CWC: WRAP-UP FOR OCTOBER 6-10, 2008

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000860

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 OCTOBER 6-10, 2008

REF: A. THE HAGUE 849

B. THE HAGUE 280

This is CWC-46-08

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


1. (U) Consultations continued at what is, for the
OPCW, a rapid pace with three budget meetings, and
facilitations on Articles VII, X, XI and
universality. None made much progress, but the
budget discussions reached a climax with new
documents proposing a 531,540 Euro adjustment that
would require an increase in assessments and sentdelegations frantically seeking guidance from
capitals. The Host Country Committee met twice, with
more progress achieved in three days than in many
months.


2. (SBU) The Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
held its regular meeting and an emergency budget
meeting after the new documents were distributed to
plan responses and tactics. The Permanent Five
members of the Security Council met to discuss
universality and current issues.

--------------
WEOG
--------------


3. (SBU) The Western European and Others Group (WEOG)
meeting on October 7 focused on the state of budget
negotiations, preparations for the upcoming Executive
Council (EC) session, and the selection of
facilitators for the industry cluster. Amb. Javits
cautioned against micromanagement of the Technical
Secretariat (TS) by becoming too involved in the
drafting of key performance indicators (KPIs),and
expressed U.S. support for an extra meeting of the
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). Swiss budget
facilitator Martin Strub agreed that delegations
should avoid focusing only on KPIs, and noted that
the money freed up by a decrease in projected
destruction activities was likely to dominate
following consultations. Dutch, German, and UK
delegations spoke up in favor of maintaining the
balance between Chapter I and II in the budget;
France spoke in favor of the Office of Special
Projects (OSP) retaining the flexibility to
effectively respond to the Director-General (DG).


4. (SBU) With regard to preparations for EC-54,
delegations discussed Iranian efforts to remove the
item on Enhancement of Other Chemical Production
Facility (OCPF) Declarations from the agenda. Sweden
reminded the group that the item was not "inserted,"
as Iran claims, but legitimately placed on the agenda
by EC-53, and that Iran would actually need consensus
to remove it. Italian delegate Giuseppe Cornacchia
informed delegations of his recent conversation with
Iran, after which he believes Iran will drop its
request in exchange for a fuller discussion of the
OCPF issue. Delegations also discussed Iran's last
minute mention of a possible change in its Schedule 1
Facility Agreement (from "Agreement" to
"Arrangement"),which it evidently intends to attempt
at this EC. (In a separate conversation with the TS,
Delrep learned that the Secretariat is also confused
as to the reason and timing of this request.) The
group also learned that the African Group intends to
request membership on the Advisory Body for
Administrative and Financial Matters (ABAF) for
Morocco, Algeria, Kenya and South Africa, as there
are currently no African experts on the ABAF. (Del
note: Delrep learned later that the African Group
had sent nomination letters to the DG for four
Qhad sent nomination letters to the DG for four
candidates -- all of whom are delegates based in The
Hague -- to be approved at EC-54.)


5. (SBU) Surkau briefed the group on the results of a
lunch she hosted for regional group coordinators, and
noted that despite South Africa and Pakistan's
emphasis on the importance of finding facilitators
from all of the regional groups, there had been no
objections voiced to the candidatures of Giuseppe
Cornacchia (Italy) and Diana Gosens (Netherlands) for
industry cluster facilitations. She also mentioned
the fact that Poland had been raised as another
possible candidate for a future facilitation.
Germany noted that there are still more topics in the
industry cluster that bear further discussion,
including the third selection criterion for OCPFs and
Schedule 1 and 2 inspection frequency.


6. (U) On the topic of other consultations, Surkau
mentioned the fact that Article VII facilitator Said
Moussi continues to steer delegations toward a
decision. Italy also noted Cuba's apparent
unwillingness to work further on elaborating a
concept for an Article XI workshop. Under any other
business, France briefed the group on the Vilnius
Seminar on Sea-dumped Munitions.


7. (SBU) On October 9, Surkau convened a special WEOG
meeting to discuss budget developments, as well as to
provide an update on industry cluster facilitations.
On the latter point, Surkau announced that Marthinus
Van Schalkwyk (South Africa) had expressed his
interest in facilitating consultations on OCPF
enhanced declarations. While Gosens had originally
volunteered for this role, she agreed to step aside
in favor of having a non-WEOG facilitator. (Del
note: Gosens told Delrep that she would consider
taking on a different facilitation after January.)

--------------
ARTICLE VII CONSULTATIONS
--------------


8. (U) On October 7, Said Moussi (Algeria) held a
meeting to discuss the recently-issued Article VII
annual report. Legal Advisor Santiago Onate provided
an overview of the report and highlighted that 96% of
States Parties have designated a national authority.
Germany, Italy and Russia expressed moderate
satisfaction with Article VII progress but said that
more needs to be done; Russia stated that Article VII
obligations should be linked to other articles, such
as being a prerequisite for Article XI benefits.


9. (U) Iran said that, due to the report's length and
its release so close to the EC, it would not have
enough time to review it fully and suggested
deferring its consideration. Iran then raised its
objection to the specific mention of the "EU strategy
against the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction," arguing that the specific EU program
need not be named since no other donor's program was
listed. The TS and several EU delegations defended
the reference; France pointed out that the EU is
specifically mentioned as a donor due to its not
being a member state.


10. (U) As he had done during the previous
consultation, Moussi again asked how to move forward
to the EC and the CSP, specifically looking for
support for a decision on Article VII implementation.
In a change from their previous noncommittal
QIn a change from their previous noncommittal
positions, Germany and France both spoke in favor of
a decision in order to enhance Article VII's
visibility. Russia also supported having a decision.
With most other delegations remaining agnostic, Iran
was the only delegation to oppose a decision.
--------------
ARTICLE X CONSULTATIONS
--------------


11. (U) On October 7, facilitator Victor Smirnovsky
(Russia) convened a meeting to discuss Article X
(Assistance and Protection). The Secretariat was, as
in past meetings, largely unable to explain its
activities to the satisfaction of delegations. The
first agenda item was a TS presentation on its
participation in TRIPLEX 2008, a disaster response
exercise held in Norway and Sweden (slides forwarded
separately to Washington). The German and Russian
delegations both noted that the scenario was not
specifically within the mandate of Article X, and
asked whether the Secretariat might not be able to
develop or participate in a more targeted exercise.


12. (U) The Secretariat also introduced the DG's
latest report on Article X Implementation, with the
facilitator noting that this additional report (the
second this year) was published in response to the
CSP-12 mandate to conduct "intensive deliberations."
Iran asked a number of specific questions, almost
none of which were answered by the Secretariat. To
counter possible Iranian assertions that the Council
has not worked enough on this issue since CSP-12,
U.S. Delrep expressed appreciation for the
comprehensive report and noted that the Secretariat
is clearly continuing work in this area, and that its
capacity building efforts enhanced State Parties'
abilities to respond to a CW scenario. Delrep also
asked the Secretariat for a preliminary assessment of
its excursions to "inspect" SP offers of assistance
under Article X, the value of which a number of
delegations have questioned. Assistance and
Protection Branch Head Gennadi Lutay said that it was
too early to make any assessment, but that the visits
had been very useful.


13. (U) Iran noted that the Secretariat still has not
responded to its suggestion that a list of needs or
shortfalls in the area of assistance and protection
be compiled. Previous facilitator Jitka Brodska
(Czech Republic) then introduced the Czech non-paper
on Article X. She noted that the paper focuses on
the fact that the OPCW's main contribution in terms
of cooperation with other organizations is expertise,
and also emphasized that none of the elements in the
paper were new concepts, nor did they represent a
financial obligation. She expressed her delegation's
hope that this paper might be used as a basis for
further deliberations, in accordance with CSP-12
language. Delrep and others thanked the Czech
delegation for its contributions and noted again that
this shows that substantive work is already being
done, and that the OPCW is usefully pursuing its
mandate in this area. Iran suggested that the area
of assistance for victims be explored further, and
went on to the last agenda item, which was its
proposal to establish a victims network.


14. (U) Iran asserted that the OPCW should lead any
international humanitarian effort in response to a CW
attack, and again raised the prospect of longer term
assistance, even indicating that some small financial
burden might be incurred. The Iranian delegation
suggested that the TS come up with a paper
Qsuggested that the TS come up with a paper
elaborating the needs of victims, to which the
facilitator later responded that Iran itself might be
in the best position to provide such expert
information. Germany and the UK noted that perhaps a
Secretariat analysis of gaps in existing emergency
response capabilities might be more useful, to
provide a better sense of whether or not the
Secretariat and States Parties have everything they
need to respond effectively. The consultation ended
with no discussion of report language for the EC, nor
any sense of what following consultations might
consider.

--------------
P-5 MEETING
--------------


15. (SBU) On October 8 UK Ambassador Lyn Parker
hosted his Chinese, Frnch, Russian and U.S.
counterparts and their delegations as part of a
series of occasional meetings by the Permanent Five
(P-5) members of the UN Security Council. The
traditional topic for these meetings, Universality of
the Convention, brought little news. The group
discussed whether bilateral inquiries might help
speed up Iraq's final steps toward accession. On
Lebanon, the French delegation reported that the
Director-General had indicated there is regional
pressure on the new President and had invited Amr
Moussa of the Arab League to visit The Hague. France
urged bilateral efforts with Lebanon. Russian
Ambassador Gevorgian noted that it is a "delicate
matter" requiring consultation with Moscow. There
was general agreement that Egypt, Israel and Syria
are not likely to move toward accession any time
soon, but that if Lebanon and Iraq join, there will
be more pressure on the three hold-outs.


16. (SBU) On North Korea, Chinese Ambassador Zhang
noted that there is no reference to chemical weapons
in the ongoing Six Party talks and that those talks
are at a sensitive point now. He advised that
pressure from the P-5 would probably be less helpful
than efforts to make the OPCW more attractive to the
North Korean government as being in their national
interests. Gevorgian replied that the recent
completion of South Korea's destruction of their CW
stockpile might help in that regard. He also asked
whether former Dutch ambassador to the OPCW, Marc
Vogelaar, newly appointed consultant to the DG on
North Korea, had contacted any of the other
delegations. Amb. Javits said Vogelaar had also
called on him; the others had not been contacted.
Amb. Javits said the issue is timing, that the Six
Party talks now had an emphasis on the nuclear
issues, and adding chemical weapons now would not be
productive, but might be possible at a later date.


17. (SBU) None of the delegations thought that
Somalia or Burma were prospects for membership yet.
No one had any update on Angola. Amb. Javits
reported that he had heard from the Foreign Minister
of the Dominican Republic, which has adopted
legislation and appears close to signature. He had
not heard anything new from the Bahamas but noted
that he had made CWC accession a priority for the
U.S. Ambassador, an old friend.


18. (SBU) The discussion of "Any Other Business"
proved far more lively. Amb. Javits raised the
hostility of Iran to UNSCR 1540 and non-proliferation
that is turning up at every meeting as Iran tries to
expunge both terms from OPCW documents. Gevorgian
expressed his view that the Second Review conference
had stepped back from the Organization's earlier
activities on counter-terrorism and non-
proliferation. He said the Organization needs to
come back to where it was before. French Delegate
Annie Mari defended the Second RevCon Report language
citing all UN resolutions, and reported on the 1540
Seminar planned by the Clingendael Institute and the
EU's additional day at the National Authorities
QEU's additional day at the National Authorities
meeting that would include a lunch-time speaker on

1540. She asked for ideas for the Open-ended Working
Group on Terrorism, which she chairs, particularly
whether others thought the seminar on non-
proliferation held in Paris in March would be useful
to extend to a wider group.

Amb. Javits noted that we need to work from the
Convention and how it contributes to counter-
terrorism efforts, and use OPCW as a forum for ideas
without appearing to be trying to make it a counter-
terrorism organization. He added that it is a big
organization that can do several things at the same
time -- disarmament, non-proliferation, and
contribute to counter-terrorism. Gevorgian agreed
completely with that view. Delrep cited chemical
security as a possible avenue to pursue. Amb. Javits
added that the chemical industry and associations
should be involved. Parker agreed that an industry
lead would be helpful. Zhang noted that for many
countries, destruction is still the main purpose of
the convention and that there are widespread concerns
about non-proliferation. States' initiatives on
seminars, etc. would be useful but the OPCW should
not play the organizing role. UK and Chinese
delegates noted that activities under Articles X and
XI contribute to counter-terrorism, but Li Hong, the
Chinese Deputy Perm Rep who chairs the Article XI
consultations, noted that language used to describe
these activities may cause concern among some states.


19. (U) Amb. Javits noted the importance of early
identification of good Asian and African leaders for
the Conference of States Parties in December, as
those groups would hold the Chair and the Committee
of the Whole. Li Hong reported that the Asian group
would be meeting to discuss candidates.


20. (U) Gevorgian asked about the Vilnius conference
on sea dumping, which UK, Chinese and French
delegates present had attended. Li Hong stated that
the chairman's summary from the conference noted the
importance of the issue and that it should be
monitored, but without giving any specific role to
OPCW.


21. (U) The final item of other business was a
Russian question for the Host Country Committee later
that day on the banking crisis and Dutch government
plans to safeguard diplomatic missions' accounts, as
well as the OPCW account. Gevorgian noted that some
embassy accounts in Brussels had been frozen with the
collapse of Fortis Bank. (Del note: ABN-AMRO, which
holds the OPCW's accounts and had been bought by
Fortis last year, was partially nationalized by the
Dutch government this past week along with Fortis'
other Dutch holdings.)

--------------
BUDGET CONSULTATIONS
--------------


22. (U) On October 8, two new papers were introduced
by the Deputy Director-General (DDG) at the meeting:
the Budget Supporting Information Paper outlining the
Secretariat's proposals for the calculated 531,540
Euro adjustment to the draft budget due to the
revised estimates of Article IV and V inspection
reimbursements, and the Draft Decision and
Corrigendum containing all of the changes to the
budget resulting from the consultations to date as
well as the new 531,540 Euro adjustments (both papers
faxed and scanned to ISN and IO). The DDG
highlighted a mandatory 5% cost of living increase
for all staff triggered at the end of September by an
International Civil Service Commission (ICSC)
decision. The TS plans to absorb the 2008 increase
Qdecision. The TS plans to absorb the 2008 increase
this year, and most of the increase for 2009, but
proposed that 250,000 Euro of the 531,540 adjustment
be put toward these unexpected Verification and
Inspection staff costs. He then outlined the new
inspectors' training programs and new ICA programs
for Africa that the TS included in the proposal,
along with funding for a second meeting of the
Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). The entire package,
he emphasized, stayed within zero nominal growth, but
would include a slight increase in assessments to
member states (0.8% above initial 2009 projected
rates or 0.6% above 2008 rates).


23. (U) Among the few questions asked by delegates,
the Iranians questioned whether one equipment
training program was double-funded with already
purchased equipment; the TS responded that the new
costs were just for the training, which had not been
previously budgeted. Iran also asked about the staff
cost increases and the requirement to pay them. The
DDG explained the requirement at length. Delrep
inquired whether the SAB funding included anything
for the temporary working groups and whether the
training and ICA programs were in priority order.
The DDG responded that the SAB funding is only for
one meeting, not the temporary groups, and that there
is no particular priority established for the
programs but all are new, not otherwise budgeted.


24. (U) During a follow-up meeting on October 9, the
DDG defended the TS's revised budget proposal, saying
that the DG had chosen to maintain the budget at 75
million Euro despite the reduction in Article IV/V
inspections and the subsequent loss in income from
Article IV/V reimbursements. He said that the
revisions -- and the overall budget -- reflected the
DG's judgment call but conceded it was up to member
states to approve it. Germany pointed out the excess
or windfall presented by the TS was actually a
shortage that had to be made up by increased
assessments. In response to India's question on how
the new projects in the revision were chosen, the DDG
admitted that they were of lower priority to those in
the original draft budget but still added value to
the OPCW's work.


25. (U) Iran argued that not enough money was
allocated to ICA and that the entire 531,540 Euro
should be used for ICA. Iran also asked why the TS
had not raised earlier the ICSC-mandated increase in
staff costs and said that the TS's first priority
should be to cover obligations (such as the increased
staff costs) before proposing extra programs.
Reiterating his previous points, the DDG insisted
that the TS will use administrative efficiencies to
cover the estimated 1.9 million Euro staff cost
increase.


26. (U) Delrep stressed that, given the current
global financial crisis, the U.S. could not accept an
increase in assessed contributions; the UK, Germany
and Italy also noted that increased assessments would
be difficult to accept domestically. In response to
a question by South Africa, the DDG said that the
proposed increase in assessment would be minimal,
ranging from 5 to 160,000 Euro. The UK insisted that
the adjusted 531,540 Euro should remain in Chapter 1
(Verification activities) and noted that the TS's
proposal does not address the UK's desired increase
in OCPF inspections above the additional 10
inspections proposed in the draft budget. A number
of WEOG delegations intervened in support of keeping
the money in Chapter 1 and the need to maintain a
greater part of the budget for Chapter 1 rather than
Chapter 2 to reflect the Organization's focus on
QChapter 2 to reflect the Organization's focus on
disarmament. In contrast, NAM delegations supported
more funding for Chapter 2, specifically ICA
programs, with many questioning the basis for Chapter
1's primacy over Chapter 2 and asserting that the
"four pillars" of the Convention are equal in
importance. (Del note: This latter position
contradicts the NAM'S drumbeat on the primacy of
destruction throughout the Review Conference
process).


27. (U) Japan suggested -- as it did last year --
that the budget should be reduced instead of re-
programming the 531,540 Euro and asked what the
effect would be on future budgets as well as on the
balance between chapters. The DDG said that a
reduction in the budget would not affect future
budget proposals; he also said that a reduction would
result in a slight shift to Chapter 2 (50.13%) over
Chapter 1 (49.87%).


28. (U) At the end of the meeting, Iran insisted that
there is no reason to "rush" with budget
negotiations, that the budget only needs to be
finalized by the CSP. Responding to delegations'
requests, facilitator Martin Strub (Switzerland)
agreed to re-convene budget consultations on October
14 with a view to meeting every day during the EC's
2-hour lunch break.


29. (U) At a working dinner hosted by EC Chair Amb.
Oksana Tomova (Slovakia) on October 9, Amb. Javits
reinforced that the U.S. could not accept an increase
in member states' annual assessed contributions. He
stressed that he could not change his instructions on
this and that in the current economic situation, the
OPCW, like all other international organizations
should be exhibiting prudent financial management as
will governments around the world.

--------------
ARTICLE XI CONSULTATIONS
--------------


30. (U) On October 9, facilitator Li Hong (China)
convened a meeting to discuss further the proposed
Article XI workshop. Despite expectations that Cuba
would follow up on its proposal for the workshop by
chairing a task force to develop plans for the
workshop, Li indicated that the task had been left to
him; he circulated a draft paper that he prepared,
building on the initial Cuban proposal.
Acknowledging that his draft paper likely contained
many substantive and stylistic errors, Li presented
it as a work in progress that was meant to spark
discussion. Essentially, the consultation became the
very task force that had been considered during the
previous consultation: delegates brainstormed, using
Li's paper as a basis for discussion, and agreed to
provide reactions and further ideas to Li before the
next consultation for inclusion in the next draft of
the working paper.


31. (U) Many delegations spoke in favor of the
proposed interactive approach for the workshop.
Several delegations, including Mexico, argued that
the workshop should focus on developing concrete
measures on Article XI implementation. A number of
delegations also raised costs and funding: the
Netherlands asked for a break-down of Li's estimated
costs, and Japan suggested that funding could come
from the 531,340 Euro "gold mine" unveiled by the TS
on October 8. Li informed delegations that the
workshop concept needed to be approved by the EC
before it could be considered for funding and he
indicated his intent to present the idea during his
report to EC-54.


32. (U) During the meeting, Kumaresh Misra (Head,
International Cooperation Branch) briefly presented
the results of his branch's research into "Article XI
literature" as had been requested by Iran at the
previous consultations. He reported that a search of
Qprevious consultations. He reported that a search of
the external server yielded over 1,500 results
amounting to hundreds of pages. Iran insisted that
the TS should publish a compendium of the entire
corpus of documents but other delegations agreed that
a more concise list of document titles would be
sufficient. Li stressed that the search should focus
only on documents directly related to Article XI and
not to the wider field of international cooperation
and assistance.

--------------
HOST COUNTRY COMMITTEE
--------------


33. (SBU) At Amb. Javits' urging, EC Chair Tomova
convened the Host Country Committee on October 8 to
discuss its draft report before the EC and to get an
update from the Dutch government on the draft
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to allow access to
the OPCW Commissary. The recently-appointed
Ambassador for International Organizations at the
Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA),Rob Zaagman,
attended the meeting but was unable to provide the
expected update on the MOU. Zaagman said that he had
just received comments from the Customs Authority on
October 7 and would provide them to the Committee
shortly. After most members of the Committee
expressed their frustration and dismay at the Dutch
government's delay in finalizing the MOU, Zaagman
agreed to circulate the Dutch government's response
to the draft MOU the next day and also agreed to meet
with the Committee on October 10.


34. (U) Committee members also raised the issue of
parking, which previously had been discussed with the
Deputy Mayor of The Hague in March (ref B),and
requested Zaagman to follow up with the Municipality
to provide a response. Russian Deputy Perm Rep
Konstantin Gavrilov asked Zaagman what the Dutch
government was doing to protect diplomatic missions'
bank accounts, mentioning that the Russian Mission to
the EU in Brussels had had its account with Fortis
Bank frozen recently. Legal Advisor Santiago Onate
noted that the DG already had been in contact with
the MFA to ensure that the OPCW's bank accounts
(including those used for its Provident Fund) would
not be at risk; Zaagman promised to convey Gavrilov's
concerns to the MFA's Director of Protocol.


35. (U) The Committee met on October 10 to discuss
the draft MOU. As promised, Zaagman presented the
Dutch government's response, and the Committee agreed
in principle with the Dutch government's proposed
amendments. However, due to a number of Committee
members raising points for clarification on the draft
MOU, Onate and Zaagman agreed to work with members of
the Committee to redraft these relatively minor
technical points before concluding the MOU.

--------------
UNIVERSALITY CONSULTATIONS
--------------


36. (U) On October 10, facilitator Lee Litman (UK)
convened his first consultation on universality.
Malik Ellahi (Head, Government Relations) presented
the annual report on universality (EC-54/DG.13) and
gave an overview of recent developments. Delegations
welcomed Litman as the new facilitator for
Universality and thanked out-going facilitator, Said
Moussi (Algeria),for his work. France noted that it
is maintaining contact with Lebanon and encouraging
it to finalize accession to the Convention. A number
of delegations called for raising the issue during
high-level bi-lateral meetings and visits with non-
member states and also stressed that coordination
with the TS was necessary to complement its work.


37. (U) Japan reported that it had demarched Burma,
Q37. (U) Japan reported that it had demarched Burma,
Lebanon, Syria and Iraq to encourage them to attend
the November meeting of Asian national authorities in
Dhaka, Bangladesh. Lebanon plans to send a diplomat
based in Pakistan or India (as Lebanon does not have
representation in Bangladesh) to the meeting; Burma
will not send anyone to the meeting due to time and
money constraints; neither Iraq nor Syria have
responded to the demarche yet. Ellahi shared that
the TS had sponsored two Burmese officials to
participate in a recent workshop on assistance and
protection in Seoul, Korea; another two Burmese
officials also had been sponsored to participate in a
recent workshop for Asian customs officials. Ellahi
also announced that the TS will sponsor two Lebanese
officials to attend the annual National Authorities
Meeting in The Hague in November.


38. (U) Litman noted that there will be a workshop
for countries from the Mediterranean Basin/Middle
East in Turkey in April 2009, funded by the EU.
Litman also promised to circulate draft report
language for the CSP in advance of the next
consultation.


39. (U) Javits sends.
CULBERTSON