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

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 001615 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 LEDDY WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION (CWC): WRAP-UP FOR TWO WEEKS ENDING AUGUST 31 This is CWC-73-07. -------------- 2008 BUDGET CONSULTATIONS ) ROUND 1 -------------- ¶1. (U) On August 29, Diana Gosens (Netherlands) chaired the first consultation on the DG,s Draft Program and Budget for ¶2008. She was careful to point out that this meeting was only to cover Programme 1 (Verification),thus avoiding premature (and expected to be contentious) discussions on numbers and allocation of inspections. Per Runn (acting Director, Verification while Horst Reeps was traveling in the U.S.) gave a brief summary of this Programme, noting that staffing numbers remain static and that there are no plans for the use of outside consultants. ¶2. (U) Japan and Canada asked some basic questions on the assumptions behind the consultancy and overtime planning. Japan then asked about the discussion in para 5.52 (the possible restructuring of the Equipment Store under the Inspectorate rather than Verification) and whether this could be done under the DG,s initiative or whether it required EC approval. Ron Nelson (Director, Administration) pointed out that the structure of the TS is now 10 years old and several areas were being looked at for possible restructuring. He also noted that these possible restructurings would only require EC approval in the case that a given position was reclassified. ¶3. (U) Belgium, Canada, and India commented on electronic declarations ) progress to date, whether this would be done for Article VI only, and ties to VIS. Per Runn noted that nine (9) States Parties (SPs) submitted e-declarations this year and that the 2008 goal of 70 percent, while ambitious, is achievable. He also said that they expected to have all of the e-declaration tools out to SPs by the end of this year. ¶4. (U) France asked when SPs should expect to see a report on the results-based budgeting (RBB) report for 2006. The TS stated that this report is basically done now and expects to release it to SPs within a month. Canada emphasized the importance of training within the budget. India asked about the TS,s forthcoming paper on the VIS and whether it would discuss security provisions. Per Runn stated that this paper would be coming out soon, but pointed out that the security provisions are reviewed by a separate audit team ¶5. (U) Germany asked about para 4.12 (biomedical sampling and analysis) and the TS,s plans to deal with this. Per Runn stated that the TS is not looking for in-house capability in this area but will likely depend on a structure similar to the Designated Laboratories system for chemical sampling and analysis. -------------- EC VISIT PLANNING -------------- ¶6. (U) Del rep continues to work with Technical Secretariat (TS) officials and delegations to complete the administrative and logistical planning necessary for the EC visit to the Anniston Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility in October. Del has alerted the U.S. consulate in Amsterdam to the potential visa applications, and has provided the list of participants from the EC and TS to Washington. The TS has agreed to assist in domestic travel reservations, and has expressed an interest in providing a technical, verification-focused briefing on Anniston prior to the delegation,s departure from The Hague. Del has received several questions about the level of representation and expertise the visitors can expect to encounter, with an additional emphasis from the French delegation on the political element of the visit. Del recommends Washington carefully consider its interagency representation in order to clearly demonstrate the U.S. political commitment to chemical weapons destruction, a topic that will likely figure prominently in post-visit reporting in The Hague. The appropriate representation may be critical in discouraging continued interest in including Washington in the visit program, an element del was expressly instructed to exclude from the visit decision last year. -------------- IRAQI ACCESSION -------------- ¶7. (U) After some initial confusion, del has confirmed with Director of Verification Horst Reeps that the TS does not intend to move forward with a September 15-20 workshop in Amman to finalize the Iraqi initial declaration. Del has recommended postponing the workshop, particularly given the uncertainty surrounding the availability of Iraqi experts. Following the August 16 meeting with Reeps, del has learned in subsequent discussions that the UK is concerned by their perception that the TS is &rushing8 completion of the initial declaration, and that the TS seems inclined to rely heavily on the UK and U.S. to provide information the Iraqis may be missing. Reeps, request for video footage, photos or satellite imagery of damaged or destroyed former chemical weapons facilities in Iraq has also caused some concern in London; del understands that the UK does not currently plan to provide assistance in this area. -------------- INDUSTRY AND PROTECTION FORUM -------------- ¶8. (U) Del rep met on August 17 with Krzysztof Paturej (TS, Director, Office of Special Projects),at his request. The topic was the upcoming Industry and Protection Forum (IPF),a part of the 10th Anniversary activities. The ideas he presented were not new but have been raised earlier with senior management within ISN/CB and BIS. Paturej,s hope is that careful planning of the IPF will create a platform for supporting effective national implementation by engaging all key stakeholders, including industry, trade and import/export control experts, and security experts. He fairly pointed out that the TS,s continual efforts to raise awareness with National Authorities do not always result in subsequent awareness within industry and other stakeholders. He hoped that perhaps active sharing of lessons learned between the industries of various States Parties could result in more awareness of the CWC and allow the sharing of methodologies, lessons learned, etc. Paturej finally alluded to the fact that his staff is minimal (i.e., he and one other administrative person),and that he hoped some delegations could provide logistical and (where possible) financial support of these ongoing efforts. He will keep the Del on the e-mail list for IPF planning. -------------- -------------- DUTCH MFA REQUEST FOR SEPTEMBER DONOR COORDINATION MEETING -------------- -------------- ¶9. (U) Del rep received an inquiry from the Dutch MFA as to whether or not the U.S. intends to provide a more substantive briefing on the U.S. program to assist in Russia,s destruction of its chemical weapons stockpile. Delegation understands that DOD intends to present an overview of U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction assistance efforts at the September 24 informal meeting of States Parties assisting Russia with chemical weapons destruction. Delegation will await confirmation from Washington before providing a positive response to the Dutch MFA. -------------- -------------- INFORMAL MEETING WITH ARTICLE X FACILITATOR -------------- -------------- ¶10. (U) Del reps met with Article X Facilitator Jitka Brodska (Czech Republic) on August 21 to discuss upcoming meetings. Brodska is planning for the next consultative meeting to take place during the week of October 8. In this meeting the focus will be on Paragraph 7, the Protection Network and the Qualified Experts List. ¶11. (U) In regard to Paragraph 7, Brodska reported that voluntary contributions have increased. This has generated some discussion among a variety of delegations about an excessive use of voluntary contributions for Article X instead of line items in the OPCW budget. ¶12. (U) Brodska noted that regular meetings on the Protection Network need to be re-established. She feels that there still needs to be discussion and agreement on how the Protection Network will work. She believes that the TS needs more experts and a clearer idea of its intention in regard to the Protection Network. -------------- VERIFICATION IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (VIR) -------------- ¶13. (U) Del reps met with Head of Policy Review Branch Per Runn to discuss the TS Corrigendum to the 2006 VIR. Runn, who lost most of his experienced staff over the summer, has agreed to look into the issues raised in the U.S. written comments that were not addressed in the corrigendum. As in past years, Runn does anticipate providing a specific written response to the U.S. comments, and agreed that a second corrigendum will be necessary; due to his personnel situation, timing on availability of these documents is unclear. In accordance with STATE 081267, del reps also initiated follow-up on several additional issues not covered in the U.S. written comments; initial response has been forwarded via classified email to Washington. ¶14. BEIK SENDS. Gallagher