CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001624

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
JULY 21, 2006


This is CWC-65-06.


1. (U) Although generally a quiet week, delegations made up
for it on Thursday 20 July, holding a WEOG meeting, two
informal consultations (Budget and Article VII),and one
small group discussion of the Schedule 3 Transfer draft
decision language.

--------------
Budget
--------------


2. (U) Co-facilitators Walter Lion (Belgium) and Hela Lahmar
(Tunisia) chaired the opening session of the budget
negotiations. First Rick Martin (Head/B&F) made a
presentation on his methodology and presented an overview
(faxed back to ISN/CB). Delegations were requested to make
general observations. The response was nearly unanimous: the
zero nominal growth budget and its presentations are both
welcome, and a great improvement over years' past. India
raised the first dissenting voice, supported by Mexico: it is
inappropriate to put all the new industry inspections against
OCPFs, resulting in a greater burden on States party with a
smaller number of OCPFs. Rather, the increase should be
spread across all industry categories to reflect their
relative risk to the Convention. In addition to the
unacceptable increase in OCPF inspections, these delegations
noted the apparent decrease in ICA funding. The US, UK,
Japan, France, and Austria all noted that in terms of
percentages, the OCPF category had by far the fewest
inspections and it is appropriate to increase the number of
OCPF inspections.


3. (U) Iran made a long, difficult intervention, protesting
the duplications in the draft, citing an agreement in 2006 in
which the Secretariat promised that the next budget would be
much shorter. In Iran,s view, the text is too descriptive,
and brings into the budget debate topics that are still
contentious in informal consultations (OCPF site selection,
Article VII, etc). Japan and France countered that it was
appropriate to include in a policy document discussion of
such topics. Iran also reiterated its position: the core
objectives and indicators of achievement are only for use in
a budget context and cannot replace the mandate of the OPCW.
Iran also noted that in last year,s budget, delegations
agreed to include disclaimer language indicating that nothing
in the budget text would supercede Convention mandates. DDG
John Freeman noted that the OPCW's mandate comes from the
Convention, and this also drives the core objectives.


4. (U) Finally, the co-facilitators distributed a program of
work (faxed to ISN/CB) that sets out meeting dates and topics
beginning the first week of September. Delegations protested
the number of meetings - up to 20, but agreed to see how the
discussions went before deciding to adjust the schedule.

--------------
Article VII
--------------


5. (U) Facilitator Maarten Lak held an informal consultation
on 20 July 2006 to review the events of EC-46 and consider
how to move forward towards EC-47 and CSP-11. To del reps,
dismay, Lak noted the apparent lack of linkage between
Article VII and CW destruction issues and hoped that this
would continue. Sudan stressed the importance of our finding
consensus language during EC-47 and exhorted delegations to
maintain this spirit through the Conference.


6. (U) Maarten then requested a discussion on our work
schedule. Mexico noted the full plate of topics that
delegations must cover, and stressed the difficulty for the
part-time or small delegations to cover everything,
especially given the proposed 20 sessions scheduled for
budget consultations. Mexico recommended that the
facilitator improve the efficiency or our work by chairing
three or four informal consultations when the situation
warranted, greatly increase the level and frequency of the
facilitator's bilateral work, and create an open-ended

drafting group to work on language. The US supported the
first two suggestions, but noted that it would have
difficulty putting an artificial cap on the number of
consultations, because the TS might want to provide regular
status reports, and SPs might also want to provide
information regarding their implementation support efforts.
Finally the US raised concerns about the potential for
limiting general participation if a drafting group was
created, which were supported by Germany, Australia, New
Zealand, France, the UK, and Korea. Mexico explained that
the intent was not to limit participation; everyone could
participate in the drafting exercise.


7. (U) Iran, supported by India, noted that our work must be
based on the Tenth conference decision (Dec.16),that no new
elements should be introduced as had been attempted in the
past few Council sessions. Delegations need to take a
holistic approach, for instance, paragraph 12 (remedial
measures) should not be taken out-of-context. Assistance and
encouragement are the most important elements. Legislating
is a long process, and artificial limits cannot be imposed.
Finally, Iran noted that CW destruction is a far more
critical issue and should not be overshadowed by other
discussion topics such as Article VII.


8. (U) France supported by a number of other delegations
noted that our work should not turn into solely drafting
exercises. Delegations also want to hear about the
implementation support work of the Secretariat and States
parties, as well as the impressions of states that have been
the recipients of TAVs.


9. (U) The facilitator noted that he would take delegations'
views into account, and that he would host the next
consultation on 24 August. The next progress report should
be available in early September, so the facilitator may need
to hold one or two meetings in early September as well. In
response to those delegations protesting that 24 August was
too early and that many would still be on vacation, Lak
responded that those in town were welcome to attend.

--------------
CW Destruction
--------------


9. (U) During the 20 July 2006 WEOG meeting, Maarten Lak
(Netherlands) noted that delegations avoided linking Article
VII and CW destruction extension requests during EC-46, and
that he hoped this would continue through EC-47 (not all
delegations agreed with his assessment). Delegations
expressed a general interest in the way ahead for CW
destruction and the extension requests, and the topic of
Russia's CW destruction program. Russia,s reluctance to
accept site visits was noted, and a number of delegations
supported focusing first on getting Russian acceptance of the
principle of site visits before working out the details of
the visits. The U.S. commented on Russia,s apparent
inflexibility on site visits, and briefly introduced the U.S.
proposal for site visit parameters (later provided to the
document counter for wider distribution). Del rep also noted
that consultations to discuss the draft decision texts and
site visits had been raised as a possibility, and that, while
Washington had concerns about this sort of discussion forum,
one benefit might be to draw out national positions on the
issue. As opposed to offering insight from his role as Vice
Chair of the CW cluster, Ambassador Petri noted that the U.S.
was unlikely to receive feedback if it appeared to be
inflexible on its decision text. Germany further noted that
the US and Russia are 8approaching the same situation (i.e.
not meeting 2012) from two different sides,8 and pointed out
that the issue of visits may be deadlocked, as Russia is
willing to entertain visits in capital only, while the U.S.
would prefer visits only to CW destruction facilities.

--------------
Industry ) Schedule 3 Transfers
--------------


10. (U) Facilitator Arya Sandeep (India) held an informal

discussion on 6 July 2006 version (EC-46/DEC/CRP.2) of his
decision text on Schedule 3 transfers. With respect to
Preambular Paragraph 5 (PP5),its focus on Universality and
the benefits from adherence of all States not Party suggests
to German, India and Iran that the phrase &in particular8
from the Plan of Action on Universality is not necessary.
The US noted that it wanted the quote verbatim. Germany
noted its willingness to accept the language here as long as
it was reworked in Operational Paragraph 1 (OP1). US asked
for a redraft of second half per guidance. Iran, Germany,
and India all advised that because this paragraph always was
focused on Universality and its benefits for States not
Party, the linkage to nonproliferation would be
inappropriate; also because of the focus on the benefits of
adherence, the US proposal was seen as too negative.


11. (U) Debate moved on to OP1: The US noted that because it
is unnecessary to exhort SPs that have already done so to do
so, the text should call only upon those that have yet to
implement. Iran pushed back (supported by India),noting
that it is important to exhort and/or remind all states to
meet their obligations. Germany agreed with US, but noted
that it could live with the first sentence as long as the
next phrase was redrafted so that the phrase &whose
adherence is a cause for serious concern8 is replaced by
"the non-adherence of whom is a cause for serious concern."
Delegations agreed to go back to capitals and discuss the
responses sometime the week of 24 July.

SANDERS SENDS.
BLAKEMAN