminders for states of the
requirement that draft legislation be ready by EC-47, as well
as for implementing states to provide the Technical
Secretariat a status report of the steps taken towards

SIPDIS
enacting legislation, and calls for implementing states to

request assistance from the TS and states willing and able to
provide requested support. The UK added that London feels
the language needed to note the urgency and importance the EC
sets on all states fulfilling their Article VII obligations.
Algeria, Australia, Colombia, and Japan supported the U.S.
call for increased assistance provided by SPs. In an
apparent about-face, Mexico noted it also wanted to encourage
states to request assistance as well as encourage states to
provide it.


3. (U) The facilitator provided delegations revised text
prior to the 26 June consultation (e-mailed to ISN/CB on June
27),on the basis of the earlier discussion, noting that he
attempted to keep it short, balanced, while including the
elements delegations deemed essential. The U.S. then
introduced its non-paper, noting that it followed the
structure of the facilitator's proposal, but incorporated
more specific elements. The paper was provided to
delegations to assist their consideration of the textual
proposals. Individual elements would be introduced when each
of the facilitator's paragraphs were discussed in detail.
Next, India introduced its draft (faxed to ISN/CB),a short
three-sentence document which noted the CSP decision, but did
not contain specific elements. The text was supported by
Algeria, Iran, Malaysia, Mexico, and Pakistan, and paralleled
the first two paragraphs of the facilitator's draft. (Note:
This group did not plan to provide its draft to delegations,
but did so after requests by Germany, Italy, Japan, and the
UK.) This led to a debate regarding how to proceed.


4. (U) The UK supported the U.S. draft, noting it largely
reiterated CSP-10 text, precisely, and paralleled London's
comments regarding the facilitator's draft. The UK added
that it would provide the facilitator text regarding the
decision's paragraphs 12-14 regarding the steps to be taken
with regard to those states that have yet to respond. Italy

also supported the U.S. draft, because it made clear
reference to the main obligations set out in the decision.
The Russian Federation echoed the Italian comments.


5. (U) The facilitator called for delegations to work on the
basis of his text, and to submit textual proposals during the
debate. New Zealand noted that this text provided a good
basis for delegations' work. Ambassador Javits, supported by
Canada, Italy, and Japan, noted that report language would
set the tone for our work, not be a substitute for actual
work to be done. The language must recognize the many
accomplishments to date, balanced by the work that still
remains. Little time is left, the language must remind
implementing states of what needs to be done and the deadline
by which it needs to be reported to the TS. Simply exhorting
or encouraging ourselves to do more is not enough. We must
inspire implementing states to take action. We must not
weaken the CSP decision, by not giving targeted and specific
information to implementing states, which will require
carefully tailoring the facilitator's draft to reflect the
actual situation. Iran supported Ambassador Javits'
statement, but noted we are not crafting decision language,
we are writing report language. EC report language looks
back and assesses what has been done (or not),not forward to
what is needed next.


6. (U) Lak recommended that interested delegations remain
beyond to begin revising text. Iran said that it needed to
consult with Tehran, so that it could not participate.
Drafting was postponed to Monday 3 July.

-------------- ---
VARIOUS UPDATES ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE VII
-------------- ---


7. (U) The TS announced that the Federated States of
Micronesia announced the establishment of its NA in the
Department of Justice on 26 June. Mexico noted that its
National Authority had participated in a Technical Assistance
Visit to Honduras with TS officials, to assist with the
establishment of its NA and to share Mexico's experience
implementing Article VII. Honduras is expected to announce
establishment of its NA within the week. New Zealand
announced that its voluntary contribution assisted former TS
official Keith Wilson's efforts in the Pacific Island Forum.
In addition to work just completed in Micronesia, Wilson had
high hopes for Tuvalu and Kiribas. The latter just passed
its legislation and is awaiting the royal decree to finalize
its legislative process; this should occur during EC-46. PNG
just filled the long vacant position responsible for Article
VII implementation (as well as implementation for other
treaties),which may provide an opening for progress. Italy
noted that it had made overtures to a number of implementing
states, and is providing assistance to some of them (no
further information) and it found that many requested "the
latest version" of the requirements (as set out in report
language).


8. (U) During the 29 June consultation, the U.S. noted that
delegations really did not know which states had yet to
respond on either Article VII or National Authorities. Which
states were partially done, which were just about to finish.
The TS replied that the nonresponders are primarily those
without National Authorities: Afghanistan (willing but
situation bad at the present time),Bhutan, Cambodia (have NA
but not working, attended French course for NA members),
Mauritania (has replied to some element of the TS
questionnaires),Nauru (Wilson trip imminent, expect good
results),PNG (difficult security situation, difficult case),
Timor-Leste (post-conflict situation),Tuvalu (progress
possible),Vanuatu (progress possible). Privately,
Australian NA rep Josie Meyers told delrep that Australia is
assisting Cambodia's implementation effort and is working
with Cambodia's NA. Australia is translating the CWC annexes
and reviewing the translation of the CWC itself, in order to
provide parliamentarians with complete text. This is the
final element needed in order for the Parliament to consider
its draft legislation.


9. (U) In response to an Italian question about what
implementing states want to have, Onate responded that they
always want to hear that assistance is available from the TS
or member states. They fear assistance will melt away,
leaving them in limbo. In response, Mexico, supported by the
U.S., noted that it would help both implementing states and
assisting states if there were a "Implementation help-desk,"
to coordinate requests for and offers of assistance. Onate
agreed and said that this would be established during EC-46.

--------------
ARTICLE VII OUTREACH - TAVs
--------------


10. (U) Del reps met with Deputy DG John Freeman, Amb. Onate,
Ian Richards (DDG special advisor),and Vidyadhar Dhavle
(ICA) regarding technical assistance visits (TAVs). The
meeting was at Freeman's request.


11. (U) Freeman began by encouraging consolidated U.S.
coordination with the TS. To facilitate this, they requested
that we contact Amb. Onate as our one-and-only point of
contact. He also emphasized that, in order to ensure that
the TS can justify the funds utilized to the SPs that
contributed them, they feel they can only use these funds to
cover travel and DSA (i.e., per diem) expenses. They do not
see other expenses, like the rental of meeting space and
refreshments, as a requirement. They really feel that the
host government/NA needs to make certain efforts to support
these TAVs, and the providing of these basics is a minimum.
They also feel that meeting in government office space gives
more of a feel of legitimacy to the process than rented space
does. Lastly, he encouraged that the TS be more involved in
the planning process for these TAVs.


12. (U) One example was briefly discussed, not because it was
an extreme example, but because it was immediate -- Suriname.
The providing of rented meeting space and refreshments was
requested by the host government and supported by the U.S.
The TS said that they were approached by the U.S. through two
different avenues - Amb. Onate and Dhavle - to request that
the TS cover these expenses. When this was denied and
explained, the U.S. asked about the possibility of using some
of our contribution for that purpose. As it was still
unclear whether it would be needed or not, Dhavle was
required to carry cash from the U.S. contribution with him in
the event it was needed. Our effort to avoid this kind of
situation in the future was requested. The TS did mention
several times their appreciation for the U.S. efforts with
Suriname, which was a closed door to them until the U.S.
intervened.


13. (U) When the TS receives direct requests for TAVs from
SPs, they discuss the details and then summarize them in an
aide memoir to avoid confusion and unrealistic expectations.
The TS agreed to provide us with an example of what they use,
in the event we want to do something similar.


14. (U) The TS also stressed the value of scheduling further
in advance, thus allowing the opportunity for the TS to make
the best possible arrangements. They observed that, on
average, the cost of joining U.S.-organized visits has been
30 to 40 percent higher than those organized by the TS. They
were quick to point out that this is not a show-stopper, but
rather something to keep in mind. They also have concerns
about going to places where they have already been before
(e.g., Sri Lanka). With that in mind, they will be focusing
their attention on the following SPs from the U.S. proposed
list of May 24: Suriname (underway),Trinidad and Tobago,
Nicaragua, Djibouti, Bangladesh, and Paraguay. (The Del did
point out how our proposed list was compiled.)


15. (U) Upcoming efforts: The TS said they had just received
a request from Liberia for a visit in August. Given
scheduling difficulties for the TS in August, they will be
pushing for September. They will be contacting Edna Sidler
of ISN/CB concerning this visit. Germany has requested to be
involved in upcoming trips to El Salvador and Namibia.
(Note: Given the U.S.-led visit to El Salvador last year,

this may be an area where we might want to question the need
for the visit with the TS, particularly in light of their
concern on repeat visits.) For Bangladesh, the TS focus is
the bill that is being or has recently been presented to
Parliament. November is the best estimate that Bangladesh
could give for this visit.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER - SCHEDULE 3 TRANSFERS
--------------


16. (U) The facilitator (Arya Sandeep, India) had done quite
a bit or preparatory work before this consultation to decide
if there was a chance of reaching consensus during this
consultation, as it will be his last as facilitator. Because
of this, the most vocal delegations (including Iran, Germany,
and the U.S.) came with clear guidance on how to proceed.


17. (U) Knowing that the German delegation was likely to
insist on the removal of two operative paragraphs that Iran
saw as crucial, the U.S. deployed its guidance first as a
more positive step forward, and this was received favorably
by both Germany and Iran. The U.S. proposal was seen as the
most likely way forward by all delegations who spoke up. It
was agreed that further work would be undertaken to see if
language could be agreed before Sandeep's departure.


18. (U) Following the facilitation, two other sessions were
held in which Iran, Germany, and the U.S. worked on cleaning
up the language. The group is sufficiently close that it can
recommend to the facilitator that it warrants distributing to
the other delegations as early as July 3. (This draft will
be faxed back to Washington.)


19. (U) Although the facilitator and Iran would both prefer
to have this resolved and presented to the EC, Germany has
concerns about being too hasty. The goal is to try to finish
the language next week and then giving capitals sufficient
time to be certain they can live with the language, with the
goal to present the decision at EC-47.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER - LATE DECLARATIONS
--------------


20. (U) In this second consultation on this topic, the TS
started by presenting the efforts it undertakes annually to
remind SPs of their Article VI declaration obligations, both
in advance (to all SPs) and afterward (to those who have
declared in the past but did not by the current deadline).
There was some discussion about how we should define "late
declarations", with particular concern on those SPs that have
not submitted anything - this will be further investigated,
using Article VII data to supplement TS declaration
reporting. There is still some desire (e.g., France) to know
the true impact late declarations has on verification
activities, pointing out that the Verification Information
Report could be used to give trends without having to go into
sensitive details about the TS inspection draw process.


21. (U) Some delegations (e.g., UK) pointed out that,
despite the pragmatic suggestions by France, there is still
the need to focus on these declaration requirements as clear
obligations. Several delegations shared how their NAs work
with their industry to ensure timeliness of declarations.
The facilitator (Denyer, U.S.) presented an overview of the
oral opinion received from the Legal Adviser on the concept
of "nil" declarations, and there was a general desire to see
that in writing. Some WEOG delegations (e.g., Switzerland)
spoke up in favor of "nil" declarations, with the
understanding that there are still many details to be worked
out on how this might work.

-------------- --------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER -LOW CONCENTRATION LIMITS: SCHEDULE 2A/2A*
-------------- --------------


22. (U) The facilitator (Steve Wade, UK) forwarded to
delegations in advance of this week's meeting a Legal

Adviser's opinion on the latest facilitator's paper. The
Legal Adviser was not able to be there to answer questions.
Most delegations indicated that their capitals were still
reviewing the opinion. Several delegations said they were
happy to see the opinion, pointed out that they had
originally preferred very low concentration limits, and
reconfirmed their willingness to be flexible and support the
facilitator's paper. Several other delegations expressed
continuing concern about the proposal and how it interprets
the text of VA Part VII para 5. Several delegations (e.g.,
Germany, Japan) expressed a desire to return to the
facilitator's October 2005 paper as a new start to a way
forward.


23. (U) In his summary, the facilitator pointed out what he
thought needed to be done in order to have a chance for a
decision at CSP-11. He stated frankly that, if we can
achieve no real progress in the September industry cluster,
the best approach may be to refer this back to the EC for
further guidance. He stated his availability here through
EC-46.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER - OCPF SITE SELECTION
--------------


24. (U) Facilitator Luis Garcia (Spain) held a 28 June
consultation to discuss his draft paper on a possible new way
for states to provide input on which OCPF facilities should
be inspected. Although most delegations were without
instructions, all were favorably inclined to the
facilitator's proposal to make selections based on technical
information from a complete, randomized list of all
inspectable OCPFs. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada,
China, Finland, India, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Mexico,
New Zealand, and Russia, noting that although their
delegations had received no instructions, they thought this
idea provided a good basis for the work, although the concept
needed to be fleshed out. Only the UK sounded a negative
note, concerned that some NAs would have difficulties making
selections.


25. (U) Ideas discussed included the pros and cons of
establishing limits on the number of points assigned to any
one facility or and one state overall, how to present the
list of facilities (include A14, delete the SPs' own
facilities for each state),how best to combine the three
factors (equal weights or not),and whether it would be
necessary to worry about possible impacts of collusion. The
facilitator agreed to flesh out the details of the proposal
for discussion at EC-47. The U.S. (supported by the roomful
of delegations) suggested that the draft needed to be made
available in early September so that delegations would have
instructions prior to the late September industry
intersessional. Further, interested delegates should meet
with the facilitator and TS in July, to consider possible
numerical scenarios for the TS to provide delegations, in
order to better inform them of the mechanics of the proposal.
This needed to be provided well in advance of the next
industry meeting as well. The facilitator noted he would be
away the month of August and very busy in July, but that he
would do his best to flesh out his proposal for delegations
by late July.

--------------
INDUSTRY CLUSTER - TRANSFER DISCREPANCIES
--------------


26. (U) This was the first meeting of this facilitation under
its new leadership - Kiwako Tanaka (Japan). (The
co-facilitator, Merel Jonker of the Netherlands is currently
on maternity leave.) The meeting began with a presentation by
Daniel Cardozo (TS, Declarations Branch). Delegations found
this introduction useful, and one asked that this be put into
a non-paper to capture the details.


27. (U) Discussion included concerns about how to balance
data and definitions, whether the EC should look at the low
response rate to TS clarification request, sensitivities

about making suggestions to SPs on how they gather data, how
pre-transfer coordination can lessen the chance of
discrepancies, etc. Reference was also made to previous
paper prepared by Canada and Australia that might help in
determining a way forward. Germany also agreed to consider a
request to present information on how free zones/ports work,
using the EU as a model.

--------------
ARTICLE X
--------------


28. The facilitator (Hans Schramml, Austria) for Article X
held consultations on June 30. The two topics for discussion
were report language for EC-46 on the Database for Protection
and the language on Reporting on APB Program Activities.
Discussion commenced with the UK delivering the background of
the proposed language and noted three additions to previously
distributed text. Because of the complications involved in
adding this item to the EC-46 agenda, Iran asked for the
following line to precede the text: "The Council continued
its consideration of the implementation of Article X." India
asked for language to confirm that OPCW confidentiality rules
were in effect: "...of any requesting State Party, and in
accordance with OPCW policy on confidentiality, a database
containing..." And Iran made a further suggestion to replace
"...(i.e. descriptive information about..." with "...(such as
information about..."


29. (U) Privately the UK agreed with Ambassador Javits that
the language on confidentiality was unnecessary, but they
were willing to accept it as it is essentially meaningless.
Italy was willing to be flexible, but asked to delete that
whole section, other delegations, including China, India and
France supported keeping it in. After agreement was reached
on this, the TS asked for the floor to note that so far only
eight Questionnaires on Offers of Assistance have been
received so far. While this is not a mandatory report, they
asked for delegations assistance to garner more responses.


30. The second topic, Reporting on Assistance and Protection
Bureau Program Activities was discussed next. Canada, the
driving force behind this language, briefed delegations.
There was widespread agreement on the language as written.
Iran asked to add "of States Parties" at the end of the last
line. They were convinced to stand down when reminded that
if an International Organization or private company committed
money to APB activities, with their suggestion the results
wouldn't have to be reported, and that this language was
intended to be a transparency measure.

--------------
FINANCIAL RULES
--------------


31. (U) The financial rules consultation on June 30
resulted in consensus on the draft financial rules which will
now be forwarded to EC-46 for approval and ultimately the CSP
in December for approval. The facilitator (Snelsire - U.S.)
told delegates that at an earlier small meeting of interested
delegations (France, Germany, India, and Iran),delegates had
agreed to accept the original amended draft language proposed
by India concerning procurement provided the word "all" was
deleted before "States Party" in rule 10.6.04(d) and
10.6.05(c).


32. (U) Iran then proposed adding a clause stating (", in
order to fulfill the inspection requirements." at the end of
10.6.04(d). Interestingly, they did not propose adding the
same language at the end of 10.6.05(c). Iran had earlier
proposed the language privately to France, Germany and the
facilitator but the facilitator suggested that it would be
more transparent to propose the new addition at the
consultation with an explanation. France and Germany had
told the facilitator that they would likely reject the new
additional language and force Iran to raise it from the floor
of the EC but at the last minute in the consultation, Germany
decided to protest the additional language but not block
consensus.



33. (U) The French delegation did not attend the
consultation but told the facilitator that they would go
along with whatever the Germans decided to do. Del rep said
the U.S. did not support the Iranian language but in the
interest of passing the financial rules would not block
consensus. The Iranian delegate, when asked to justify the
additional language, candidly said that the language had no
meaning and was not substantive but that one of the agencies
in the Iranian inter-agency process had asked for it largely
as a face saving exercise. The financial rules were approved
by consensus.


34. (U) The facilitator spoke with the TS Legal Advisor
before the consultation and asked him if the Iranian proposed
language would prevent the TS from purchasing inspection
equipment that was not available in all countries. The Legal
Advisor told the facilitator that in his personal opinion the
amended procurement language was meaningless and would have
no impact on TS procurement activities. The facilitator told
the Legal Advisor that the U.S. would likely send a letter
for the record to the TS expressing the U.S. view that
inspection equipment does not have to be available to every
country to be eligible for purchase. The Legal Advisor said
that he saw no problem with the U.S. sending such a letter
for the record.


35. (U) Javits sends.
ARNALL