Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
06THEHAGUE717
2006-04-04 14:47:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR THE

Tags:  PARM PREL CWC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0012
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0717/01 0941447
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 041447Z APR 06
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5283
INFO RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000717 

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 THE
PERIOD MARCH 20-31

This is CWC-28-06.

-----------
ARTICLE VII
-----------

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000717

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 THE
PERIOD MARCH 20-31

This is CWC-28-06.

--------------
ARTICLE VII
--------------


1. (U) New facilitator Maarten Lak (Netherlands) held a
March 30 consultation, the first of a series of Article VII
consultations. Lak announced that Special Advisor Krzysztof
Paturej would be the new Article VII "go to" person,
replacing the now departed Ralf Trapp. Lak, in company with
Legal Advisor Santiago Onate and head of ICA John Makhubalo,
then presented a draft work program (e-mailed to ISN/CB) and
invited comment. Major elements included 1) introduction of
a "Points of Contact" concept analogous to that from the
Universality Action Plan and 2) prioritization of outreach
efforts to countries that have yet to establish National
Authorities and/or pass implementing legislation. Iran
supported by India opposed outreach efforts not specifically
included in the CSP-10 decision, opposing in prinipal the
idea of POCs, prioritizing outreach effrts, or weekly
consultations on Article VII. (Nte: Iran opened its
intervention, noting that OPC has other 2006 priorities,
emphasizing the issus of CW destruction and full
implementation of Aticle XI; an early warning sign of
potential futre linkages.) The next consultation will be
Thusday, April 6.


2. (U) The TS reported that sinc the November CSP, it has
attempted to meet with representatives of states that have
yet to estabish a National Authority. With those
representaives with which the TS has successfully contacted,
the message is that CWC implementation is low on heir
capitals' priorities list, but the ambassadrs agreed to
intercede in their capitals to attept to increase awareness
regarding the importanc (and priority) of CWC
implementation. Despite its best efforts, the TS was unable
to contact Afghanistan, Bhutan, Haiti, Mauritania,
Micronesia, Nauru, Samoa, Timor Leste, and Tuvalu, primarily
because these states do not have representatives in The Hague
or nearby capitals.


3. (U) Onate announced that Yemen notified the TS on March
29 that it had established a National Authority, leaving 25
States Parties without a NA. Interventions from a number of

delegations announced that Afghanistan, Madagascar, Samoa,
and Tanzania have included in their implementing egislation
the establishment of National Authoriies. In these
instances it will be important tomonitor legislative
progress to ensure passage an establishment of National
Authorities by EC-47 November 2006). Finally, Onate
informed delegatons that no states have submitted
implementationplans as required by the CSP follow-on
decision.


4. (U) China suggested that, similarly to what s now done
for Universality, the TS should consier press releases for
each state that establishe its National Authority and/or
completes its legslative efforts. This could reward
proactive sttes while pressuring (a bit) those states that
hae yet to communicate their implementation status. This
idea received wide support, although Italy noted that the
press releases probably would not reach the states in most
need of communication. Tunisia, supported by numerous
delegations, asked the TS for its Article VII-related
activities schedule, so that individual outreach efforts did
not conflict with TS efforts. The TS responded that the
overall activities list had been provided to delegations some
time ago (this was news to those of us in the room),but
indicated, when pressured, that it would provide delegations
the specifics of the Article VII efforts. Mexico, supported
by Iran and the U.S., stressed the importance of setting
priorities (e.g. establishment of National Authorities
first),so that SPs and the TS can tailor their approaches to
achieve our objectives.


5. (U) Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the UK, and the U.S.
stressed the importance of Technical Assistance Visits (TAVs)
in capitals, and asked the TS if it had the resources to
respond to countries that requested such assistance. Onate
responded that no, the TS Article VII-related budget fell by
over 30 percent compared to last year, due to restructuring
of or lack of 2006 voluntary contributions. Instead, it
planned to hold TAVs on the margins of the planned regional
and sub-regional meetings of National Authorities. Delegates
opposed this, noting that the most effective outreach
occurred in capitals, where all relevant agencies could
participate in drafting efforts and discussions of
establishment and functioning of National Authorities.
Several delegations stressed that the plan must be considered
with respect to which states requested TAVs. Delegations --
including Iran and India -- again noted the importance of
tailoring approaches, emphasizing that they are better done
in capital. (Makhubalo noted privately to del rep that he
will be hosting a Tuesday, April 4 meeting of current and
former donor states and invited del rep to attend.)


6. (U) A number of delegations noted the importance of
prioritizing outreach efforts. Germany stated that other
states are more relevant than the small Pacific island
states, and several delegations supported a more
regionally-based outreach effort. New Zealand discussed the
difficulties of initiating outreach efforts with the Pacific
Island Forum states. They might be represented at the UN in
New York, but Niue and Cook's Islands are not UN members. In
any event, the UN representatives would not be the
appropriate persons with which to speak. Many are
represented in Auckland, and the New Zealand High
Commissioner has raised CWC implementation with them, but New
Zealand has a number of bilateral issues to address with
them, so this venue has limited impact. Italy was the sole
delegation that opposed distinguishing between new states and
those who have been members for a long time.

--------------
CONFIDENTIALITY

SIPDIS
--------------


7. (U) Facilitator Betsy Sanders (U.S.) held a March 27
consultation to consider the draft annex to the declarations
handbook, the draft decision, and the TS response to an
Italian request for information on classification of facility
agreements (FAs). Luis Cavalheiro (Brazil/TS) presented the
results of the TS study of how facility agreements have been
classified by SPs since EIF, in response to an Italian
request. In spite of the OPCW Policy on Confidentiality
recommending that these be classified Protected, in reality
72 percent have been unclassified. The remaining FAs are
mostly highly protected (in a private remark, the Iranian del
rep said that the latter category probably include the FAs
for the Single Small Scale Schedule 1 facilities). Italy,
supported by Norway, requested that the example be attached
to the annex; Iran opposed this.


8. (U) Delegations agreed that the draft Confidentiality
annex is now acceptable, and after approval of EC-45 report
language, the TS may distribute it to NAs as a supplement to
the declaration handbook. Delegations also are agreed on the
TS "outreach and training" elements. What remains to be

SIPDIS
decided is procedural: whether delegations document these
elements via EC decision or EC report language. Iran and
India strongly prefer using EC report language; Norway,
France, and Japan prefer a decision that would puts in proper
context the discussion over the past year. Rob Simpson, head
of the Office of Security and Confidentiality, noted a
decision would back up OCS concerns and enhance the
likelihood that necessary actions would be taken. A number
of delegations indicated their flexibility, although they had
a slight preference for the decision route (Italy, Canada,
Norway, France, and Romania). The next consultation is
tentatively set for the first week of May.

-------------- --------------
CLINGENDAEL INSTITUTE -- ISSUES FOR THE SECOND REVCON
-------------- --------------


9. (U) The facilitator, Peter van Ham (Director Global
Governance Research Programme, Clingendael Institute)
moderated the discussion, noting first that Chatham House
rules apply. To stimulate debate, Ham opened with three
statements: First, it is clear that Russia and the U.S. will
not make 2012, and invited discussion of the implications.
Second, in the non-proliferation and counter-terrorism (CT)
arenas, are there still concerns regarding accuracy of
declarations, or CWC compliance concerns regarding activities
in Russia, Iran, and Sudan? What is the impact of PSI? Does
PSI have any mandate that includes CW agents and precursors?
Finally, where is the OPCW going? Will delegations prepare
for the RevCon by following issues or will they fall back to
an article-by-article review?


10. (U) Attendees agreed that CW destruction is key.
Delegations noted strong concerns regarding the credibility
of the Convention if all possessors were not able to destroy
their CW stocks by the 2012 deadline. Several expressed
views that the CWC will remain relevant after 2012, but SPs
will have to consider carefully how to maintain its
credibility. Two attendees noted that full, complete and
nondiscriminatory implementation remains essential. Two
attendees noted the need for balance created a parallel
between the necessity to pressure SPs to implement Article
VII and the need to push possessors to complete CW
destruction by 2012.


11. (U) One delegate summarized OPCW CT initiatives since

2001. A number of attendees expressed the view that CT is
not a primary OPCW role, but the action plans on Article VII
implementation and Universality are significant contributors
because they include criminalization of states' citizens'
activities. In addition, delegations have exchanged
information regarding national CT activities, creating an
information bridge. Expeditious destruction of CW stockpiles
also is a key contributor. Industry's safe handling of
hazardous chemicals also contributes to the CT effort.
Finally, a view was expressed that in the longer-term, it
will be necessity to consider the need and how best to
declare and/or license research laboratories.


12. (U) Attendees considered how best to prepare for the
April 2008 Review Conference. First, attendees noted that
the RevCon was not an amendment conference, as suggested by
the Clingendael experts. Non-lethal weapons are covered by
the Article 2 all purpose criterion, although there is a
special exemption for Riot Control Agents. When raised by
the Clingendael experts, attendees noted that one significant
issue to consider is how chemical developments should be used
to update OPCW activities, i.e., how to include new
generations of CW agents. Attendees noted that this was a
long-standing issue, not expected to be resolved any time
soon. Attendees also noted that in conjunction with the
Scientific Advisory Board, delegations probably would
recommend the RevCon consider how best to proceed. Finally,
one delegation noted the importance of resisting the
temptation to deviate from OPCW's object and purpose.

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


13. (U) The new facilitators (Florian Antohi of Romania and
Jae-woong Lee of South Korea) held their first consultations
on options for regularizing member states' arrears of annual
contributions on March 31. Approximately eighteen
delegations attended, though surprisingly only two GRULAC
delegations (Brazil and Peru) attended. The TS distributed
an eight-page supporting information paper on the issue and
the facilitators distributed a non-paper on a mechanism for
SPs to regularize the payment of their dues to the OPCW.
Both papers were sent back to ISN/CB. The facilitators had
hoped to hear brief general comments on both papers, and then
continue through the issues to be considered that had they
raised in Part III of their paper. The remainder of the
consultation, however, was spent with delegations giving
their general views on repayment plans rather than addressing
the facilitator's non-paper.


14. (U) The Director General also attended and began the
meeting by stating that the TS was committed to helping SPs
in arrears regularize their payments to enable them to become
SPs in good standing. He noted that many other international
organizations had established payment plans.


15. (U) The U.S. thanked the DG and budget chief Rick Martin
for attending the consultation and pledged U.S. support for
working towards a solution to the arrears problem. France
too pledged its support and added that it would be important
to find a mechanism by which some or all of scheduled
payments received through repayment plans could be applied
towards the current year's assessment. Japan supported the
consultations, but said that Tokyo would need to see a strong
monitoring system built into any repayment plan as well as a
net increase in overall collection rates.


16. (U) Germany noted that it had previously supported the
creation of a repayment mechanism, though it did not yet have
current guidance from Berlin. The Germans urged that the
issue not be made too complicated and that simple guidelines
be approved in relatively short order.


17. (U) Italy, rather unhelpfully, said that the long-term
arrears problem was negligible in terms of its overall impact
on OPCW budget and that attention should also be focused on
SPs that have not yet lost their voting rights but are late
in making their payments. Spain was supportive of the
consultations and reminded delegations that creating a
mechanism to address countries in arrears would not absolve
SPs of their responsibility to pay on time. Austria was also
supportive, but urged that the process be kept simple.


18. (U) Russia was supportive of the idea of addressing a
repayment mechanism, provided that there be no part of the
mechanism that would allow for debts being written off and in
no way would alter SPs obligations to pay their assessed
contributions.


19. (U) The U.S. said that it would have to be clear that
any State that engaged in a repayment plan with the TS was
getting a "one-time" chance, and that if that SP did not meet
its obligations under the approved repayment plan, there
would be no second chance. The U.S. also noted that it would
have liked to have seen more delegations at the consultation
representing the regional groups most seriously affected.


20. (U) The UK said they were also generally supportive of
creating a repayment mechanism but expressed some concern
about an automatic linkage between entering into a repayment
plan and regaining voting rights. Canada noted that it had
no guidance yet and expressed disappointment at the
attendance at the consultation.


21. (U) Japan asked if the Financial Rules would need to be
amended if a new repayment mechanism would allow the TS to
credit an SPs current year assessment rather than its oldest
debts as is currently done. Martin said that this would have
to be done if that were to be how the mechanism were to work.


22. (U) Italy chimed in again and said that any plan would
have to address SPs that had not yet lost their voting rights
but were behind on their payments. The U.S. responded that
any plan under consideration would have to be kept relatively
simple and focus on SPs that have long-term outstanding
debts. The U.S. also suggested that in terms of process, the
EC should develop guidelines but that it should be the TS, or
more specifically the DG, who makes a recommendation to the
EC and CSP on any repayment plan. The plans should not be
negotiated in the EC.


23. (U) Canada urged that any plan should be simple and
involve an SP pledging to pay its current year's assessment
and then a set percentage of its outstanding bill, i.e., 20
percent over five years. Any guidelines for repayment plans
should be so simple as to minimize the need for extensive
negotiations with the TS, according to Canada.


24. (U) The facilitators announced that the next
consultation will be in early-May when they hope to go
through their non-paper in a systematic fashion.

--------------
ARTICLE X
--------------


25. (U) Article X consultations were held on March 30, where
the facilitator Hans Schramml (Austria) introduced the new
Head of the Assistance and Protection Branch, Gennadi Lutay.
Lutay gave delegates information on activities held in the
first quarter of 2006, including a course in Spain for Latin
American countries and others held in Colombia and
Montevideo. He reported that during these courses, Article X
submissions and their due dates were covered. He gave
information on the Triplex Exercise being held in Finland,
September 2-8, 2006, reporting that there would be a limited
OPCW team participating. John Makhubalo attended the meeting
and reported that Paragraph 4 and 7 questionnaires are
available on the OPCW website and that the TS has been
proactive sending reminders to SPs reminding them of their
obligations to complete the information. He also reiterated
Lutay's comment about distributing information during
Assistance and Protection courses. He requested SPs look at
their regional groups to see where they could provide
encouragement to those who haven't yet completed the
questionnaires. (NOTE: It seems the TS is working along the
lines of the talking points the U.S. delivered at the last
meeting. END NOTE.)


26. (U) Schramml opened consultations to delegations. India
requested more information on Triplex and the reason for OPCW
participation. The TS informed them of the scenario and that
it is a valuable training tool for the ACAT team.

27. (U) UK Paper - Paragraph 4
The revised UK non-paper was distributed. Delegations noted
they will use this as a guideline for future discussions.
The U.S. suggested revisions for Paragraph 4 to state the
specific number of submissions and a change of wording from
"in a timely fashion" to "without delay." Delegations seemed
fine with the first suggestion, but believe the use of
"without delay" is a contradiction of the 120-day deadline.
Overall, delegations feel this topic should be tabled until
after the April 30 deadline for submissions in order to gauge
the response rate at that time.


28. (U) UK Paper - Paragraph 5
Delegations had concerns over the words "to finish setting up
the databank" as they feel the database is a living document
and will never be finished. The TS responded in the
affirmative; the UK noted this reference is to the physical
set up of the databank, not the inclusion of information.
Schramml noted that the Netherlands has made a voluntary
contribution to the database for the current year that pays
for one person, who is currently at work populating the
database. He did note that further voluntary contributions
were necessary to continue this work past the current year.
Italy wanted clarification on what is included in the
databank and a discussion of the criteria for information to
be included. Delegations asked the TS to report on the
current status of the database, in particular wanting to know
if the proposed deadline was achievable.


29. (U) UK Paper - Qualified Experts
France noted that the role of Qualified Experts is not
defined and that the UK paper can be used to start that
process. Italy requested a distinction should be made
between experts on Article X and Article XI; they should not
be in one document. Also, further discussion should be made
on the Protection Network; they feel Qualified Experts and
Protection Network should be separated. India and France
concurred and the UK took the point. Canada suggested
changing "make recommendations to the Council" to "make
proposals to the Council."


30. (U) Canada Paper - APB Activities
Canada submitted its paper (sent by e-mail on the
unclassified system on April 3). There was no discussion,

SIPDIS
but Canada noted they are primarily interested in "timely and
detailed reports on these programme activities, including
information on the nature and purpose of each activity, the
OPCW financial and personnel resource commitments involved,
and the number of SPs and/or individuals which would benefit."


31. (U) Article X and XI Implementation Report
The U.S. asked about the status of the report on Article X
and XI Implementation. Makhubalo noted that they have
finished compiling the material and understand SPs want to
comment. They want to postpone putting it out until the July
EC to give SPs time to comment. Iran noted its belief that
an earlier discussion, which recommended two separate
reports, the TS acknowledged this, but noted that the report
is in three parts, Article X, Article XI and Implementation
Support. If the report were split, they asked where
delegations would want Implementation Support to go. Iran
replied that it should go to Article VII; the TS said they
could do that. There was no further discussion on this topic.


32. (U) Schramml noted the next consultations would held on
April 11 and would focus on the Databank, its criteria,
access and the UK language. The second topic would be the
Canadian paper. He further noted that on April 28, the TS
would give a briefing on Joint Assistance Exercise 2005.


33. (U) Javits sends.
ARNALL