CWC: WRAP-UP FOR SEPTEMBER 8-12, 2008

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000776 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR ISN/CB, VCI/CCA, L/NPV, IO/MPR, SECDEF FOR OSD/GSA/CN,CP> JOINT STAFF FOR DD PMA-A FOR WTC COMMERCE FOR BIS (ROBERTS AND DENYER) NSC FOR FLY WINPAC FOR WALTER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PARM PREL CWC SUBJECT: CWC: WRAP-UP FOR SEPTEMBER 8-12, 2008 REF: THE HAGUE 755 This is CWC-040-08 -------------- SUMMARY -------------- ¶1. (SBU) Budget negotiations began in earnest September 8 and a consultation on the External Auditor's Report was held on September 10. The Western European and Others Group (WEOG) met twice, once for its regular weekly discussion and again on September 11 as the "WEOG PLUS" (including non-WEOG European Union Countries, Japan and South Korea) for a debrief from members of the visiting team just back from the Shchuchye destruction facility in the Russian Federation, including ISN/CB Director Mikulak. ¶2. (SBU) The U.S. Delegation and others continued to push for an early meeting on industry cluster issues against the resistance of the Technical Secretariat; Ambassador Javits even raised our concerns with the Director General. A meeting has subsequently been scheduled for September 29. The Italian delegation invited Amb. Javits, German Amb. Burkart and Delreps to discuss the upcoming conference in Florence on low concentrations and Other Chemical Production Facilities (OCPFs). ¶3. (SBU) ISN/EX Deputy Executive Director Bill Amoroso visited September 11-12. His productive round of discussions included two new prospects, a possible co-occupant for the Delegation's office and standardizing the Del's leases within State's Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO). -------------- BUDGET: VERIFICATION -------------- ¶4. (U) On September 8, budget facilitator Martin Strub (Switzerland) chaired the first consultation on the draft 2009 budget after the summer break. Following Strub's previously-circulated schedule of meetings, the consultations focused on the budget for the Verification Division. Horst Reeps (Director, Verification) gave an overview of planned activities for 2009 and clarified some portions of his division's budget. Reeps reported that he expects China and Russia to start making electronic declarations in 2009. In addition to the countries already making e-declarations, this would mean that over 70% of the total number of annual declarations would be provided to the TS electronically. In conjunction with the International Cooperation and Assistance Division (ICA),Reeps noted that his division will conduct four workshops on e- declarations and will hold a number of bilateral meetings with national authorities to promote providing declarations electronically and to introduce the TS's e-declaration software (Electronic Data submission for National Authorities, EDNA), which will be released by the end of 2008. ¶5. (U) On inspections, Reeps stated that, due to the new site selection methodology introduced in January 2008, the number of inspections to countries with more Schedule 3 facilities and OCPFs has increased and will continue to do so in 2009. Before addressing the TS's plans for bio-sampling in 2009, Reeps posited that sampling and analysis (S&A) at Schedule 2 facilities has been successful and useful and said that he expects the use of S&A to continue smoothly without any problems. Due to the extremely high investment required to develop in-house bio- sampling capabilities, Reeps said that the TS instead has decided to build up a network of labs and out- source bio-sampling. Reeps' division will bring in an expert to assist with development. ¶6. (U) The Netherlands suggested revising many of the key performance indicators (KPIs) to reflect results that the TS can strive for -- instead of results that depend more on States Parties rather than the TS. South Africa and Iran also spoke in favor of refining the KPIs to make them realistic and more measurable. Japan noted that a number of KPIs in the draft 2009 budget are more abstract than in 2008 and also noted the need to ensure consistency between the indicators in the budget and the TS's performance report. The DDG responded that the TS is trying gradually to improve KPIs but maintained that many targets naturally are dependent on States Parties' actions. ¶7. (U) China voiced its support for VIS but noted that moving to e-declarations poses technical challenges and requested support and advice from the TS on successful implementation. China, supported later by Iran, also noted its concern at the proposed increase in OCPF inspections, stating that refinement of declarations and a review of the site selection methodology need to be discussed before changing the frequency of inspections. ¶8. (U) Delrep and Japan both questioned the large under-spend for equipment in 2007 and asked for clarification on what happened to the unspent money. Reeps responded that the under-spend resulted from a supplier's inability to deliver some equipment by the end of the year, so the unspent money was transferred into the TS's Equipment Special Account for use later. Reeps said that his division adheres to a procurement and equipment replacement plan and that he expects to spend most of the money budgeted for equipment in 2008. Labib Sahab, Head of Budget and Planning, noted when asked that, as of the end of July, Verification had spent or obligated just under 40% of its 2008 equipment budget. ¶9. (U) Aside from stating that developing countries need assistance with S&A, Iran reiterated its insistence from previous years that "non- proliferation" not be included in the budget document, arguing that it should be brought in line with the Convention and the report of the Second Review Conference (RevCon). -------------- WEOG -------------- ¶10. (SBU) On September 9, Coordinator Ruth Surkau (Germany) chaired the weekly meeting of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG). The meeting focused on budget consultations, industry issues, and Article XI. The budget facilitator, Martin Strub (Switzerland),shared his view that the Technical Secretariat (TS) had answered most questions well during the first consultation. Strub highlighted that China and Iran had voiced unhappiness with increased inspections, especially for Other Chemical Production Facilities (OCPFs),and suggested that agreement on the number of inspections for 2009 will require delicate discussions. ¶11. (SBU) In contrast to Strub, delegates from France, the UK and the Netherlands all expressed their dismay at the TS's unwillingness or inability to answer many questions clearly or coherently. The French delegate said it was not optimistic for future consultations given the active nature of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) delegations such as South Africa, India, and Iran. She also portrayed the Iranian refusal to accept references to "non-proliferation" anywhere in the budget document as "deja vu" from last year's budget consultations. ¶12. (SBU) The UK rep noted that the TS was not as prepared to answer questions as it should have been, particularly following the meeting of the Advisory Body on Administrative and Financial matters (ABAF) the week before. The UK also characterized Verification Director Reeps' presentation as a bit inappropriate at times, citing some personal attacks on countries. Turning to the next budget consultation, the UK delegate shared that her government views 10 additional OCPF inspections as insufficient and will push instead for 20-30 additional OCPF inspections. ¶13. (SBU) Sweden noted that Cuba had remained silent during the consultation and suggested that NAM delegations had not been acting in a coordinated manner but rather were following national positions. The Swedish delegate also observed that the NAM had met following the budget consultation, so the bloc's coordination might increase in later consultations. ¶14. (U) Moving to industry issues, Surkau reported that, according to Bill Kane (Head, Industry Verification Branch),the next Industry Cluster meeting would probably be planned for late October or early November. The Netherlands, the UK, and the U.S. Del all spoke in favor of having the Industry Cluster meet sooner, preferably before EC-54, to discuss a number of important outstanding issues. Italy briefly announced its upcoming Florence seminar to discuss OCPFs and low concentrations. ¶15. (SBU) Surkau announced that Article XI facilitator Li Hong (China) plans to hold a consultation before the end of September. The UK noted that its national paper on Article XI had been written in London and had been circulated only to the WEOG, Li Hong, and Kalimi Mworia (Director, International Cooperation and Assistance). -------------- EXTERNAL AUDITOR'S REPORT -------------- ¶16. (U) On September 10, facilitator Takayuki Kitagawa (Japan) held the first consultation on the External Auditor's Report for 2007; the document had been deferred from EC-53 to EC-54 (ref B) to allow for consultations on the report. Ron Nelson (Director, Administration) represented the TS and responded to delegations' questions. ¶17. (U) A number of delegations asked about the high level of under-spend (termed "savings" by the External Auditor) for 2007, particularly in Verification and International Cooperation and Assistance (ICA). The Netherlands noted that some divisions and programs regularly under-spend each year and asked what the TS can do to tackle this. ¶18. (U) Nelson explained that the budget is always an estimate and not an accounting document, so there will always be variances. According to Nelson, the OPCW's annual under-spend rate is in line with the average for other international organizations (2-3%). Throughout the year, the TS's Budget Committee (chaired by the DDG) tracks spending and consults with programs showing an under-spend to identify areas where they can spend the money or other programs to which unspent funds can be transferred. Nelson indicated that the under-spend rate for 2008 will be lower than in 2007. ¶19. (U) South Africa asked what percent of under- spend was directly related to late payment by States Parties of their annual assessed contributions and suggested that a change in the financial rules to allow the TS to obligate funds based on estimated income (rather than on actual receipts) might give the TS more flexibility and offset the effect of late payments. Nelson said that the under-spend in 2007 was not due at all to late payments. And, while the TS has used its Working Capital Fund only once, Nelson admitted that the TS regularly uses the previous year's surplus to cover current year expenses on the assumption that it will be refunded before the end of the year with late payments for assessments. ¶20. (U) A number of delegations also asked for clarification on the special accounts, especially the Equipment Special Account. Nelson promised to circulate a paper explaining the basis for the special accounts. In response to Delrep's request for an update on the OPCW's asset management system, Nelson said that the TS's current SmartStream system has an asset management capability. The TS is consulting with SmartStream's developers to see what changes will need to be made to the TS's system. -------------- BUDGET: INSPECTORATE -------------- ¶21. (U) On September 11, budget facilitator Martin Strub (Switzerland) chaired the next planned consultation on the Inspectorate Division's budget. Jose Carvalho (Head, Inspectorate Management Branch) gave an overview of the Inspectorate's new initiatives for 2009, including: expanding training to accommodate the larger batches of new inspectors, automation of mission planning procedures, and transfer of the Equipment Store from Verification. While delegations raised some technical questions, most of the discussion was focused on the number of OCPF inspections and inclusion of "non-proliferation" in the budget document. ¶22. (U) India, China, Cuba, Iran, South Africa, and Brazil all, to varying degrees, questioned the proposed increase in OCPF inspections; most contended that OCPF inspections should remain static while a full discussion of OCPF-related issues is ongoing. Iran even claimed that OCPF declarations have been decreasing, so OCPF inspections should follow suit. The DDG repeatedly noted the Director-General's (DG's) obligation to propose a number for all inspection types and stated that the 2009 proposal reflects his personal view on what is necessary. ¶23. (U) The UK was the first WEOG delegation to speak on OCPF inspections. As expected, the UK delegate cited receiving instructions from London that 10 additional inspections would be insufficient and that 20-30 would be more appropriate. The UK delegate noted the difference between inspection numbers and frequency, arguing that inspections numbers should increase while concomitantly discussing the frequency of inspections (as called for in the RevCon report). Delrep, France, Italy, Ireland, and New Zealand all spoke in favor of increasing OCPF inspections while concurrently discussing OCPF-related issues. ¶24. (U) Returning to its comments during the first budget consultation on September 8, Iran again insisted that all references to "non-proliferation" should be removed throughout the budget document. Claiming to have approved last year's budget -- including the use of the term "non-proliferation" throughout last year's budget document -- only for the sake of compromise, Iran explained that it was not "allergic" to non-proliferation but rather to any departure from the Convention and "Convention language." At one point, Iran even described the TS's use of "non-proliferation" in the budget as deviating from the Convention. ¶25. (SBU) Japan, the UK, France, Italy, Ireland, and Sweden all spoke in favor of keeping "non- proliferation" in the budget document, with Ireland, France, and Sweden all citing references to non- proliferation in the Convention and the RevCon report. The DDG strongly defended the TS's use of "non-proliferation," appearing to take issue personally and rejecting Iran's portrayal of the TS as "deviant." Facilitator Strub curtailed further discussion on this point, noting the purpose of the budget consultation was to discuss the "figures" not the choice of language. -------------- WEOG PLUS: SHCHUCHYE VISIT DEBRIEF -------------- ¶26. (SBU) On September 11, ISN/CB Office Director Robert Mikulak and German Ambassador to the OPCW Werner Burkart briefed the "WEOG Plus" (WEOG, non- WEOG EU members, Japan, and Korea) on their impressions upon returning from the Executive Council (EC) visit to Shchuchye that morning. EC Chair Amb. Oksana Tomova (Slovakia) also attended in her national capacity and shared her impressions of the visit. ¶27. (SBU) Tomova gave the group an overview of the visit, which included interactions with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Industry, and local authorities. She noted that she was particularly struck by the impression of Russian preparedness to fulfill treaty obligations, Gen. Kholstov's personal responsibility and involvement, and the positive impact of the chemical weapons destruction facility on the surrounding community. Tomova also reported that the visiting delegation had asked questions not only specific to Shchuchye, but also related to the Russian CW destruction program as a whole, particularly the construction and future operations of Pochep and Kizner. ¶28. (SBU) Mikulak then gave a more detailed explanation of the visit, beginning with his impression that the commitment of the Russian Federation to its 45% and 100% deadlines was very evident, as was the impact of Kholstov's dedicated leadership and an improved Russian economy. In Mikulak's view, Russia's 45% deadline is achievable if the first and second trains at Shchuchye go into operation as scheduled. In Building 1A, testing with simulants should begin in November, followed by initial operations in December. Mikulak did note, however, that the processing rates described in the Russian pamphlet for Pochep and Kizner do not achieve 100% destruction by 2012. During the visit, Mikulak also inquired as to what risks or challenges Russia foresaw in its destruction schedule. Kholstov replied that Russia does not anticipate technical difficulties, but could foresee problems with unpredictable donor assistance, a typical remark given Russia's history of implying donor responsibility for program delays. ¶29. (SBU) Burkart agreed that a huge effort is clearly being made in Russia, and described the tone of the visit as fairly collegial. He noted that Kholstov was rather vague in his replies to questions on the end point of destruction and the capacities and operational timelines for Pochep and Kizner. He expressed some reservations that the current timelines seem to leave very little room for unforeseen technical problems. He also noted, however, that Kholstov did acknowledge that Russia does intend to host future visits; Mikulak added that Kholstov even said that such visits also help Russia. ¶30. (SBU) Burkart then opened the meeting for questions. Irish Ambassador Richard Ryan expressed appreciation for the delegation's willingness to brief "WEOG Plus" within hours of returning from a long day of travel. He noted that Ireland had always hoped that the first two EC visits to destruction facilities would be successful and would provide for: interactions with senior State Party officials, the opportunity to ask objective and pointed questions, and the opportunity to visit each State Party once a year. Ryan also underscored the importance of having this "record of commitment" in years to come. The French delegation asked whether the Council could be sure of Russia's financial commitment; Burkart replied that it was difficult to be absolutely certain, although the commitment was quite evident now, and noted that Kholstov had explained the difficulties Russia faces in moving money within the federal budget when donor funds do not appear on time. In closing, Amb. Javits also expressed appreciation for the delegation's work, and noted that Russia may be learning from the example of transparency set by the United States. -------------- MEETING WITH DIRECTOR-GENERAL -------------- ¶31. (SBU) On September 12, Amb. Javits met with DG Pfirter to discuss a number of issues. Amb. Javits raised the Industry Cluster, noting the need to hold a meeting before EC-54 (ref A). The DG explained that his preference was to postpone the Industry Cluster meeting until after EC-54 when a number of TS papers on industry issues would be ready for circulation. Amb. Javits assured the DG that any discussions on S&A or OCPFs would be preliminary and would lay the ground for further deliberation after the TS papers are released. Amb. Javits also pointed out the need to appoint facilitators and move on the industry issues that have been suspended since the last Industry Cluster meeting in March and the RevCon in April. ¶32. (U) NOTE: The next Industry Cluster meeting was subsequently scheduled for the afternoon of Monday, September 29, two weeks before EC-54. END NOTE. -------------- -------------- PREPARATIONS FOR FLORENCE SEMINAR ON INDUSTRY ISSUES -------------- -------------- ¶33. (U) On September 11, Amb. Javits and DelReps met with Italian Ambassador Gaetano Cortese, Italian delegate Giuseppe Cornacchia, and German Ambassador Werner Burkart to discuss the upcoming Italian- sponsored workshop in Florence on industry issues. Cornacchia outlined the proposed agenda for the 2-day workshop and explained to Amb. Javits and Amb. Burkart their roles as facilitators for discussions on low concentrations and OCPFs, respectively. ¶34. (U) TS representatives Steve Wade (Head, Declarations) and Bill Kane (Head, Industry Verification) will set the stage with historical overviews of both issues before moving into discussions. Amb. Javits and Burkart both suggested that Kane and Wade, in conjunction with the Italian organizers, suggest a list of questions to be addressed to better focus the discussions on both issues. Cornacchia stated that Italy is open to suggestions to obtain a useful result. Although they have no "preconceived outcome" in mind, they would like to see the workshop conclude with a working paper with possible solutions, or ideas for a way forward, on both issues. The group agreed that a discussion paper to bring back to the OPCW consultative process would be a useful result. -------------- -------------- VISIT OF ISN DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BILL AMOROSO -------------- -------------- ¶35. (U) ISN Deputy Executive Director Bill Amoroso visited The Hague September 11-13. He met with Amb. Javits and Del members with whom he discussed transition issues anticipated with the departure of the Ambassador. At the OPCW, Amoroso met with Administration Director Ron Nelson and discussed some upcoming personnel issues at OPCW. ¶36. (U) At the Embassy, Amoroso met with Financial Management Specialist John Vis for an overview of the Del's current budget and discussed plans for the new fiscal year. During a meeting with Management Counselor Sarah Solberg, the question of why Del residential and offices leases were not covered under the OBO umbrella was discussed. Education allowances could also be paid out of a central fund, Solberg thought. Amoroso said he would investigate and follow up. ¶37. (U) FBI Assistant Legal Attache Tim Wallach had expressed an interest in sharing office space at the Del, and said the FBI was ready to move ahead. Both Amoroso and Amb. Javits were in favor of pursuing a sub-lease arrangement with the FBI. Wallach will look into security issues and confirm personnel status. Further discussion will be needed regarding financial terms and a Memorandum of Understanding. ¶38. (U) Javits sends. Culbertson