CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 002253 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 OCTOBER 13 This is CWC-93-06. -------------- CW DESTRUCTION DISCUSSIONS -------------- ¶1. (U) Del reps met with South African delegate Marthinus van Schalkwyk on Oct. 13 to discuss the perceived need among delegations for an open discussion of the U.S. and Russian extension requests. Van Schalkwyk confirmed that although delegations have not voiced specific concerns, some have approached the chair to inquire whether anything is "being done" with the U.S. and Russian extension requests prior to EC-47. Del reps explained U.S. concerns that this not be seen as a drafting exercise, and Washington's position that any such meeting involve both the U.S. and Russia. Van Schalkwyk seemed receptive to U.S. input, and said he understood the benefits of a meeting to discuss extension requests being convened by Ambassador Mkhize as the EC Chair, or her designated representative, as opposed to one of the possessor states. ¶2. (U) Van Schalkwyk recommended couching the meeting as an "exchange of views," and seemed open to facilitating, contingent on the approval of his Ambassador and Ambassador Petri (Vice Chair of the CW Cluster). He will work with Ambassador Mkhize in approaching the Russian delegation prior to actually scheduling a meeting, with the understanding that time is of the essence, if the objective of the meeting is to prevent complaints that there has been no substantive discussion of CW destruction in the run-up to EC-47. -------------- BUDGET CONSULTATIONS -------------- ¶3. (U) Budget consultations were held on October 10. The meeting was a continued attempt by the co-facilitators to have delegations flag problem areas in the budget so that they could develop an effective roadmap for the remainder of consultations. Delegations continued to review the budget program by program. ¶4. (U) On International Cooperation and Assistance (ICA), Iran, Malaysia, and Algeria all noted that they supported the NAM position especially an increase in ICA funding. No delegations raised any issues regarding the Secretariat for the Policy-Making Organs (PMO). ¶5. (U) Concerning the core objectives, Iran again called for the elimination of the third column of performance indicators. Del rep advocated retaining the third column of performance indicators saying that they constituted a key part of the implementation and refinement of the RBB process. Austria favored keeping the third column but asked that the performance indicators be more positive in nature. Canada also advocated retaining the third column but noted that the contents of the third column were not as sacrosanct as the first two columns as they were not negotiated text. Italy called for keeping the third column. ¶6. (U) Iran asked for continued discussions of the Medium Term Plan. Italy, the UK, and Australia pushed back noting that the plan had already been discussed at a previous budget consultation and was not, in any event, negotiated text but merely a document that the EC will note at its next session. ¶7. (U) Budget consultations were held on October 12 to discuss the proposed increase in 2007 OCPF inspections. Director of the Verification Division, Horst Reeps, was present to provide technical assistance to the discussion. The Technical Secretariat distributed a supporting paper, "Resourcing of Inspection Programs for 2007" to provide additional information on the resource implications of CW and industry programs planned for 2007. Reeps began the consultation noting that by the end of 2006 only about 8% of OCPFs will have been inspected, while on average schedule 1 facilities will have been inspected six times and schedule 2 facilities inspected nearly three times respectively. ¶8. (U) On the notion of risk presented by schedule 2 facilities, Reeps stated that schedule 2 facilities could potentially be divided into 3 categories: those which produce (high risk),those which process (lower risk),and those which consume (low risk) schedule 2 chemicals. Reeps briefly commented on the sampling and analysis technique that is being applied to schedule 2 facilities, noting that the technique allows for enhanced verification of the activities conducted at the facilities. ¶9. (U) South Africa asked for clarification regarding the 5,000 inspector days allotted for the preparation of challenge inspections. The TS explained that the 5,000 inspector days refer to all training programs, not just those related to challenge inspections. South Africa asked the TS to clarify this in the final budget document. Austria, India, Switzerland, and the U.S. supported the South African proposal. ¶10. (U) Mexico presented its own statistics concerning the proportional change in inspections among schedule 1, 2 and 3 facilities and OCPFs since 2003, expressing concern with the proposed decrease in CW inspector days especially considering the slow pace of destruction. Mexico also commented that an agreement should be reached on the method of OCPF site selection before OCPF inspections are increased. Mexico said that almost half of OCPF facilities would be exempt from inspection because of a provision in the Verification Annex that stipulates no more than 20 facilities can be inspected within an SP in a given year. Iran supported Mexico's comment stating that it was not practical to expect that all OCPFs be inspected. The TS explained that the there would be little effect on the cap since OCPFs are distributed among 73 SPs. ¶11. (U) South Africa said that they were not opposed to the increase in OCPF inspections, but would like further information on exactly how the budget accounts for such an increase. South Africa asked whether the budget allocated for the increase through efficiency gains, reorganizing inspector days, or increasing in the total budget. Australia commented that increasing OCPF inspections should be budgeted by reorganizing the inspector days. Australia also stated that chemical nonproliferation is just as important as destruction efforts, therefore, improvements in productivity should occur within Article VI as well as Article IV, and V. ¶12. (U) India repeated that they were opposed to the reduction in schedule 1 and 2 inspections and that the budget consultations were not the appropriate forum to discuss a change in the allocation of Article VI inspections. India requested further information from the TS on Sampling and Analysis. Iran agreed that schedule 1, 2 and 3 facilities pose a greater risk and therefore should be inspected with the same frequency as in previous years. ¶13. (U) Switzerland was very supportive of the budget proposal and was especially pleased with the increase in OCPF inspections. Switzerland noted that the 2007 budget is less than the 2006 budget and represented "negative" nominal growth instead of zero nominal growth, and proposed allocating the surplus towards a greater increase in OCPF inspections. The Netherlands stated that they were prepared to support the Swiss proposal. -------------- VIR CONSULTATIONS -------------- ¶14. (U) On October 11, EC Chair Mkhize (South Africa) chaired informal consultations on the 2005 VIR. Per Runn (Policy Review Branch) opened the consultations by apologizing for the late distribution and subsequent scheduling of consultations for the 2005 VIR, and assured delegations this was due to exceptional circumstances and would not happen next year. Mkhize then opened the session for general comments. Germany offered a suggestion for the TS to develop a list of issues, stemming from VIR consultations and written comments provided by States Party, requiring the EC's attention. Runn pointed out that this is the responsibility of delegations, who are welcome to bring issues to the attention of the Policy Making Organs. U.S. del rep offered comments commending the TS for a generally accurate and well-formatted document. Del rep expressed appreciation for Runn's assurance of a more timely publication next year, and recommended the TS consider clarifying further in next year's VIR the actual process of issuance of the VIR, receipt of SP comments, compilation of comments, issuance of a corrigendum, consultations, and response to SP comments. ¶15. (U) Mkhize then led delegations through a section-by-section review of the VIR. Most delegations remained silent, several because detailed written comments had already been provided to the TS for distribution. The FRG, however, used this opportunity to address all of Berlin's detailed questions and/or concerns, resulting in what was essentially a dialogue between Germany and the TS. Most of Germany's questions were relatively minor and technical in nature. One, on criteria used to determine frequency of inspection for converted CWPFs, generated an answer to a similar U.S. question. (For reasons of classification, TS response will be provided separately.) The UK made several interventions focused on OCPF inspections, noting that (in paragraph 7.12) because 11 SPs contain 80% of the OCPFs, it is likely that the additional inspections in the 2007 budget will fall on industrial versus developing nations. The UK also highlighted in paragraph 7.44 the 10 OCPF inspections in 2005 that were "wasted" on facilities for which updated declarations should have been submitted. ¶16. (U) In paragraph 7.19, Iran noted with concern a Schedule 2 transfer in violation of the Convention, and stated that until further information was provided, it would consider this an open issue. Iran also pointed out that there is great benefit to raising questions and concerns in the consultations, as opposed to submitting them in written form. Runn replied that it is the prerogative of delegations to decide how to most appropriately raise their concerns, and that a benefit of written submission is the ability to more accurately track responses. ¶17. (U) At the conclusion of consultations, Italy suggested a follow-up meeting to discuss the VIR supplement, but received no support from other delegations. The TS did distribute the 2005 VIR Corrigendum, the compendium of SPs comments, and specific written responses to SP comments, all of which will be provided to Washington. Del will continue to seek clarification on issues of concern in the 2005 VIR, through bilateral consultations with delegations and the TS. -------------- REPAYMENT PLANS -------------- ¶18. (U) Consultations were held on October 9 to discuss the consideration of creating a mechanism for SPs in arrears to enter into repayment plans with the OPCW. Delegations worked from the text dated September 6, 2006. The main focus of the consultation was OP 10, which concerns what would happen were a SP not meet its obligations under a repayment plan. Several delegations, including the U.S. expressed the concern that a SP could enter into a repayment plan then in a separate decision by the CSP be granted their voting rights and afterwards make no payment only to lose their voting rights at the next CSP. This would, in effect, allow an SP to merely enter into a repayment plan to regain their voting rights and then have the right to vote for a year with no consequences for non-payment. ¶19. (U) Iran asked that the word "proposal" be replaced with the word "plan." The U.S. expressed concern that the language on reporting mechanisms in OP 12 again reinforced the idea that a full year would be need to withdraw voting rights were a SP not to fulfill its obligations under a repayment plan. South Africa suggested that voting rights be granted year-by-year as at the UN and a committee on contributions be established to review payment performance at the end of the year. No delegation supported this proposal. ¶20. (U) The facilitator agreed to note the concerns of delegations, formulate another draft, and circulate it amongst delegations. The draft dated October 9, 2006 has since been circulated and can be found on the external server. It will be discussed at the next consultation on October 18. -------------- MEETING WITH LEGAL ADVISOR ON SCHEDULE 2A/2A* LOW CONCENTRATION DRAFT DECISION -------------- ¶21. (U) The facilitator on the issue of low concentration limits for Schedule 2A/2A* chemicals (Steve Wade, UK) chaired an informal meeting with the TS Legal Advisor (Amb Onate) to discuss the legal opinion on the facilitator's draft decision text. Also in attendance were Ken Penman (TS, DEB) and representatives from China, Iran, Japan, the Netherlands, and the U.S. Oate walked through the opinion (originally distributed 15 June 2006) to demonstrate that the draft decision is in conformance with the CWC text, in that it allows the Conference to decide that certain conditions constitute a "risk to the object and purpose of the Convention" and override the primary exception that declarations "are generally not required" for low concentration mixtures (VA, Part VII, paragraph 5). ¶22. (U) Del rep pointed out that the legal opinion indicated that the draft decision under consideration pointed to particular conditions that clear the "risk" hurdle: "(1) when the Schedule 2A chemical contained in the mixture exceeds (30) percent, and (2) when the Schedule 2A chemical contained in the mixture produced, processed or consumed (annually) at the plant site exceeds the verification threshold..." Del rep went on to point out that the draft decision, in fact, goes beyond what is presented in the legal opinion, by including those situations where the concentration is below 30 percent and the quantity is above the verification threshold. Onate quickly pointed out that perhaps the "and" should be replaced with "and/or." ¶23. (U) Many of the delegations expressed comfort with the legal opinion. Japan said that their concerns were technical, pointing out that they feel concentrations below 30 percent do not cause a "risk". There was a general discussion on next steps, additional data that might help in reaching a conclusion, etc. Given the long history of this item, del rep reminded delegations that the current text was meant to be a compromise between those who want very low concentrations and those who do not believe they are justified and encouraged them to work with their capitals so that the next meeting will result in a decision to move forward the draft decision or admit defeat and send this back to the EC. The facilitator agreed that this should be the goal. ¶24. (U) The facilitator distributed a write-up of the meeting to the participating delegations. He originally planned to then distribute it to other delegations. He has since changed his mind and will not distribute it widely. As the meeting was intended to be informal, so as to allow a free exchange of views, he is afraid that giving a wider distribution to the meeting notes would give the meeting an unintended formality and negatively affect such meetings in the future. However, del rep has distributed these notes to Washington for consideration. ¶25. (U) Ito sends. BLAKEMAN