CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 002342

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 27

This is CWC-99-06.

--------------
EXTENSION REQUEST DISCUSSIONS
--------------


1. (U) Del rep continued meeting with interested delegations
on the subject of the U.S. extension request. A meeting with
the Indian delegation was positive. The Indians expressed
support for U.S. transparency, and an understanding for
difficulties the U.S. has encountered in its destruction
program, noting several times that as a fellow possessor,
India had no intention of causing trouble on the U.S.
extension request. Indian reps asked detailed questions
about the U.S. and Russian programs, and noted their concern
over Russia's proposal to conduct visits to the destruction
facilities of all possessor states.


2. (U) Del reps also met with Shahrokh Shakerian, the Iranian
delegate. Shakerian was surprisingly frank about his
specific concerns regarding the U.S. extension request, most
notably the "legality" issues stemming from references in the
U.S. draft decision to the national paper projecting
destruction operations beyond 2012. Shakerian noted the
Russians had been "clever" in development of their detailed
plan that conveniently ended exactly on April 29, 2012, and
that no one would fault either the U.S. or Russia if, closer
to 2012, it became clear they would not meet the final
deadline.


3. (U) He also expressed support for the concept of site
visits, but indicated a desire to reach agreement on
specifics of the mandate, activities, and reporting of a
visiting delegation before any visit could occur (although it
could be acceptable to agree the principle up front and come
to agreement on specifics later). Finally, he noted concern
at the Russian attitude that their extension request was
really only a formality, and stated that concluding CSP-11
without having reached consensus on the draft decisions of
the two major possessors would be the worst outcome for the
credibility of the Convention. (Del comment: This seems to
indicate a desire to conclude, rather than extend,
discussions on the draft decisions, which could be useful in
final negotiations on the U.S. decision text and approach to
site visits. End comment.)

--------------
BUDGET
--------------


4. (U) Budget consultations were held on October 26 to
discuss all outstanding concerns with the 2007 budget.
Co-facilitator, Walter Lion (Belgium) asked again for those
countries with concerns on the 2007 ICA funding level to
present concrete proposals or ideas for enhancement. South
Africa said that there would be little value in going over
the ICA issue in depth again for the purposes of this
meeting. South Africa stated that the Technical Secretariat
had told him bilaterally that they were willing to look again
for any areas in the ICA division that could benefit from
increased funding in order to prepare an alternative
proposal. Mexico supported South Africa stating that the TS
is in the best position to decide where increased funding
should be allocated. India also supported the South African
comment, and requested feedback from the TS on details of
programs, for example, the Associate Program. India would
like to know how many applications were received, and how
many of those applications were not accepted because of a
lack in funding. Italy asked how any increase in ICA would
affect the overall budget, stressing that any changes to be
budget must be cost neutral.


5. (U) The co-facilitator stated that because delegations are
requesting further explanations, he would ask the TS prepare
an explanatory note on the ICA division, its programs and its
funding level. The TS stated that he was unaware of any
ongoing work within the TS to prepare an alternative
proposal. He also noted that most divisions of the budget
were reduced for the 2007 program because of efficiency

gains, and comparatively, the ICA division received a
significant increase. In the debate on who should be
responsible for preparing an alternative proposal, India
stated that because this is a TS prepared budget, it would be
most reasonable for the TS to decide where and how an
increase would be beneficial.


6. (U) South Africa interjected that they are simply asking
for the TS to show which areas of the ICA division could
benefit from an increase in funding, and following a review
of the TS proposal, SPs could open negotiations in this area.
Del rep pushed back strongly and said that it was up to
delegations that sought an increase in ICA funding to make a
proposal. Del rep also noted that maintaining a balance
between Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 funding was important for the
U.S. and therefore any real increase in ICA funding could
necessitate a further increase in OCPF inspections in order
to maintain the balance between Chapter 1 and 2. Del rep
expressed concern that some ICA funding and EU funding for
ICA was not spent last year.


7. (U) Australia noted that during the last consultations
John Makhubalo, Director of the ICA division, provided this
information that some delegations are requesting very
clearly, and it would be inappropriate for the TS to present
a counter-proposal to its own proposal. Australia urged
those delegations with concerns to reach out bilaterally to
Makhubalo for further information so that they can prepare an
alternative proposal, but this needed to be done rather
quickly as they hoped to reach an agreement on the budget at
EC-47. Australia also stated that any increase in the budget
must be cost neutral. Italy and Germany supported
Australia's comment and both stated that the balance between
Chapter 1 and 2 funding must be maintained.


8. (U) Switzerland again asked the TS to clarify why the 2007
budget is under zero nominal growth (ZNG). In response, the
TS stated that the intent was never to produce a budget under

SIPDIS
ZNG, they prepared the budget to achieve the core objectives
for 2007, and due to savings from efficiency gains, it just
happened to come under ZNG. The TS said that he would see if
Makhubalo could be present at the next consultation, but
flatly stated that an informational paper prepared by the TS
is unlikely to satisfy delegations requests. However, if SPs
felt an explanatory note was necessary, they would prepare
one and provide it to SPs early next week. South Africa
suggested that the TS internally coordinate the paper so that
all views are incorporated.


9. (U) The UK stated that they did not think that an
information paper was necessary, but if one was going to be
prepared, their delegation would like to see information of
the appropriation of all voluntary contributions, to include
EU funding. (Note: To the UK's surprise, at the last
consultations, the TS stated that the 2006 UK contribution to
the Associate Program had been re-allocated to another
program since the Associate Program was fully funded.)


10. (U) On discussions related to the draft decision, China
was the first delegation to intervene by noting that none of
their concerns had been incorporated into the text. India
and Mexico both supported the comments made by China that
none of their concerns were addressed in the annex of the
report. The U.S. and Germany both provided general support
for the draft decision. While Iran admitted that he had not
yet sent to draft decision to Tehran, he personally thought
it was premature to discuss the annex since some issues had
not yet been resolved. Mexico asked for the reasons why the
table on the last page had been changed from the table in the
original budget, specifically on Libya inspections and the
decrease in CWSF inspections. The TS stated that the TS is
required by Council decision to draft decision text prior to
an EC, and thus far the annex just incorporates very basic
remarks by SPs, and all discussions on issues that were still
open have not been included. The co-facilitator stated that
it was obvious that the draft decision needed to be "beefed
up" and he would schedule a plenary meeting on November 3 for
final discussions on the budget.

--------------
REPAYMENT PLANS
--------------


11. (U) Informal consultations were held on October 26 to
review the revised draft decision document (dated 20 October
2006) on creating a repayment mechanism for those SPs in
arrears. At the start of the meeting, there was a general
debate on whether to remove or retain all references to
voting rights. Italy intervened stating that by removing
references to voting rights, SPs in arrears would have low
incentive for entering into a payment plan. Most delegations
agreed, and discussions proceeded with the voting right text.
Iran stated that they would be able to retain OP 3(C) so
long as PP5 was retained, and suggested that OP 3 read,
"Provide an outline of the reasons for the existing arrears
and the request for a multi-year payment plan, if they
consider it appropriate. The UK suggested "as appropriate"
instead of "if they consider it appropriate" and consensus
was reached. On OP 5 Japan requested that "review" be
changed to "consider." No delegations objected to this
proposal.


12. (U) All delegations agreed to de-bracket OP 5(b).
Regarding OP 9, Iran and China both stated that the language
is confusing, and noted that it reads as if the multi-year
payment plan is a precondition for the restoration of voting
rights. Iran proposed replacing OP9 with the text of PP5 to
read, "Agree Further, that the existence and status of
implementation of an agreed multi-year payment plan might be
among the factors that the Convention could take into account
in deciding, under Article VIII, paragraph 8 of the
Convention, whether to permit a State Party that is in
arrears to vote" and then remove PP5. All delegations
supported the Iranian proposal and agreed to move OP 9 to
follow OP 5


13. (U) After some discussion on the meaning of "if
applicable," delegations agreed to keep OP 10 (b, ii) to
read, "Article VIII, paragraph 8, of the Convention shall
again apply, in those cases where the restoration of voting
rights was based upon the existence of a multi-year payment
plan, without prejudice to the right of any State Party to
request the restoration of its voting rights."


14. (U) All delegations offered their general support for the
revised draft, while noting that it still needs to be sent to
capitals for final approval. The TS stated that the final
draft decision would be placed on the external server. Del
will forward a copy as soon as it is available.

--------------
EC-47 PREPARATIONS AND EC REPORT
--------------


15. (U) Informal consultations were held on October 25 to
discuss the annotated provisional agenda for EC-47 and the
draft report of the EC on its activities (EC-47/CRP.1, dated
31 August 2006). Vice Chairman Alexander Petri (FRG),who
chaired the session due to the absence of EC Chairperson
Mkhize (South Africa),began by stating that this meeting
should not address substance. He asked delegations to
comment only on items of procedural concern (items not ready
for discussion, or which delegations would need to request
deferral, etc.). Petri proposed doing a
paragraph-by-paragraph review of each document, beginning
with the EC-47 agenda.


16. (U) Iran was the first delegation to intervene, on the
U.S. and Russian extension requests, specifically asking that
the language that had been included at EC-46 (at Iranian
insistence) on those extension requests be included in the
provisional annotated agenda. Iran then asked for further
information regarding the UK proposal on site visits. Petri
responded to the Iranian proposal by stating that this
decision is of substantive discussion, and this meeting was
simply to acknowledge the agenda as the procedural basis for
discussions at EC-47. Iran then backed down.



17. (U) Italy asked for TS for clarification regarding OP
5.18, which states that the "Council is requested to note the
comments and views received on the 2005 Verification
Implementation Report." Italy asked if this was standard
text for EC agendas. Iran said that they would like to see
the language revised from "note" to "receive" in the text.
Amb. Khodakov replied that the language is this agenda is
identical to that of prior agendas, and language regarding
"to receive" versus "to note" is should be decided within the
EC, not in this forum. Regarding agenda item six, India
asked the TS if the EC-45 paper would be topic for
discussion, and the TS responded that discussions with SPs
have not been conclusive, therefore, the paper has not yet
been prepared.


18. (U) Regarding the draft report of the EC on its
activities in the period from 2 July 2005- 7 July 2006, Iran
was again the first delegation to intervene, focusing on para
1.10 about Iraqi participation at EC-44. Iran asked for the
text to better reflect the decision at that EC that this
occurrence "does not set the precedent for future cases."
Then on paras 2.16 and 2.17 (the U.S. and Russian extension
requests),Iran again asked that the language that had been
added at Iranian insistence be included in this document.


19. (U) Turkey asked that OP 2.71 be revised to reflect the
gravity and importance of the anti-terrorism efforts of the
OPCW and proposed changing the language to read, "The Council
at its Forty-Fifth session received and considered a Note by
the Director-General on the OPCW's contribution to global
efforts to fight terrorism." Khodakov responded to Turkey's
proposal by noting that it would be inappropriate to reflect
this language in the agenda, as it is a decision that must be
made by SPs.


20. (U) Iran asked for clarification regarding item five,
"Matters Requiring Consideration or Action by CSP-11," noting
that it is an incomplete list. Khodakov reminded delegations
that this report only covers activities up to July 7, 2006,
and stated that it would be possible to add a footnote
reflecting this in the report.


21. (U) Iran then asked that language be inserted into para
1.8 of the Annex "encouraging SPs to fulfill their
obligations under Article XI, 2(c) and 2(e)." Khodakov noted
that the specific text was the CSP decision language and that
the EC is in no position to modify the text. Iran then said
that, procedurally, it had made a proposal and that no
delegation had objected, so it should be accepted. Delegates
from Italy and Austria made some general comments. Australia
then flatly said that it objected to the Iranian proposal,
stating that "cherry-picking" items which a certain
delegation deems of higher importance, is not appropriate for
this report or productive for this meeting.


22. (U) Italy suggested removing the annex of this report,
which Khodakov said it would consider. Khodakov then posed
as an alternative simply adding the CSP-10 final report,
excluding the budget. Iran stated that because their
comments in this consultation were not going to be
incorporated, they will refuse to "note" this draft report
during EC-47, and only agree to "receive" the report. Petri
ended the meeting by stating that this item was deferred for
later consideration.


23. (U) Javits sends.
ARNALL