Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
09THEHAGUE263
2009-04-22 13:39:00
UNCLASSIFIED
Embassy The Hague
Cable title:  

CWC: UNSCR 1540 WORKSHOP IN THE HAGUE

Tags:  AORC EUN PARM PREL PTER CWC KPAO UNSC 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXYZ0006
OO RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTC #0263/01 1121339
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 221339Z APR 09
FM AMEMBASSY THE HAGUE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 2776
INFO RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS PRIORITY 0666
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE PRIORITY 0447
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA PRIORITY 1423
RUEHUNV/USMISSION UNVIE VIENNA PRIORITY 0178
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK PRIORITY 4564
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHDC PRIORITY
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RHEBAAA/DEPT OF ENERGY WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC PRIORITY
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHDC PRIORITY
RHMFIUU/DTRA ALEX WASHINGTON DC//OSAC PRIORITY
UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000263 

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 (BROWN AND DENYER)
NSC FOR LUTES
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC EUN PARM PREL PTER CWC KPAO UNSC
SUBJECT: CWC: UNSCR 1540 WORKSHOP IN THE HAGUE

This is CWC-23-09

-------------------------
SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION
-------------------------

UNCLAS THE HAGUE 000263

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 (BROWN AND DENYER)
NSC FOR LUTES
WINPAC FOR WALTER

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: AORC EUN PARM PREL PTER CWC KPAO UNSC
SUBJECT: CWC: UNSCR 1540 WORKSHOP IN THE HAGUE

This is CWC-23-09

--------------
SUMMARY AND INTRODUCTION
--------------


1. (U) On March 26-27, 2009, the Dutch Foreign
Ministry, Clingendael Institute for International
Relations and VERTIC co-hosted a workshop on UN
Security Council Resolution 1540 in The Hague.
Participants included representatives from the
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW),the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA),the Biological Weapons Convention
(BWC),the United Nations 1540 Committee,
diplomatic missions resident in The Hague, non-
governmental organizations (NGOs) and academia.
Presentations focused on challenges and experience
in implementing 1540 and the chemical, biological
and nuclear treaties. U.S. 1540 Coordinator Tom
Wuchte opened the first session with an expert from
the UN 1540 Committee, raising questions on the
progress and challenges in national implementation
of resolution 1540. Discussion was lively
throughout all the sessions, and participants
seemed pleased with the opportunity to share their
experiences, raise issues and learn from
counterparts.

--------------
Opening Speeches and 1540 Session
--------------


2. (U) In his opening speech on March 26, OPCW
Director General Rogelio Pfirter highlighted the
active engagement of the OPCW in the area of
national implementation. Henk Cor van der Kwast,
Head of the Dutch MFA's Nuclear Affairs and Non-
Proliferation Division, then spoke to the
importance of cooperation among countries to
promote effective implementation of the legal
obligations of 1540. He noted the positive trends
highlighted in the 1540 Committee's 2008 report,
and stated that awareness has been raised, but much
work remains to be done on implementation. This
will require greater cooperation not only between
states, but also between international frameworks.
Van der Kwast shared the Dutch view that a more

robust administrative role for the UN Secretariat
is necessary, and said that the legal approach to
combating WMD proliferation should be as wide as
possible. He also noted that 1540 has not received
consistent support from the international community
or world leaders including the U.S. Van der Kwast
concluded by stressing the need for more targeted
reporting, concrete follow-up, capacity building,
and available funding.


3. (U) 1540 Committee member Victor Slipchenko gave
a presentation on progress in national
implementation of 1540. He stated that the 2008
report demonstrated a qualitative improvement in
implementation, highlighted the fact that far more
work remained, and added that this work will take
time and a sense of urgency will be required to
maintain momentum. In Slipchenko's view, the
"precursors for progress" included raising
awareness, the increased legitimacy of the
resolution, and an ability to dispel concerns
Qresolution, and an ability to dispel concerns
regarding sanctions. He also recommended
organizations like the OPCW adopt specific
decisions on implementing 1540. Slipchenko
outlined major challenges that lie ahead in
implementation, including the following: a
continued "legitimacy deficit," insufficient
clarity on key provisions, a lack of national
capacity to oversee implementation, the need for a
major assistance effort, and the lack of a true
network of experts and cohesiveness in the 1540
Committee. He concluded by referring to the
comprehensive review of 1540 and its implementation
before the end of the year.


4. (U) In the discussion that followed, several
speakers raised the apparent disconnect between
1540 reporting of CWC implementation and the OPCW's
reports on the same. OPCW Legal Advisor Santiago
Onate noted that the 1540 Committee has yet to
reach out to the OPCW on implementation assistance
issues, an area where the OPCW has considerable
experience


5. (U) U.S. 1540 Coordinator Tom Wuchte also
provided an overview of progress in implementation.
Wuchte outlined some of the positive aspects of
implementation to date, including a number of joint
regional efforts, but emphasized that the words of
1540 must be transformed into practical action. He
noted the positive political role that endorsements
by multilateral organizations such as the OSCE and
NATO play in increasing the legitimacy of 1540; and
the ways in which such organizations can multiply
the efforts of the Committee and complement
regional outreach.


6. (U) In looking ahead to future implementation
work, Wuchte raised a number of questions for the
group's consideration, including whether key
intergovernmental organizations should exchange
Memorandums of Agreement with the 1540 Committee to
coordinate assistance and avoid duplication of
effort. The discussion that followed included
comments on the importance of taking advantage of
legislative opportunities, and of better
coordinating requests for assistance (and
corresponding offers) between the 1540 Committee,
individual countries, and relevant organizations.

--------------
Lessons from CWC, NPT and BWC
--------------


7. (U) On March 27, the second session on the
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) featured OPCW
Legal Advisor Santiago Onate and Disarmament
Consultation (and former OPCW insider) Ralph Trapp
outlining the evolution the OPCW's action plan on
Article VII implementation. Onate noted the
tendency for a large number of states to view the
CWC as a political act, and not one that
encompassed obligations on their part; UNSCR 1540
has helped raise awareness in this regard, he said.
The shift from working with ministries and national
authorities to dealing with parliaments on
legislation presented many challenges. OPCW has
learned through more than 100 technical assistance
missions that the approach needs to be tailored for
the country or the region; this became even more
important when moving from draft legislation to
creating regulations and procedures, and training
officials. Onate said the "question of compliance
Qofficials. Onate said the "question of compliance
becomes moot," as everything is a process that
needs to change and evolve constantly. Both Onate
and Trapp described the importance of a national
champion, usually a politician who sees it in his
or the nation's interest to carry through
implementation legislation and involve relevant
stakeholders. Trapp noted that requests for
assistance are often not clear, with governments
not knowing what they actually need. He
categorized four critical elements for success --
competence, consistency, coordination and
implementation-orientation.


8. (U) Discussion focused on Trapp's "three c's"
and specifically on coordination, how and who
should do it, and how difficult it can be. While
opinions clearly differed, most participants agreed
that it is easier to coordinate a plan for a single
country or region than to try and set up an
effective coordination mechanism generally. Other
questions focused on the usefulness of requiring
reporting by states. Onate responded that the
early reporting requirements for OPCW were onerous,
and while the pressure might have been useful at
first, they later found that cooperation with
states was more successful than shaming them for
lack of progress.


9. (U) The next session on the Nuclear Non-
proliferation Treaty (NPT) was led by IAEA's Senior
External Relations Officer Lourdes Vez-Carmona, and
Amb. Sergey Batsanov, another OPCW veteran now with
Pugwash. Batsanov highlighted the differences
among the regimes with IAEA not responsible for a
treaty, OPCW as treaty-bound, and the BWC not
having its own organization. He opined that the
system around the NPT is more adaptable, and that
the nuclear safeguards process at IAEA is more
effective than 1540. Another critical difference,
he said, is that national implementation of nuclear
regulation began before the treaty due to the
nature of nuclear development -- which is not the
case with the other two treaties. The CWC is much
younger and the BWC is largely with NGOs. One of
the benefits of 1540, in his view, was that it
induced people to look at the whole area of non-
proliferation together. Vez-Carmona presented the
IAEA's comprehensive approach, and its coordination
in-house as well as externally. She described
IAEA's programs for legislative and regulatory
assistance to strengthen states' systems for
controlling nuclear material and technology,
particularly physical protection and border
controls.


10. (U) Discussion during the NPT session included
questions on whether IAEA had received any requests
for assistance from the 1540 committee; Vez-Carmona
stated that there had so far been no requests,
while 1540 Committee rep Slipchenko said that the
Committee had suggested to states to seek
assistance from IAEA directly. Batsanov noted some
states' hesitation in admitting that they need
assistance and preferring to request it
bilaterally; he said that bilateral assistance
needed to be done in consultation with the relevant
international organizations so that there is some
consistency in outcome. U.S. Coordinator Wuchte
noted that the 1540 committee now has some 50
requests for assistance posted on its website; the
process was slow to start but things are now moving
Qprocess was slow to start but things are now moving
and the committee is about to send a letter to
other organizations to pass on requests.
Slipchenko added that it was only after certain
members of the Security Council left that the
Committee was able to publish the requests; he also
stated that bilateral requests are picked up more
quickly than the international organizations are
able to do.


11. (U) The fourth session on the Biological
Weapons Convention session had presentations by
Richard Lennane of the BWC's Implementation Support
Unit and VERTIC's senior legal officer Scott
Spence. Lennane outlined the links between the BWC
and 1540, including explicit recognition of 1540 in
the last BWC Review Conference. BWC does not have
a political body making binding decisions but
issues recommendations and guidelines based on
common understandings. In Lennane's view that
permits greater flexibility for working on
implementation of 1540, which has been helpful in
raising awareness of the need for national
implementation. He also underscored the importance
of the self-regulation by and the active
involvement of the scientific community, and the
linkage to naturally occurring disease outbreaks
that enables the BWC to reach out to states'
authorities with some success. Spence presented
VERTIC's project for national implementation, from
analysis of a state's legislation to drafting
assistance, fact sheets and assistance to states
developing action plans. VERTIC's project focuses
on biological legislation, but has collaborated
with OPCW and IAEA on chemical and nuclear omnibus
drafts.


12. (U) Discussion centered on the turn-around time
for requests for legislative assistance, the need
for thorough preparation before technical
assistance visits, and the growing demand for
omnibus legislation that covers chemical,
biological and nuclear regulation. For many small
states, this is the only feasible option, but
VERTIC Director Angela Woodward noted that there
are other issues with combining the three. A
researcher with SIPRI noted the multiple seminars
and activities taking place in the Balkans from a
variety of agencies and donors that appear to have
little coordination and take up enormous amounts of
time among the few resident experts in those
countries.


13. (U) The final wrap-up discussion was wide-
ranging with few consensus conclusions but many
recommendations were raised. Participants
expressed their gratitude for the information
shared and cross-fertilization of ideas and
experiences. Algerian OPCW delegate Said Moussi
stated that assistance is not charity, and that
many countries such as his both receive and provide
assistance; he emphasized the importance of
reinforcing synergies. OPCW's Director for Special
Projects Krzysztof Paturej spoke of the importance
of having representatives from the CWC, BWC and NPT
together -- for the first time. He made a pitch
for The Hague Process, of which this workshop was
the first event, as a platform for networking and
ongoing exchanges. U.S. 1540 Coordinator Wuchte
encouraged greater action and interest in the 1540
activities in New York, particularly for the
Comprehensive Review at the end of the year.
VERTIC Director Woodward, who had chaired many of
the sessions, noted the importance of action that
is pragmatic, effective and focused on outcomes.
Qis pragmatic, effective and focused on outcomes.
Clingendael plans to circulate, and possibly
publish, a summary of the session.


14. (U) COMMENT: The workshop was by all accounts a
great success. On the margins, all three key IGOs
(IAEA, OPCW, and BTWC) noted that it was time for
this functionally based decision. The Dutch
support broad multilateral work and the technical
leadership of the OPCW, particularly Director of
Special Projects Krzysztof Paturej, are interested
in promoting further cooperation along with the
1540 Committee. In this context, the Committee
recently received five assistance requests: four
from Member States, namely, Armenia, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Iraq, and Madagascar; and one
from the sub-regional organization Caribbean
Community (CARICOM). Since this workshop, they
have been sent for consideration as a potential
provider of assistance to all three IGOs. These
requests have used, or referred to, the assistance
template, approved by the Committee in November

2007. They indicate areas in which assistance is
being sought. The letter to these IGOs also notes
the Committee's website has over 20 Member States
that have expressed more general interest in
receiving assistance.


15. (U) U.S. 1540 Coordinator Wuchte cleared this
report.


16. (U) BEIK SENDS.
GALLAGHER