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