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