CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000487 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 MARCH 3 This is CWC-20-06. -------------- INSPECTOR TRAINING -------------- ¶1. (U) In coordination with Ian Richards (special assistant to the Deputy Director General) and Renato Carvalho (head of Inspectorate Management),del rep will participate in selected sessions of Technical Secretariat inspector training during the week of March 13. The goal will be to get a better feel for the types and format of training provided to newly-hired inspectors. Alexandru Dolea (Industry Verification Branch) recently provided del rep with copies of training materials that have been used for the training of new inspectors in the past. These materials and the information from the training sessions will be helpful in U.S. efforts to develop training materials and opportunities that can be offered to the TS to improve the basic training received by new inspectors. Many at the TS, including Richards, are in support of the U.S. efforts. ¶2. (U) Del reps will also lobby Verification chief Horst Reeps and Inspectorate chief Ichiro Akiyama to ensure that they request additional resources for inspector training in the 2007 budget proposal. Program managers will need to have their requests to the budget office by the end of March. Reeps and Akiyama have indicated privately that they have concerns about the quality of inspector training. Del reps will emphasize that it is difficult for the U.S. and other delegations to make a strong case for strengthened training efforts if the TS leadership states that it is satisfied with current efforts. -------------- AFRICA OFFICE -------------- ¶3. (U) On March 1, a meeting of the Open Ended Working Group on the Establishment of an Africa Office was held at the OPCW. The meeting was called by facilitator Malik Azhar Ellahi (Pakistan) and attended by Director General Pfirter, as well as the new Director of Special Project Krzysztof Paturej. Six delegations from Africa attended the meeting (Tunisia, Nigeria, Algeria, Morocco, Kenya and South Africa.) The meeting was widely attended with some delegations not having a place at the table. ¶4. (U) The DG noted only 7 African nations are still non-signatories. He encouraged delegations to continue their work to convince non-members to join the CWC. He noted the Memorandum of Understanding the OPCW signed with the African Union, and the need for additional voluntary contributions to assist in universality and implementation efforts. The facilitator presented his paper, noting there seemed to be agreement to use the non-paper as a basis for continued discussion. He acknowledged that delegations still need to get comments from capitals. He emphasized that his timeline is to have something by the December CSP, and there were no indications on when the next consultation would be held, though it was clear it would be after the March EC. ¶5. (U) The discussion began with the U.S. asking whether there were aspects of the MOU with the AU which would affect deliberations on an Africa office; and followed that with a question on whether this type of office is a new idea or whether similar organizations (such as the IAEA) have established similar offices. The facilitator suggested the Africa Group answer the first question and said while the UN has offices outside of New York, he would need to check on whether there are such offices from disarmament agencies. ¶6. (U) South Africa took the floor next and their del rep criticized the paper in very strong terms. Instead of focusing on a way forward, he seemed stuck on the mandate of the working group and how it should proceed. He wanted to know the legal implications of an office in Africa. The facilitator noted while the TS has provided him with data, they need to know the details by which an office in Africa would work in order to gather the appropriate information. The South African del rep continued to request extensive amounts of information, but declined to provide any parameters that the TS would need to provide the information. In short, he wanted a lot, but did not want to do any of the work to get it. ¶7. (U) Austria, in its role as President of the European Union, stated the EU desire to support an implementation program in Africa. They noted only a portion of the 225,000 Euros mentioned in the facilitators paper could go to setting up an Africa office. The figure is the amount they put aside as an EU contribution toward all implementation programs. Further, this amount would not be available every year. ¶8. (U) In answer to a question by Tunisia, Malik noted that the Legal Advisors office has reviewed the facilitator's paper and have seen no problems. However, it cannot answer whether there are any legal implications in the day-to-day running of an office, as it depends on the location. Italy noted that further details must be given before a decision on opening an office can be made. The Dutch suggested sending a team immediately to Africa to assess key details, which some delegations supported. The U.S., UK, France and others replied it would be a good idea to see what information could be assembled in The Hague, if there were problems in getting data, then a team could be sent. This seemed to be the consensus opinion. (Note: Dutch Amb. Lak later clarified to del rep that the reason he suggested sending the team is that he has no faith in any data provided by the African delegations or the AU. His intention was to send the team so that the TS could get credible data and not just rely on what is provided by the Africans.) ¶9. (U) Kenya noted that the non-paper seems to focus on set-up of an office and not other mechanisms. They further stated that the African EC proposal was not just focused on universality and implementation, but to promote ideals and public awareness of the CWC. Kenya also seemed to want a lot from the TS, but did not indicate a willingness to assist in the process. ¶10. (U) South Africa chimed in again and stated that the working group should stick to the African EC proposal and not the facilitator's non-paper. He did acknowledge that the EU contribution is for implementation and not for CWC education. However, he did not agree with going to the African Union for assistance, as they are not sponsors. He then admitted that they were not even aware of the initiative to set up an office in Africa. Now on a roll, the South African continued by stating that the DG does not have a role other than implementation support. He then continued to ask for details that the facilitator clearly could not provide without giving the TS parameters by which to gather information, and then strongly suggested that the facilitator work with African Ambassadors immediately. The South African Ambassador tried to smooth the waters by stressing that African delegations were concerned that the process that was being considered was not generating movement toward a decision on an office. ¶11. (U) Malik replied that he would talk to the South African del rep outside after the meeting. The facilitator noted the he has had two meetings with alternates in the Africa Group, and that he would be glad to meet with the Ambassadors in the Africa Group. He further stated that while he drew heavily upon the Africa Group proposal, the basis of work is the CSP-10 decision, which says that the answer may be a mechanism, but not necessarily an Africa Office. ¶12. (U) Germany noted that some issues were raised which had not yet been answered. Has there been any interaction between the TS and the African Union? The U.S. stated that while it still needed comments from Washington on the non-paper, the facilitator's document provided a good way to proceed within a process that ensured thorough examination of the topic. After a discussion with his Ambassador outside the consultation room, the South African del rep apologized to the facilitator and noted that the African Union-OPCW MOU should not be part of this discussion as the issues have not been discussed within the AU. He requested the TS prepare papers on the legal implications and financial implications of an Africa office, continuing to be oblivious to the fact that the TS needs parameters in order to give him the information papers he requested. ¶13. (U) Norway expressed general support for establishment of an Africa office. Japan stated that it still needed comments from Tokyo on the non-paper, but emphasized that it also had a number of questions and needed more information. Sweden noted that there is an (unspecified) regional disarmament office in Lome and asked whether there was an option to work with them or learn from their experience. ¶14. (U) The facilitator said he will consult with the Director of Special Projects to answer what questions he could and he will work with the African Union to get answers. He will not shift the burden to the TS to get details without specifying what is needed. And finally, he will consult with the TS, African Group and other delegations on the way forward. -------------- FINANCIAL RULES -------------- ¶15. (U) Consultations on the Draft Financial Rules took place on March 2. Delegations continued to focus on the proposed revisions to the draft financial rules. Iran initially asked that financial cap in draft rule revision 4.1.02 be reduced from 10 percent to five percent. On the monetary cap of 2500 Euros, Iran said it could be flexible and retain the 2500 Euro cap. ¶16. (U) Delegations agreed to a Russian proposal to delete "the postponement of other activities" wording from draft financial rule revision 4.5.01 paragraph B. ¶17. (U) On draft financial rule revision 9.3.01 paragraph B, Iran and India asked that the references to the TS "writing off losses" be deleted and that the language concerning the reporting of losses be strengthened. The new language calls on the Principal Financial Officer to "prepare a detailed report concerning these losses and any required follow-up action." Language was also added that would require the TS to notify the EC about any losses through "existing reporting requirements. ¶18. (U) On the procurement related sections in draft financial rule revisions to 10.6.4, 10.6.05, and 10.6.06, India and Iran continued to call for inclusion of the draft revision language requiring the availability items to be purchased in all SPs, while Germany, the UK, and Italy called for the removal of all language related to procurement. ¶19. (U) At the end of the consultation, the facilitator (Snelsire, U.S.) told delegations that he had copies of the IAEA financial rules and regulations that he would make available to delegations on request. Conveniently, there is no/no provision in the IAEA financial regulations or rules, which also serve as the procurement rules, to limit the organizations ability to procure items if they are not available in all SPs. Despite this Iran and India are likely to continue to push for this problematic language concerning procurement and a deal will not be done until the end. This deal will likely involve some formulation of the CSP-8 language on procurement that Washington forwarded to the del. ¶20. (U) Consultations on the financial rules will continue on March 7, when the facilitator hopes to begin to address the draft financial rules themselves, leaving the procurement issue to the end. All other language concerning the revisions to the draft rules have "ad ref" been resolved. -------------- IMPLEMENTATION OF THE OIO REPORT -------------- ¶21. (U) Consultations on the implementation in 2005 of the recommendations in the 2004 annual Office of Internal Oversight report (EC-44/DG.5 dated February 14, 2006 and EC-44/DG.5/Corr.1 dated February 24, 2006) were held on March ¶3. Only seven delegations attended the consultation. Mohamed Louati, the Head of the Office of Internal Oversight, introduced the report and noted that much progress had been made concerning the OIO's recommendations, especially in the Human Resources and Budget Branches, but that more work remained to be done. ¶22. (U) Iran asked why there was no clear explanation of why certain recommendations had not yet been implemented. Ali Asghar of the Administration Division responded that the process simply took time. The French asked that the TS produce a document in spreadsheet form outlining the precise status of each of the OIO recommendations. ¶23. (U) On Human Resources, the French requested that someone from HRB attend the next OIO consultation to provide more detail on the implementation of the OIO's recommendations concerning human resources. The Iranian delegation questioned the necessity of using outside consultants. Del rep questioned the need, outlined in paragraph 12 of the report, to fund an outside study to determine if an external classifier should continue to be used, as opposed to hiring a full-time classifier. Del rep noted that during last year's budget consultations, the Head of HRB had made it clear that due to the small number of posts that have to be classified each year, it would not be cost effective to hire a full-time classifier. Germany supported the U.S. ¶24. (U) In reference to paragraph 18, the Iranian delegation asked if employees who were missing documentation of their educational and professional qualifications from their personnel files had been able to produce documentation. Asghar responded that of 51 employees who had no documentation of their qualifications, only 9 were unable to produce any proof of their educational and/or professional qualifications. ¶25. (U) Asghar cited as an example the fact that several employees who had claimed to have Masters Degrees had in fact only completed some work towards a Masters degree but had not in fact been awarded a degree. He added that the Legal Advisors office was studying how such cases should be handled. Asghar went to great pains to emphasize that only a few employees hired in 1998 had failed to document their qualifications and that subsequent to 1998 all candidates for jobs at the OPCW were asked to present their degrees as part of the hiring process. Nonetheless, delegations still seemed to be surprised that the TS had not taken a tougher line with individuals who appeared to have lied about their educational background. Del will follow up with the TS on this issue. ¶26. (U) In reference to paragraphs 20-25 on the efficiency of the recruitment process, del rep noted that the U.S. is pleased by the reported improvements in HRB's performance but still concerned that too often positions are not advertised until a significant time after the incumbent has left the position. This results in long staffing gaps that can impact on TS activities. ¶27. (U) As an example, del rep cited the fact the P-5 position in ERD previously occupied by Ioan Tudor was still vacant, despite the fact that Tudor had notified the TS that he planned to leave over a year ago. Asghar responded that sometimes the TS delays advertising vacancies because it is considering reclassifying certain positions or extending the incumbent. He asserted that this was in fact the case with the P-5 position in ERD. (Note: This is the first time we have been told this and it seems unlikely, especially given the fact that Tudor had a job lined up in New York and was not considering extending as far as we know. It is also unlikely that the TS would consider downgrading a position of such importance.) ¶28. (U) The German delegation asked if paragraph 23 of the report meant that the TS planned to continue using outside consultants in the recruitment process. Asghar said the TS would continue to use consultants. ¶29. (U) Iran asked in reference to paragraphs 26 and 27 on geographical representation, if the TS had considered conducting targeted recruiting in developing countries to enhance geographical representation and if the TS had considered using quotas to ensure geographical representation. France, Germany, and the U.S. intervened to note that the CWC clearly stated that qualifications should be the paramount factor in hiring, thereby precluding the use of quotas. Japan noted that the TS had used the Associates program as one means of ensuring that developing countries have qualified candidates to apply for jobs, and that to date the TS has hired four individuals from developing countries who had participated in the Associates program. ¶30. (U) Javits sends. ARNALL