CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000806

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
APRIL 7, 2006

This is CWC-30-06.

--------------
U.S. EXTENSION REQUEST
--------------


1. (U) Del confirmed that, during the proposed week of the
U.S. extension request submission and briefing, EC Chair
Dastis, DG Pfirter, most senior Verification staff, Amb.
Onate, and Amb. Khodakov will be available in The Hague. Del
continues to field questions concerning U.S. intent (both
timing and content of extension request) ) most notably from
Russia, who stated their del has heard from sources in
Washington and the TS that the U.S. may reveal information
that clearly shows operations past 2012. EU President
Austria continues to request the status of the request, while
France and Germany work behind the scenes to express concern
about the ability of &all possessor states8 to meet 2012.
UK has been supportive, both in their significantly decreased
volume of unhelpful questions and their willingness to share
a draft statement they hope will be helpful in steering a
constructive approach following the U.S. submission.

--------------
Article VII
--------------


2. (U) Facilitator Maarten Lak (Netherlands) led a 6 April
2006 informal consultation, supported by Lisa Tabassi
(TS/OLA). Tabassi provided an update: over the past week,
the TS received notifications from seven states designating
or establish National Authorities (NA): Niue, Grenada, Haiti,
Madagascar, Samoa, Solomon Islands, and Suriname. A press
release will be issued, noting this positive development.
There now remain 18 states without NAs, 12 of which adhered
to the Convention after 2003. The remaining difficult cases
are Papua New Guinea (PNG),Guinea, Mauritania, Tanzania,
Micronesia, and Nauru. Tabassi noted that eight missions of
the 18 had received visits from either Legal Advisor Onate or
Head of ICA John Makubalu. Another seven states have been
contacted via phone in capital. Three are represented only
in New York, and Tabassi noted that Onate is willing to
travel there to hold discussions. Finally, the Ts will hold
an 18 April meeting to review the situation and to recommend
actions the DG should take between then and EC-45. Note: The
next consultation is Monday 10 April, and Magda Bauta will
present IPB's plan of Article VII-related activities.


3. (U) Delegations then noted their activities. Portugal
noted that it had contacted Timor Leste and Cape Verde,
emphasizing the importance of establishing their interim or
permanent NAs by EC-45. Finland noted its willingness to use
its long-term bilateral relationship with Tanzania to push it
to establish a NA. Australia noted that PNG has made only
limited progress since the July 2005 TAV. Tabassi noted that
Makubalu had met with the PNG mission, which informed him
that PNG was awaiting promised, follow up from Australia and
(a surprise to us) the US. Australia also noted that
Cambodia is expected to establish its NA by Parliamentary
decree by the end of 2006. Australia, on behalf of New
Zealand, reported that New Zealand made a voluntary
contribution of 10,000 euros to support Keith Wilson's
implementation assistance efforts in Fiji, Nauru, Solomon
Islands, and Tuvalu. Canada reported that it was considering
supporting implementation efforts in Antigua and Grenada (but
noted happily that apparently Grenada has already established
its NA),but had no specifics on what steps Ottawa intended
to take. The UK noted its willingness to demarche Sierra
Leone, Antigua, and Tanzania. The UK also called for better
coordination among assisting SPs, wanting to know the US, for
instance, had sent TAV teams. Japan relayed that it would
assist with outreach efforts in PNG and Timor Leste. Mexico
reported that its MFA had contacted Honduras, offering
assistance with establishment of its NA and drafting its
implementing legislation. Colombia reported it had made a
general offer to support implementation efforts of GRULAC
states. France noted that Paris had established a network of
experts from those attending its training courses. On this
basis, France could reach out to the DROC and Dijbouti.

Belgium intends to work with the Central African Republic and
the DROC, which are significant because of their significant
chemical industries (and pooh-poohed efforts in the tiny
island states as far less significant). Finally Iran noted
that it had contacted Kabul to encourage it to establish its
NA. Kabul responded that it might take some time to finish
elaborating its national legislation, which also established
the NA, but expects the legislation to be enacted
expeditiously.


4. (U) The facilitator then asked about the status of the
remaining states. Tabassi noted that Onate visited the
Guinean mission in February 2006, and received a request for
a TAV, noting that the US also was in discussions with the TS
and Guinea regarding a joint mission. Mauritania has been
difficult to contact, and so far the TS has been unable to
arrange a visit to its mission. However, the US also is
attempting to arrange a TAV to Mauritania. Afghanistan's
Consulate General is in Amsterdam, but its relationship with
Kabul is difficult so the TS directly contacted the MFA that
reported that it had waited election results before
finalizing its legislation. As of February, the MFA informed
the TS that its legislation was being readied for submission.
The TS is in regular contact with Bhutan, and expects rapid
progress because the local interlocutors are responsive and
eager. Onate visited the DROC mission, but was informed that
due to upcoming elections, it is unlikely that it will meet
the deadlines. The DROC requested a TAV, which might be done
jointly with the UK. For Liberia, EIF was 25 March 2006.
The TS is in contact with its Ministry of Justice, who
representatives just completed the NA training in Paris.
Quick progress is expected once elections are over. It also
is a candidate for a US/TS TAV.


5. (U) Anand Dhavle (ICA/IPB) presented a six-page plan of
activities (scanned and e-mailed to ISN/CB) noted that unless
a state formally asks for a TAV, the TS could not initiate
it. There are a number of states in discussion with the TS
regarding a TAV: Dijbouti, DROC, Rwanda, Malawi, Bhutan,
Mongolia, Laos, Honduras, Haiti, Guatemala, and Uruguay. If
all of these come to fruition, the TS will face a funding
shortfall of 125,000 euros. Finally,
Tabassi noted that the US was considering supporting TAVs to
Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Mauritania, Cape Verde,
Antigua, and possibly Mozambique.


6. (U) Canada, supported by the US, noted the facilitator's
proposal to focus our efforts on establishment of NAs, but
noted concerns that states had not yet submitted their plans
for implementation by EC-47 (November 2006). Canada
encouraged states reaching out to those in the process of
implementing the Convention to note the requirement for
submitting plans and finalizing legislation as well as
establishing NAs by EC-45.

--------------
FINANCIAL RULES
--------------


7. (U) Financial Rules consultations were held on April 6.
The facilitator Richard Snelsire (U.S.) began the meeting
using the Facilitator's Update on the proposed amendments to
the draft Financial Rules dated 3 April 2006 (this document
should be on the OPCW external server today). Discussion
centered on four of the still outstanding amendments.


8. (U) 1.1.01 - Authority and Applicability
Germany did not approve of the additional wording requiring
approval by the Executive Council to the rule, saying it was
repetitious, noting that this is already covered in rule 16.2
and 16.2.01. Iran, who made the suggested addition, defended
it by saying legal text usually has cross-references, it is
not a bad idea to make this reference in each set of rules to
identify who has approval. Eventually this was deferred to
the next meeting.


9. (U) 1.1.03 - Personal Responsibility/Liability - Accepted
without comment.


10. (U) 2.2.01 - Interpretation of the Financial Rules
There was little comment here, but apparently some
delegations feel it might be discussed once more...


11. (U) 3.2.01, 3.3.01 (B),4.1.01 (A) (B),4.2.02 (B),
4.5.01 (B),4.12.02, Articles 5 to 8 and 9.1.01 (B) were
accepted without comment.


12. (U) 9.3.01 (B) and (C) - Income from Investments
The wording of (B) was changed because delegations felt a
need for a more logical step-by-step progression for
reporting in case of an investment loss. Which the TS had to
say for the umpteenth time was not likely happen because the
investment strategy is to put funds into short-term interest
bearing accounts. Italy was particularly dense during the
discussion of (B) and (C).


13. (U) The new wording of (B) is: "Any investment losses
must be reported at once by the Principal Financial Officer
to the Director General. The DG shall prepare a detailed
report concerning these losses, and any required follow-up
action. This report shall be provided immediately to the
External Auditor and Member States through existing reporting
mechanisms."


14. (U) 10.3.04 (B) (C) and 10.4.01 - Accepted without Comment


15. (U) 10.6.04 (D),10.6.05(C) and 10.6.06 - Procurement -
These were deferred to the next meeting.


16. (U) 11.1.02, 11.1.03 and Articles 12-16 - Accepted
without comment.


17. (U) The facilitator said he and the TS will make the
changes suggested at this meeting and requested delegations
be prepared to discuss 1.1.01 and 10.6.04, .05 and .06 at the
next meeting.


18. (U) After the consultation the Iranian delegation
approached the facilitator and asked if it would be possible
to meet with interested delegations shortly before the next
consultation on the 13th, to try and arrive at a compromise
on the procurement section of the rules. The facilitator
believes that the Iranians would not propose such a meeting
unless they were willing to make an effort to arrive at a
compromise on the procurement language.

--------------
Geneva Group Meeting
--------------


19. (U) The two new co-chairs of the Geneva Group (Angela
Peart - Canada and Sonya Koppe - Australia) convened a
meeting on April 7, 2006. The primary focus of the meeting
was the preparation of the Geneva Group report submission for
the OPCW. Members also gave their views on the 2007 budget,
the financial rules consultation, the regularization of
arrears consultation, the possible creation of an exchange
rate mechanism, and tenure policy.


20. (U) During a &tour de table8 members of the Geneva
Group members began by providing suggestions for, and asking
questions about, the annual Geneva Group report on the OPCW.
Several delegations asked why there were only two direct
recruitments listed for the last twelve months. Angela Peart
explained that &direct recruitments8 referred to positions
that were not advertised and for which there was no
competitive recruiting. She said the two cases in the last
twelve months were the Deputy Director General position and
the Special Advisor to the Deputy Director General position.
The Swiss suggested that this should be listed under the
comments section of the report along with a note explaining
that the lack of competitive recruiting for these two
positions was an accepted practice by SP,s.


21. (U) The Japanese suggested that the references to gender
equity be removed from the report, as this could lead to more
questions regarding geographical representation that would
not be appropriate because the CWC does not allow for

geographical quotas. Angela Peart responded by noting that
the Geneva Group questionnaire asked specifically about
gender representation and therefore it would be acceptable to
include references to gender representation. Sonya Koppe
noted that the percentage of women working at the OPCW was
the second lowest of any international organization, with
only the IAEA having a lower percentage of women. Members
agreed to keep the references to gender representation in the
report.


22. (U) France asked that a reference to maintaining the
balance between Chapter One and Chapter Two expenditures and
the importance of realizing cost savings in Chapter Two be
added to the Recommendations for Future Action. The UK and
Italy supported the proposal. Italy asked that reference to
the unofficial 11-12 million Euro surplus for 2005 be
included in the Overview section of the report. Members
agreed to include a reference to the surplus. Italy asked
that the agreement between Germany and Pakistan to share the
next term as the External Auditor be deleted. The UK,
Germany, and France opposed deleting the reference and it
will be retained especially as it was already included in the
CSP decision on the External Auditor.


23. (U) Italy and the U.S. asked that the assertion that
procurement delays had occurred because of late payments of
assessed contributions. The UK pushed back and said they had
been told directly by the Directors of BFB and Administration
that delays had in fact occurred. Italy said it had never
been officially notified that such delays had occurred and
the U.S. noted that it had remained in close contact
throughout the year to ensure that no TS operations,
including procurement, had been impeded as a result of
liquidity problems. The UK finally agreed that as there was
conflicting information from the TS, the references to
procurement would be dropped. (Note: Del rep later confirmed
with the TS and the UK that they in fact had never been told
that any procurement delays had occurred as a result of
funding problems.) Language stating that late receipts did
create practical problems, including planning, was retained,
as the DG had made references to these issues in his
statement to the CSP and past EC,s.


24. (U) The co-chairs reported to members that Rick Martin
(BFB) had reported to them that TS division heads would now
have to have their budget submissions in by late-April and
that the draft budget would be released shortly after the
July EC. The TS was then hoping to hold at least one or two
consultations introducing the 2007 budget and would then work
on information papers based on SP,s questions during the
July August break. Martin indicated to the co-chairs that
the DG was now strongly leaning towards a zero percent
nominal growth budget, although there were some concerns
about a likely UN salary increase and its impact on the
budget. Martin also said, according to the co-chairs, that
the other two variables, inflation and exchange rate
fluctuations, appeared to be stable for the time being and
were not a major concern for the TS. Reportedly, Martin also
said that he would continue to work to refine RBB.


25. (U) The UK, France, and the U.S. were generally
supportive of the TS approach as outlined by the co-chairs.
Germany cautioned that the TS should be more careful this
year in making any changes in agreed performance indicators
in order to avoid some of the confusion experienced last year.


26. (U) Del rep gave a brief presentation on the progress
made to date in the financial rules consultations. He noted
that there was only the procurement issue as well as one
other minor language issue in rule 1.1.01 outstanding. He
said that the TS had placed his most recent facilitator,s
paper on the external server on Friday and that he was
hopeful that an agreement could be reached at the next
scheduled consultation on April 13. He noted that the
Iranian delegation had suggested that interested delegations
meet shortly before the consultation on the 13th to work
towards a compromise on the procurement language. Del rep
opined that it would not be likely that Iran would agree to
do this, unless they were interested in reaching an

agreement. Other members agreed but noted that it would be
better for the process to take longer than to agree to
problematic language.


27. (U) On repayment plans, Germany urged that the process be
kept simple and focused. The Japanese suggested that any
potential plan should allow for repayments of arrears to be
credited towards the most recent year, even if this
necessitated making changes in the financial regulations.
France agreed but noted that the process could become more
complicated if it were necessary to amend the financial
regulations. Italy said they viewed the process as a lot of
work for a potentially minimal inflow of cash. They were
skeptical about the process as a whole.


28. (U) Japan said that as facilitator, they were
disappointed that the EC Chair gaveled through the noting of
the report on the Implementation of the Recommendations of
the External Auditor, despite the fact that no consultations
had been held on it, the report had only been issued days
earlier, and the facilitator had not even read the report.
Other delegations agreed that this should not have happened
and should not be allowed to happen again. (Note: This begs
the question, why didn,t the facilitator (Komuro - Japan)
speak up during the EC and prevent this from happening.)
Komuro also told dels that the new OIO report should be out
the week of April 17.


29. (U) On possibly creating a mechanism to address exchange
rate fluctuations, the Swiss asked that this be included on
the next Geneva Group meeting agenda. Japan said that they
believed there was a Geneva Group report out of New York that
came out against using surpluses to create an exchange rate
mechanism. The Japanese delegate said she would try to
obtain a copy of the report to share with other dels. Del
rep said that at this time the USG was not inclined to
support the creation of a mechanism to address exchange rate
fluctuations that use the surplus.


30. (U) As the meeting ran longer than expected, Del rep
remained after the meeting with other interested members to
provide input for the Geneva Group report and questionnaire.
The co-chairs agreed to use the stronger language proposed by
the U.S. concerning studying tenure. Del rep was able to
remove the language concerning delayed procurement activity
as a result of late payments. The co-chairs told dels that
the responses to the Results Based Management Questionnaire
were based both on answers provided by the TS and their
personal knowledge.


31. (U) On question 4, the co-chairs confirmed that they were
referring to ABAF as the independent audit advisory
committee. Del rep questioned whether ABAF really served as
an independent audit advisory committee other than the fact
that they do review the External Auditor,s report. The
co-chairs agreed to note in the comment section that they
were referring to ABAF. On question 5, the co-chairs and
others felt that the question was more of an objective and
not subjective nature and therefore did not require a
qualitative answer. On question 9, the co-chairs said that
they had been told by the TS that OIO has since 2004
conducted periodic program reviews. On question 13, the
co-chairs agreed that there was a non-prioritized program
plan or strategy. They agreed to note that the Medium Term
Plan is not prioritized in the comments section. On question
15, the answer provided reflects the fact that officially
individual program managers are accountable for program
delivery. On question 20, the co-chairs agreed that there is
no EC or CSP approved HR strategy. The co-chairs also agreed
to correct the report and state that the Dutch government
does not own the OPCW building as originally stated.


32. (U) The UK suggested that members consider, for the next
Geneva Group meeting, ways in which the TS could achieve
savings in Chapter 2 activities, specifically in
Administration. The next Geneva Group meeting will likely be
in early June.

--------------

LIBYA
--------------


33. (U) Del rep met with Libyan delegate and TS to inform all
parties of Washington,s recommendation to move forward with
two national papers (request to establish dates for
intermediate deadlines and 100% extension request) and one
draft decision. Del rep also suggested revisions to the
Libyan submission of March 31, 2006 ) an expanded version of
Libya earlier request to establish dates for intermediate
deadlines based on U.S. suggestions (initially discussed at
EC-44). TS expressed appreciation for continued cooperation
between U.S. and Libya, and will use March 31, 2006 (original
submission) as the official date for subsequent edits, thus
ensuring EC members are aware that Libya technically
fulfilled its commitment to provide more detailed information
by March 31, 2006.

--------------
KAMBARKA AND MARADYKOVSKY
--------------


34. (U) Del rep met with TS CDB office Yaugen Ryzhykau to
clarify points on current operations at Kambarka, and the
status of documents for both Kambarka and Maradykovsky. On
Maradykovsky, no progress on documents is expected until the
final engineering review in May. TS confirmed there are two
identical mobile destruction units operating at Kambarka, and
provided a copy of the slides they use to brief inspectors
rotating to Kambarka. TS also explained that reaction mass
at Kambarka is processed in an evaporator, and the remaining
salts are being stored in drums for later shipment to Gorny.
The incinerator on site is used for processing wastewater and
solid wastes only. TS and Russia have agreed on final text
for the Kambarka FA and VP, but are awaiting confirmation
from Moscow before distributing the documents.


35. (U) Ryzhykau explained that in resolving remaining issues
on the Kambarka documents, Russia agreed to declare the
storage buildings as temporary holding areas, and the TS
agreed to use the equipment list from the Gorny FA/VP.
Camera positions in the buildings have not been changed, with
the Russians arguing that it is unsafe to make modifications
in buildings already involved in destruction operations. Del
read is that Russia is unlikely to change camera positions in
the remaining three buildings, and that the TS will have to
continue to compensate with a more elaborate sealing plan.
TS noted that Russian officials pressured TS to sign

SIPDIS
certificates of destruction, which TS has refused to do. TS
and Russia also came to an agreement on reconciliation of
agent quantity fed to the reactor, but TS continues to
express concerns over the lack of dedicated instrumentation
(specifically the flow meter). Ryzhykau pointed out that
verification of agent quantity entering the reactor is
challenging, partly because all movement of agent is through
piping (versus individual munitions or ton containers) and
partly because the TS believes readings from the flow meter
can be manipulated at several points before reaching the
inspector data screens. Overall, TS is skeptical that
measures agreed in the FA/VP will be fully implemented.

--------------
OPTIMIZATION
--------------


36. (U) TS also shared thoughts on possibilities for an
optimized verification regime at Russian facilities.
Ryzhykau emphasized that the approach to optimization at
Russian facilities has differ significantly from that at U.S.
facilities, primarily due to the lack of opportunity to
directly observe (through observation windows or safety
corridors) operations at Russian facilities. Manpower
savings on night shifts in Russia may be challenging because
of a lack of dedicated instruments; currently inspectors have
to simultaneously view readings in the inspector and facility
control rooms. The TS predicts that, due to cost, Russia is
unlikely to build better observation capabilities into future
facilities. In future, when most or all of the Russian
facilities are operational, non-optimized verification will

require a significant increase in Inspectorate resources.


37. (U) JAVITS SENDS.
ARNALL