CWC: UNSCR 1540 WORKSHOP IN THE HAGUE

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 �0A;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