CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 002048 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 SEPTEMBER 15 This is CWC-80-06. -------------- BUDGET CONSULTATIONS -------------- ¶1. (U) Budget consultations were held on September 12 and ¶14. The consultations covered the International Cooperation and Assistance Division (ICA),the Secretariat for the Policy Making Organs (PMO),the External Relations Division (ERD), and the Executive Management (EM) sections of the budget. ¶2. (U) The Director of ICA, John Makhubalo, began his presentation of the ICA budget by noting that ICA hoped to conduct twenty technical assistance visits (TAVs) as opposed to "up to ten" as indicated in the budget using regular budget money. The unstated implication being that perhaps even more TAVs could be conducted if voluntary contributions were used. Makhubalo said that ICA would continue to support Article VII implementation. He noted that the Assistance and Protection budget had been increased by 4.7%, the Support for National Authorities by 4.8%, Capacity Building by 4.8%, and the Associates program by 2.5%. ¶3. (U) The Netherlands asked why the two temporary P-2 positions envisaged to help with Article VII implementation were placed in ICA given that the positions would report to the Legal Advisor. The Dutch delegate also asked if any provision for the staffing of a temporary office in Africa had been made. Makhubalo said that the two P-2 positions were placed in ICA as ICA is responsible for supporting the implementation of Article VII. He said that no decision had been made on the possible "Office in Africa" as consultations were ongoing. ¶4. (U) South Africa asked if it would be possible to consider increased funding for the peaceful uses of chemistry program. South Africa also observed that according to chart 5 on page 69, only 3% of the TS staff works in ICA. Makhubalo said that both funding and manpower were limiting factors so simply increasing the funding levels would not be enough unless a commensurate increase in staffing was approved as well. ¶5. (U) Germany asked about the increase in the number of TAVs and where the TAVs would take place. Makhubalo said that the budget would be changed to reflect the increase and that where the TAVs would occur would depend on the requests received by the TS. ¶6. (U) Sudan said that ICA was a "very dear" program for Sudan and that many developing countries had benefited from its programs; ten people who had taken part in the Associates Program, for example, were now TS employees. ¶7. (U) Iran asserted that the overall .8% increase in the ICA budget was really a reduction if one removed the 159,000 euros budgeted for the two P-2 positions to work on Article VII. Germany observed that part of the reduction in the ICA budget was due to the fact that furniture and capital costs had been reduced by 100%. The Director of the Budget and Finance Branch, Rick Martin, highlighted the fact that the operational core parts of the budget, i.e. program delivery, had increased between 2.5% and 4.8% depending on the program. Austria claimed that 15% of the ICA budget was not even spent last year and that the significant amount of voluntary contributions should be considered by delegations. ¶8. (U) Iran asked that almost all references to Article VII in the budget including paragraphs 3.45, 4.25, 4.30, and all references to Article VII in table 9 be deleted. Most delegations including NAM delegations seemed annoyed by Iran's proposal and no delegation supported Iran. Austria asked that Iran provide a national paper, or at least something in writing to outline such extensive editorial changes to the budget. The facilitator then intervened and said he would note Iran's suggestions, but they could better be addressed at a future consultation. The Iranian delegate was not pleased with the facilitators' proposal, but realizing that he was isolated he did not push back. ¶9. (U) The Director of PMO, Alexander Khodakov, presented the PMO budget. He said there were few changes from the 2006 budget other than a significant decrease in the amount budgeted for rental equipment. There were no questions. ¶10. (U) The second day of the budget consultations began with an examination of the External Relations Division. Rick Martin (BFB) noted that the 3.8% increase in ERD's budget was almost exclusively due to a an increase in the training budget (largely a result of the devolution of funding for training TS-wide) and an increase in staff costs attributable to the larger size of new ERD staff members families and the resulting increase in allowances paid to them. ¶11. (U) The Netherlands and Switzerland began the discussion by lamenting that the OPCW had very little visibility on the international stage and asked what ERD planned to do to raise the organization's profile. The Director of ERD, Liu Zhixian, said that he hoped that the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of the OPCW would serve to raise the profile of the organization. He also pointed out that the TS had released over 80 press releases in 2005 and hoped to significantly update and improve the OPCW website by significantly increasing the amount of foreign language content available on the website. ¶12. (U) South Africa asked in reference to paragraph 4.52 what the TS was doing to maintain and improved the OPCW's relationship with the host country and what the goal of the eight assistance visits to be carried out by ERD would be. Liu said that the Host Country Committee and the Legal Advisors Office would both continue their respective dialogues with The Netherlands on a wide range of host country issues. He said the eight assistance visits envisaged would primarily be visits to non-SP's to encourage them to accede to the CWC. ¶13. (U) Iran praised the success that the OPCW has had in its universality efforts but questioned the wisdom of focusing efforts in the Middle East where the prospects for success were bleak given the current situation -- at least according to Iran. Iran also said that the TS needed to inform SPs before making contacts with other international organizations. Iran asked what "other" travel costs constituted. Liu pushed back and said that he believed it was important to continue to focus TS universality efforts in the Middle East. He also said that the TS would continue to have contacts with the UN, especially the First Committee and the 1540 Committee, as well as with other international organizations working in the area of non-proliferation and WMD. Liu said that "other" travel costs were related to visa fees. He added that "other" contractual costs covered publications costs such as the quarterly publication "Chemical Disarmament" and that "other" workshops covered universality workshops. ¶14. (U) Germany objected to the reference to soliciting of voluntary contributions found in paragraph 4.43 of the budget and suggested that any references to voluntary contributions should clearly state that they would be used for specific tasks to be designated by the donor. Germany also asked rhetorically if simply releasing large numbers of press releases had any real impact and if there were any plans to revamp the quarterly "Chemical Disarmament" publication. The Netherlands proposed that the TS press office work with the Dutch MFA's press office to come up with ideas on how to increase the visibility of the organization. Iran suggested that for clarity's sake a word other than "other" be used to describe miscellaneous budget items in table 28. ¶15. (U) The UK asked what training ERD planned on receiving with their increased training budget. Surprisingly, Liu responded that there was not training plan in place for 2007. ¶16. (U) Mohamed Louati, the Director of the Office of Internal Oversight, introduced the OIO budget noting that it would decrease by 3.5% from the 2006 budget. He also pointed out that for the first time in quite awhile OIO was fully staffed and that the amount budgeted for training was largely realized through steep reductions in the travel budget for OIO. ¶17. (U) Mexico said it was concerned by the reduction in the OIO budget and asked why in table 12 the goal for the acceptance or approval of OIO recommendations was not 100% as opposed to 90% as is currently proposed. South Africa asked the same question and if the current staffing levels were adequate for OIO to carry out its work. Austria suggested that the language proposed for key outcomes should be more positive in tone. Japan asked what type of training OIO would be requesting. ¶18. (U) Louati responded that he believed that 90% was a reasonable goal, noting that 84% is the current figure for the acceptance or approval of OIO recommendations, which was one of the highest figures amongst international organizations. He opined that some times, for valid reasons, divisions in the TS do reject OIO recommendations as too cumbersome or unworkable, so a 100% implementation rate would probably not be attainable. He said OIO would be seeking training in risk management and specialized audit training. On staffing, Louati said that he currently had eight full-time staff and that he believed that number to be adequate. ¶19. (U) Santiago Onate, the Director of the Legal Advisors Office, introduced the LAO budget saying that the LAO would continue to support Article VII implementation in 2007. He also said that there might be an increased need for legal support for Article X support. LAO would also continue its work on privileges and immunities and the drafting and amending of procurement rules and regulations. In addition, LAO would also provide legal support to all of the divisions and branches in the TS. Onate highlighted the fact that the LAO budget request had decreased by 4% and that this was largely due to a reduction in the fees paid to the International Labor Organization (ILO) for trying personnel cases. ¶20. (U) Mexico said that they found the placement of Article VII activities in the LAO budget subprogram to be an "anomaly." Iran said they did not see any benefit in placing Article VII activities in the LAO budget and asked why the two P-2 legal officer positions were not being put in LAO as opposed to ICA. Austria asked why there was a decrease in the amount to be paid to the ILO. ¶21. (U) Onate responded that while the mandate for working on full implementation of Article VII and the budget for that goal were in ICA, the reality was that the expertise on reviewing and drafting national legislation existed only in LAO; therefore the decision was made to place the two P-2 positions in ICA but under the supervision of LAO. He said he was not sure if this was the best arrangement, but it was clear to him that if the positions and funding were placed in LAO he would need additional administrative staffing to manage the positions and resources. ¶22. (U) On the amount budgeted for the ILO, Onate said that the TS pays a base amount each year to the ILO to have the right for the ILO to hear cases. The TS must also pay an additional fee to the ILO for each case heard. Onate conceded that it was difficult to accurately budget for this, as there is no way to know how many cases will go to the ILO, so the amount budgeted is just a best guess taking into consideration that the tenure issue has been resolved in front of the ILO and there are likely to be few if any tenure cases. ¶23. (U) The Netherlands asked for reassurance that LAO will have access to adequate resources to carry out its work in support of Article VII and that ICA will not have a veto or the ability to hinder LAO's work in support of TAVs to work on legislation. The UK said that they saw a clear link between Article VII implementation and support for Article XI activities. ¶24. (U) Onate made it clear that ICA would not have a veto over LAO support for Article VII implementation. He said the bigger problem for LAO in supporting Article VII outreach was staffing. He said, for example, that he recently had to turn down an ICA request to support Article VII outreach for Yemen because the trip was scheduled for the same dates as the Executive Council when LAO would be required to provide extensive legal support for the TS and the EC. ¶25. (U) The review of the Office of Special Projects budget was deferred at the request of Iran, as the Director was not available. ¶26. (U) Brian Davey, the Head of the Health and Safety Branch (HSB),introduced the HSB budget noting that the 2007 budget request 1.5% lower than the 2006 budget. He said that most of the savings was realized by significantly reducing the cost of physical exams for new employees. Davey cautioned that the amount of turnover and the resultant physicals could significantly impact on the expenditures of the branch as could the need to deal with any complex medical cases. There were no questions from delegates. ¶27. (U) The Head of Physical Security, Joe Hogan, introduced the Office of Confidentiality and Security (OCS) budget. He said that in 2006, OCS had significantly upgraded the physical security of the TS. Continued progress was also made with the VIS. Hogan said no staffing changes were proposed for the 2007 budget. There were no questions. ¶28. (U) The next budget consultations will take place on October 5. In the meantime, the facilitators encouraged delegations to report to their capitals and seek guidance for the next round of consultations. -------------- SCHEDULE 2 FACILITY AGREEMENT -------------- ¶29. (U) Del rep (Larry Denyer),together with Beth Scott and Hung Ly of BIS's Treaty Compliance Division, met with Per Runn, Faisa Patel King, and Susan Atego of Policy and Review Branch and successfully finalized the language of the facility agreement for plant site Sched2/125. The agreed language has gone back to Washington for final review under a cover letter from Verification director Horst Reeps to Robert Mikulak (L/VER/PRB/116444/06, dated 13 September 2006). Treaty Compliance Division has the task to carry out one last confirmation of the agreed language with plant site personnel. In their cover letter, the TS asks that we reply formally to them by September 29, 2006 to enable this facility agreement to be considered at EC-47 (November 7-10). -------------- ARTICLE VII -------------- ¶30. (U) Facilitator Maarten Lak (Netherlands) moderated a September 12 informal consultation to consider the status of Article VII implementation. Legal Advisor Santiago Onate updated the information (summary faxed back to ISN/CB) included in the draft progress report (date of information as of August 15),informing delegations that only ten states have yet to establish National Authorities (NA). Of these ten, only Mauritania adhered to the Convention before 2003. (Note: Algeria has kept del reps updated on its efforts, noting that prior to implementing the CWC, Mauritania must first stabilize its governmental institutions. It informed Algeria that Mauritania intends to fully implement its Article VII obligations as soon as its government is in a position to do so.) ¶31. (U) Onate also advised delegations that it is possible that Honduras and Liberia may establish NAs before the 11th Conference of States Parties. Onate then advised delegations that as of September 15 (when Comoros becomes a SP),69 of 179 SPs had yet to inform the TS of the status of its implementing legislation. However, 44 of these states are in communication with the TS, and some have sent legislation for comment or requested models for use in drafting. This leaves about 25 that have not communicated what legislation is in place or what efforts are being made to implement Article VII obligations. Onate indicated that he expected at most one state to finalize and enact its legislation before the CSP, and perhaps four or five might submit legislation to Parliaments. ¶32. (U) Mexico, supported by Colombia, responded that the progress report set a very good tone and established that the encouragement/cooperative approach was working. China also welcomed the steady progress, but noted that the report's cut-off date of August 15 and eventual final version's cut-off date of September 30 was too early: the EC is in November, the CSP in December. Onate responded that if the cut-off date would be late October, the TS would not have time to edit and translate the report into all official languages and distribute it in time for delegations to send it back to capital for analysis and guidance. Instead the TS intends to distribute individual sheets with updates as progress is made. ¶33. (U) Australia (also speaking on behalf of New Zealand) welcomed the significant progress in the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) states, noting that much of the progress noted in the report was the result of contributions from SPs who have participated in regional meetings, sponsored training sessions, and sponsored or contributed to targeted TAVs in capitals. Australia emphasized that in the two states opinions, TAVs are the most effective venue, and that states rely on the TS to inform states where their efforts and contributions can be best put to use. ¶34. (U) Germany took the floor, noting that the 25 SPs about which nothing is known included the ten without NAs. Did this mean that the TS has not received any information from 22 states? Onate responded that there are various communications. For instance, the TS worked for 19 months to be received by the Afghan consulate in Amsterdam. At this meeting, the TS was told that Afghanistan would like a TAV -- but now is not the right moment. It also would be necessary to carefully consider the venue, whether the TAV should be in The Hague or in Kabul. ¶35. (U) Status reports: The newly arrived Turkish rep informed delegations that beginning in 2004, he became the drafter of Article VII implementing legislation. The Turkish legislation now is in Parliament, and should be enacted by the end of 2006. Belgium noted that at the next consultation, it would provide an update on the status of its legislation. Sierra Leone, which recently established its NA, has requested a TAV to assist its drafting effort. Belgium noted that it would assist the TS efforts to receive information from the DROC. ¶36. (U) SPs outreach and assistance to implementing states: France gave an impassioned summary of its biannual training courses in Paris, but noted that Paris is not expected to participate in any TAVs to capitals. The UK announced that it would be holding a follow-up training session for NAs that would focus on declarations and industry inspections. Canada announced that it would be providing logistical support for the upcoming TAV to Haiti. Netherlands announced its support for the upcoming meeting for NAs of South African states, noting that it would be hands-on training vice TS presentations. Netherlands also supported the recent TS/U.S. TAV to Paramaribo. ¶37. (U) Australia, for New Zealand, noted NZ's voluntary contribution of 10,000 euros to support former TS staff member Keith Wilson's PIF TAVs. Wilson's efforts to date include PNG, Cook Islands, and Vanuatu. Australia noted its participation in TAVs to PNG and Cambodia, as well as its Australian translation of model legislation into Khmer. Australia also noted that Tuvalu, one of the states about which little is known, is targeted for the next round of NZ/Australia-supported TAVs. Both NZ and Australia are considering additional voluntary contributions to support future TAVs in their region. The U.S. noted its national assistance paper (July 2006),and provided copies to those who had not received them in July. -------------- ARTICLE X -------------- ¶38. (U) At a September 11 facilitation on Article X issues, Hans Schramml (Austria) began with a briefing on the activities of the Assistance and Protection Branch in 2006. APB chief Gennadi Lutay provided two documents: a six-page briefing, and a list of the 92 member states that participated in the courses and events in 2006 (both documents were FAXed to ISN/CB). As for the key points: -- Lutay made the pitch for one more regional course focused on Asia in 2007. -- On Africa, he noted that there is a particular focus on East Africa. -- On Central Asia, Lutay said there would be a meeting in Tashkent in about a month to review the efforts, funded by Norway, to assist the six countries of Central Asia. The focus of the Tashkent meeting is also to determine how they can continue efforts independent of TS assistance, with guidance provided by instructors from Switzerland. In response to a request from The Netherlands, Lutay said that APB will provide a report of the Tashkent discussions. -- Lutay added that a similar assistance arrangement is being considered for African states, and that Switzerland has indicated a willingness to help in Africa as well. -- The APB budget for 2007, stated Lutay, is basically unchanged. -- In response to a question from the Dutch, he noted that some equipment storage is done at the OPCW lab, but some is also done with the Dutch government. There are discussions under way to see if more storage (at reduced costs) might be arranged. -- In response to a question from Poland, Lutay said that various types of equipment are needed by the TS, and the most effective way to proceed is to have offers from SPs listed in the new format. That will then generate more accurate requests from the TS. -- Lutay specifically said that the TS assessment of the offers that have been provided so far indicate that there is a specific shortfall concerning equipment suitable to assisting children. -- There is also a problem of limited offers of transportation. Recognizing that this is a tall order, Lutay noted that for short-notice requests, offers of aircraft are needed. -- Lutay also noted that the voluntary fund does not have enough money. There currently is enough to handle about three days of operations. ¶39. (U) The next issue was a briefing on follow-up actions concerning Joint Assistance Exercise 2005. Renato Carvalho of the Inspectorate provided a two-page summary of follow-up actions (FAXed to ISN/CB). The key points: -- The training plan for inspectors in 2007 is being formulated. He specifically cited the effort to double the number of inspectors certified on the X-ray machine as well as more live agent training. -- In response to a question from the Germans, Carvalho reported that the funds allocated for training in 2006 as a follow-on to JAE had been spent by mid-year. Additional funds were then provided by transferring unused allocations from within the Inspectorate. Some of this came from vacant posts. -- The key problem area was communicators for inspectors. In response to a question from The Netherlands, the problem is that sub-teams are working at some distance from each other, so repeaters are needed. -- The team leaders need guidance on how to handle public affairs. The recommendation is for training to be approved by the end of the year. -- The bottom line is that 80-90% of the tasks recommended by the Working Group are completed. -- A shortened version of the Working Group report will be distributed soon. ¶40. (U) Iran asked about the composition of the assessment team. Carvalho confirmed that it was five TS personnel, two from the U.S. and two from the UK. Iran asked how that composition came about, and Carvalho replied that the U.S. and UK had offered people. When Iran asked if all SPs had been given a notification that they could offer assessors, Carvalho confirmed this had not been done. Instead, all SPs had been given a chance to send observers, of which there were over 90. Iran said that this was not the same as providing an assessor, and, as a result, it could not concur at this time. (Note: At this point, it is not clear exactly what the Iranians could actually do to halt any follow-on actions. They can certainly complain at the November EC, but the actions being taken are all internal TS decisions.) ¶41. (U) Finally, Schramml noted that he will be returning to Vienna on October 1 so the search should begin for a new facilitator. He offered to continue in that role from Vienna if a new facilitator could not be found and return to The Hague as needed. Del rep spoke to Schramml about this after the meeting and noted that it was pretty clear that effective consultations were hard to do when facilitators are not present in The Hague, adding that there may also be advantages in finding a capable, non-WEOG facilitator to handle Article X. ¶42. (U) Javits sends. ARNALL