CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000977

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 28

This is CWC-37-06.

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


1. (U) Feedback has been fairly limited on the U.S. 100%
extension request. In WEOG, delegations have generally been
very supportive of U.S. transparency, and grateful for the
presence of DASA Ormond to answer initial program questions.
A notable exception was Norway, who (claiming she was
speaking on instructions from Oslo) expressed great
disappointment in U.S. delays and concern about the opening
this might create for "mischief makers," even going so far as
to suggest that WEOG might not necessarily speak with one
voice on this issue.


2. (U) GRULAC reaction is not yet clear, but will likely
center on Article VII implications. If initial South African
comments are any indication, the Africa Group reaction may be
more emotional. Ambassador Mkhize expressed shock,
disappointment and concern that a large and powerful nation
like the U.S. is unable to meet its fundamental treaty
obligations. In the Asia Group, del has heard informal
feedback that the U.S. extension request was met with delight
by Iran. India has also made comments regarding "double
standards," and will likely be quick to link destruction and
Article VII obligations.


3. (U) The Eastern European Group has also been quite
supportive of U.S. efforts and transparency. Russia has
desisted in its line of "legality" questioning, and has
turned to inquiring about U.S. plans to table a draft
decision instead. Russian del stated Moscow had not
initially intended to table a draft decision for their
extension at the May EC, but seemed to believe U.S. plans
might be influential.


4. (U) One common (and potentially damaging) theme that has
arisen is the perceived message that the U.S. has already
closed out certain courses of action as inappropriate. This
is based primarily on U.S. categorization of calls for
amendments as "premature," without offering any alternative
approaches. (Del comment: Recommend focusing responses on
the responsibility of all member states to contribute to a
consensus decision when the time is right, and avoiding
categorical dismissal of any specific solutions to the 2012
problem. End comment.) Finally, several delegations (China,
Algeria) have already noted that, given the inevitable
linkage that will be made between CW destruction and Article
VII obligations, the U.S. needs to temper its approach to
Article VII implementation and compliance.

--------------
EXTENSION REQUESTS
--------------


5. (U) Russia submitted its "Amended Detailed Plan for
Destruction" (considered by Moscow to be the only submission
required by the CWC prior to April 29, in light of its
previous request to extend "in principle" its 100%
destruction deadline to April 29, 2012). A copy of the
original submission, in Russian, has been provided to
Washington, and the Technical Secretariat anticipates
distributing a translated version before May 5. Japan and
China also submitted their joint extension request, details
of which will be included in the EC-45 scenesetter.

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


6. (U) At the request of several delegations, no
consultation was held this week. Del rep was contacted by
Amb. Lak regarding the desire to gather those that have
participated in Technical Assistance Visits to share
progress, particularly that of the visited States Parties
since the TAVs. He was finding that only the U.S. delegation
had such staff on hand. He is now looking at holding such a

meeting next week to hopefully have experts in from capitals
who may have participated in TAVs. All of this seems to
indicate the significant level of effort by the U.S. in this
area when compared with other SPs. The next meeting on May 2
will be to start working on report language.


7. (U) At a representational event during the week, del rep
was approached by the Argentinean delegate who in a somewhat
exercised state, said that she was very concerned about USG
efforts to kill regional workshops to promote TAVs. She said
that this had been a major topic of conversation at that
week's GRULAC meeting. Del rep assured her that we did not
advocate an "either -- or" approach concerning TAVs and were
not opposed to regional meetings, but simply wanted to be
assured by the TS that adequate resources would be available
for TAVs. She seemed to be reassured by this. Amb. Javits
has made this clear to the Ambassador of Uruguay, and del
reps will be reiterating this point with other GRULAC
delegations. This "concern" in GRULAC may be the result of
the efforts by some in the TS who are resistant to TAVs
spreading the word that the USG favors the elimination of all
regional workshops in favor of TAVs.


8. (U) At the same rep event, the Algerian delegate told del
rep that while he found the U.S. extension request
presentation very credible and compelling, it highlighted the
need for us to soften our tone a bit on Article VII to avoid
looking hypocritical. According to the Algerian, we now need
to show a bit more carrot and less stick in our statements.
The message from the Algerians seemed clearly to be "push
your message but moderate your tone a bit."

--------------
LATE DECLARATIONS
--------------


9. (U) The TS released its regular report on the latest
round of industry declarations on April 25 (S/567/2006, dated
25 April 2006). It shows that many SPs did a much better job
of getting their declarations in on time, but there is
significant work yet to do. It also shows that two SPs
submitted nil declarations, which has been a trend over the
last couple of cycles. With this in hand, del rep has
prepared the first facilitator's paper for the late
declarations consultation, which included a concept paper on
nil declarations (based on previously interagency-cleared
language),and sent it to the TS for distribution. This will
be used as the basis for the kick-off meeting on Wednesday,
May 3.

--------------
CHALLENGE INSPECTION
--------------


10. (U) Challenge inspection consultations were held on April
27, facilitated by Kang Yong (PRC). At the previous session,
delegations seemed to agree that tackling the "unresolved
issues" might be a productive approach to future
consultations. In keeping with this sentiment, Kang
circulated a draft decision (C-IV/DEC/CRP.17, dated June 25,
1999) on the timing of notifications, and opened the session
by explaining that he did not necessarily expect consensus on
this particular text, but believed it would be a good basis
for discussion.


11. (U) Per Runn, head of Policy Review Branch, offered TS
thoughts on the issue, highlighting the fact that initial
discussions took place in the absence of Inspectorate
experience, which has increased significantly over the years.
Runn explained the TS perspective of wanting to receive the
specific location as soon as possible from the Requesting
State Party, and also implied (despite earlier
conversations),that practical interpretation of the CWC
might actually give rise to a "split notification" scenario
(transmission of the Challenge Inspection Request to the
Inspected State Party, followed by later notification of the
location). Finally, Runn expressed TS concern over language
in the decision that seemed to create a conflict with
guidelines set out in Article IX and Part X of the

Verification Annex.


12. (U) General discussions centered on likely practical
scenarios following a CI Request. Most delegations agreed
that an Inspected SP would be aware almost immediately of any
request, whether through its position on the Executive
Council, requests for clarification or other political
indicators, or simply rapid spreading of the information
throughout the fairly small OPCW community. Del rep pointed
to the consistent message in Article IX and Part X that the
Director General would execute his duties under the CI in an
expeditious manner, and inquired as to what delegations
thought might have been the real issue the decision had been
drafted to clarify or resolve.


13. (U) Norway and the Netherlands also spoke in support of
the idea that in practical terms, the element of surprise
would be difficult to retain, and suggested that a CI
exercise involving the EC might be useful. Germany finally
proposed dropping the draft decision instead including in
report language at an upcoming EC a recommendation to drop
"timing of notifications" from the list of unresolved issues.
The proposal was widely supported by delegations, with the
notable exception of Iran.


14. (U) The only delegation who spoke out in favor of the
decision was Iran, who seemed quite intent upon reaching
consensus on this particular topic, and removing it from the
list of unresolved issues. Iran was later the only
delegation to express support for the concept of adjusting
notification timelines for public holidays, working hours,
etc. Iran's remarks seemed, in general, to be meant to imply
that additional language or guidelines are necessary before
the CI can be considered a viable tool under the CWC. Del
rep, supported by the UK and Italy, spoke out against this
concept and expressed the view that the CI, while complex, is
adequately outlined by provisions in the CWC.


15. (U) In conclusion, Kang reviewed points discussed, but
did not elaborate on a way forward for this particular issue,
or consultations in general. In sidebar discussions
following the meeting, the UK was particularly concerned that
Iran not be given this decision, in light of its
obstructionist role in almost all current consultations.
Canada noted that any decision would be purely political; in
its view, the decision is clearly unnecessary, and would only
be useful as political leverage with Iran.

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


16. (U) The TS Article X Software Developer, Frans Meijer,
presented the database to delegations on April 28. The
meeting was widely attended by delegations across all
regional groups. The database is clear and concise, easy to
read and easy to navigate. A facet of the database
delegations found interesting is when clicking into the
offers of assistance window, there is the option to see a PDF
of the original offer document. When he showed courses that
have been offered by the TS over past years, he pointed out
that with a little development the TS could put out on the
website information for upcoming courses, with registration
applications and applicants could get their approval/denial
via email. The database has an interesting section where a
user can search for articles and books on specific topics,
and the user can get copies of the articles, but not books
(copyright issues).


17. (U) The developer noted the TS needs details from SPs on
other information to be included in the database. They were
given suggestions, such as from Iran, that even though there
is only one bilateral agreement, this information should be
included in the database. The developer tried to explain he
could not set up an accurate format without more agreements
to work from, however, delegations got him to concede the
format is a relatively easy thing to change. Iran was
obviously working from a political point of view as it has
the only bilateral agreement, but other delegations including


the UK and Italy agreed it should be added. Iran and Austria
asked about putting in a section on protection equipment on
the market and their manufacturers. France reminded them
that paragraph 5 is very generic, that its information to be
provided by SPs. Iran wanted a search function with the
adaptability of Yahoo or Google, however the TS and other
delegations noted that this was impossible given the
organization's budget.


18. (U) Italy was concerned that in the current form the
general overview page shows who has completed their National
Program and Offers of Assistance questionnaires and when.
France pointed out that it is just information and there is
no attempt to make it into an analytical document. Japan
said after the sarin gas attack in Tokyo, it created a list
of toxins and medications. They suggested adding a similar
section in the datebase. (Comment: Del rep believes this
idea fits the parameters of an Assistance and Protection
Database and would welcome comments from Washington.)


19. (U) John Makhubalo Director of International Cooperation
and Assistance, laid out information the TS needs from SPs in
order to get the database out. First, decide what
information needs to go into the database. Second, decide
who will have what kind of access. He suggested the public
could have access to general assistance and protection
information and SPs and National Authorities have everything
else.


20. (U) Emma Gordon (UK) mentioned prior to the meeting that
Frans Meijer told her that he would be leaving soon, but she
was unaware if it was his choice or that of the TS
Previously, the TS had indicated his contract ran through the
end of the year. During discussions, Makhubalo said the TS
is attempting to fill a P-4 position in ABP who would be in
charge of the database. Del rep will attempt to gain clarity
on this. After the presentation, the UK said it believed
their original decision language on the database is still
valid. However, del rep noted that SPs cannot ask the TS to
adhere to a deadline they cannot meet without information
they need from SPs (information to be included and who will
have access to the database).


21. (U) There is a possibility of consultations on May 12,
with the topic to be a briefing on the Joint Assistance
Exercise 2005.

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


22. (U) Consultations on Repayment Plans for States Party to
regularize their arrears were held on April 26. The
facilitator Jae-woong Lee (ROK) distributed a new proposal
(faxed to ISN/CB on April 28) in an attempt to get
delegations to focus on the mechanisms to be incorporated
into possible repayment plans. All delegations, with the
exception of Italy, were supportive of the document as a
basis for discussion and for possible decision language. The
Italian delegation asked again why SPs that were in arrears
but had not yet lost their voting rights were not addressed
in the co-facilitator's proposal. Lee explained that at the
last consultation there had been a general consensus that any
repayment plan would only address SPs that had lost their
voting rights.


23. (U) Delegations then reviewed paragraphs A through J of
the facilitators' proposal. In paragraph A, both the U.S.
and Japan suggested that some reference to the CSP having the
final authority to approve repayment plans should be included
in the language. The German delegation suggested that the
language in paragraph A be modified so that the reference to
restoring voting rights be moved to the second part of the
paragraph, and the first part of the paragraph refer to the
submission of the repayment plans themselves. The Germans
were keen to emphasize, once again, that there should be a
two-step process in which the repayment plans are approved
first and then the issue of restoring voting rights would be
addressed.



24. (U) The Germans also suggested that the references to
repayment plans being "mandatory" for the restoration of
voting rights be deleted, as there may be cases in which the
CSP wishes to restore voting rights independent of a
repayment plan as laid out already in the CWC. Japan, Italy,
Iran, and China supported the German suggestion. The
facilitator said he would redraft paragraph A to address
delegation's concerns.


25. (U) Australia and Ireland suggested deleting paragraph B
as it would micromanage the TS. They also suggested that the
reference to submitting a detailed description of the
conditions/reasons that caused the arrears to accumulate be
moved to an appropriate part of either paragraph A or H.


26. (U) Del rep supported the retention of paragraph C.
Japan and Italy suggested that the word "negotiating" be
changed as it was too strong. Australia suggested that the
paragraph could possibly deleted as it was too process
oriented and would result in micromanagement of the TS by SPs.


27. (U) Del rep and China suggested the deletion of
paragraph D. No one opposed. There were no substantive
comments on paragraph E.


28. (U) On paragraph F, Iran suggested that the payments be
spread evenly over the payment period. Iran also questioned
making an exception to financial regulation 5.6C that would
allow the first payment to be credited towards an SPs current
year assessment. France strongly supported paragraph F and
questioned whether or not SPs would have an incentive to pay
if their first payment was not credited towards the current
year's assessment. Japan, the U.S. and Germany supported the
French view.


29. (U) The facilitator noted that he would redraft
paragraphs G and H to bring them in line with his redrafting
of paragraph A.


30. (U) Iran and Italy opposed paragraph I. The U.S.
suggested that the CSP approval of a given repayment plan
could outline what would happen (i.e. loss of voting rights)
if an SP fell behind on its repayment plan. Australia
supported the U.S. China suggested that the CSP make a
decision if an SP were to become delinquent on its repayment
plan.


31. (U) The U.S. Iran, China, Germany, and Italy were
opposed to paragraph J. The facilitator agreed to drop the
paragraph. The next consultation on repayment plans will be
held after the May EC, at which the facilitator will present
his redrafted proposal based on dels comments.


32. (U) Javits sends.
ARNALL