CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000865

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 APRIL 14

This is CWC-32-06.

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


1. (U) Facilitator Maarten Lak (Netherlands) chaired a April
10 informal consultation on the Implementation Support
Branch's Article VII-related program. Magda Bauta (TS/Cuba)
made a detailed presentation (faxed back to ISN/CB) of her
branch's program, primarily pointing out where she lacked
funds for Technical Assistance Visits (TAVs) due to the
demands of the regional and sub-regional meetings of National
Authorities (NA) and lack of voluntary contributions in 2006.
Colombia made a long impassioned intervention supporting the
IPB plan, emphasizing the importance of regional and
sub-regional meetings in the GRULAC. Such meetings bring
together a large number of States Parties, all of whom can
simultaneously receive a message regarding the importance of
implementation. Such meetings also strengthen
multilateralism, of key importance of GRULAC.


2. (U) Tunisia then asked why so many workshops were planned
for Asia and none for Africa. The response: IPB hoped to
have a thematic meeting in Africa, but funds were not
available. Several Asian states made voluntary contributions
to support the meetings there. Further, Tunisia questioned
Bauta's statement that attendees are carefully screened: why
aren't these workshops, seminars and meetings open to any
representative of any state that wants to attend? Bauta
responded that indeed these are open, but for sponsorship,
IPB wants to ensure the correct people attend.


3. (U) Germany, supported by France, questioned the
presentation's statistics, wondering why TS bilateral
outreach efforts in Brussels and London were characterized as
TAVs. Germany reiterated its April 6 demand for a complete
calendar of activities, and asked about the National
Authority discussion forum initiated a year ago. (NAs did
not use it). Italy noted the CSP-10 decision, emphasizing
that IPB needed to refocus its efforts as directed in the
decision. The U.S., supported by Italy and the UK, also
questioned IPB's strategy, noting that to accomplish the
goals set out by CSP-10, there are only a few months left.
Bilateral exchanges with one or two representatives on the
margins of regional and subregional meetings of NAs are good
for status checks, if the state has a NA. However, to make
significant progress, teams of relevant experts must go to
capitals to meet with members of all relevant agencies.


4. (U) The U.S. also questioned the budgetary assumptions
set out in the IPB briefing: not all TAVs require 3 TS staff
(the U.S. pays for its own attendees). Why couldn't the TS
incorporate more national experts, so that TS costs are
reduced? Given the budget surpluses of recent years, had IPB
considered asking the OPCW budget office on a quarterly basis
if there were surplus funds elsewhere which could be used to
support TAVs? (ICA Division chief Makhubalo replied that no,
that would require going to the Director General. Makhubalo
asserted that it is better to solicit voluntary
contributions.) Canada noted that voluntary contributions
have increased IPB's budget by almost 80 percent, and
wondered why it still was not enough to cover TAVs to the
capitals of all requesting states. Norway disagreed, stating
that if states are willing to contribute more money, IPB
should not be taken to task for its attempts to balance its
implementation priorities.

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


5. (U) Consultations under facilitator Hans Schramml
(Austria) were held on April 11, and discussions centered on
paragraph 5 language provided by the UK and the Canadian
proposal on Assistance and Protection Bureau programs. The
TS gave an overview of the status of the database: while the

SIPDIS
database is functionally ready, questions for delegations
remain. In particular, a criteria needs to be established to

designate what information will be integrated into the
database and who should be given permission to access the
information. So far only the TS is authorized to access the
database. Russia asked if the database will be translated
into OPCW languages; the answer was probably not as it was
too great a burden on the translators.


6. (U) Iran and India were concerned that the database
focuses too much on capacity building, and not enough on
protection measures. The TS tried to reassure delegations
that protection information is available in the database,
further noting the database guidelines were based on
decisions made in PrepCom V and VII, in particular
PCVII/B/wp.6 Annex B&C. Ultimately, it was decided to change
the agenda of April 28; it will instead be an informal
interactive session on the database for delegations. Del rep
will meet with the UK authors of the paper next week to
discuss next steps to move forward on this subject, which
might include a paper detailing the exact information
delegations need to decide upon before the database is freely
available to SPs.


7. (U) The Canadian paper generated a detailed response from
the Colombian delegation who noted that projects for single
SPs are valid measures. They welcome a higher level of
information on the activities of the APB, but feel that a
formal report is unnecessary citing the annual report, and
the DGs report at ECs and CSPs. Further, if a single SP
desires more information, it is free to ask the TS for it.
They do not agree that the TS needs to provide advanced
information to the EC on projects, fearing this could lead to
politicization of APB projects. (The facilitator asked for a
hard copy of these points, and del rep will get a copy.)


8. (U) Russia agreed in general with Colombia, fearing
regular detailed reports could be a burden on the TS. Uruguay
concurred. India supported the Canadian paper, as did
France. Del rep agreed more transparency is needed, but
called for periodic briefings over formal reports. Del rep
also suggested the TS provide information on outstanding
requests for assistance that are not currently being
addressed, to assist in determining if resources are
effectively allocated. The facilitator believes there is a
two-year backlog of assistance requests. He suggested if the
backlog is known then perhaps other SPs could assist on a
bilateral basis. Canada reiterated that they do not wish to
micromanage the TS. However briefings only help those who
can attend meetings and are subject to what attendees report.
Canada feels the TS should judge which is the greater
burden. The facilitator said he would discuss this
internally with the TS and report back at the next regular
meeting.


9. (U) As stated above, the next meeting on April 28 will be
an informal interactive demonstration of the APB database for
delegations, and an invitation will be out soon. The
briefing on the Joint Assistance Exercise 2005 will be
postponed to early May and will include TS participants and a
participant from France.

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


10. (U) The Financial Rules consultations were held on April
13, and had three outstanding issues, none of which were
resolved. Prior to the meeting Iran requested a pre-meeting
with interested delegations to try to resolve the outstanding
procurement issues (10.6.04 (D),10.6.05 (c) and 10.6.06).
The facilitator (Snelsire/U.S.) laid out three options:
Option 1 - add the terminology "available to all States
Parties;" Option 2 - delete the three procurement sections;
and Option 3 - use CSP-8 language "available to States
Parties of the CWC. Germany took a hard line advocating
deletion of these sections (Option 2). They feel they do not
belong in the Financial Rules. Iran in turn held to their
stand these sections were necessary, that all SPs have a
right to understand the equipment that will be used during
inspections inside their country, and that the terminology

"available to all States Parties" must remain. They were
seconded by India, who supported Option 1. This argument did
not deviate in the pre-
meeting discussion.


11. (U) The consultations began covering the same ground as
the pre-meeting, procurement issues. Iran and India again
stated their desire to retain the "available to all States
Parties" terminology, Germany reiterated that procurement
language should be deleted. Other delegations tried to swing
both sides to Option 3, using various CSP decisions, such as
France noting CSP-1, DEC.71, that SPs have the ability to
check out all approved equipment and Germany noting CSP-7,
DEC.20 which also states "equipment available to States
Parties of the CWC." France also noted that CSP-1, DEC.71
has an annex that describes all approved inspection equipment
down to the last detail. These citations did not move Iran
or India from their stance. In particular India mentioned
that these references are all over the place, thus were not
helpful.


12. (U) In the end, Germany agreed to go with Option 3, but
by then they had alienated Iran and India to the point they
would not budge. Thus there was no further progress on this
issue. The facilitator attempted to get agreement from
delegations that at the next consultation Option 3 would be a
starting point. Although Iran and India did not argue, del
rep did not hear them say they would work with Option 3.
This issue was closed and discussion began on Para 2.2.01.


13. (U) 2.2.01 - Interpretation of Financial Rules. Iran
believes that if the EC is approving the Financial Rules,
then the EC should interpret. Other delegations drew their
attention to the second sentence of the proposed rule, which
would cover the EC's rights, but Iran remained firm on this.
Delegations pointed out that this is micromanaging the DG and
could lead to expensive special ECs for interpretations of
the rules. Discussion went no-where and was closed. There
was no discussion of 1.1.01 - Authority and Applicability.


14. (U) The facilitator asked delegations to take to capitals
the procurement language and noted that he will talk
bilaterally with delegations on the outstanding issues. He
noted that the next consultations would be after the May EC.


15. (U) Javits sends.
ARNALL